Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 June 11 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 06:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Vegepygmy

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trivial Google search shows that it has been included in 3rd party D&D-like games like Pathfinder, among other independent RS'es which show use outside the several D&D games published by TSR and Wizards. While many of the creatures you've nominated clearly are better represented in list form, these and most OGL creatures have extended their influences beyond those two publishers' games, adequately demonstrating notability per our guidelines. Jclemens ( talk) 05:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think the fact that it exists in multiple works really inherently signifies potential for notability. That alone doesn't solve the lack of sources or the lack of real world information. It's still just a minor creature that has not left any real critical impact from what I can tell. TTN ( talk) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Just to clarify, I disagree that inclusion in other companies' games isn't real world impact. Real world impact for games needn't rise to the level of prevailing social consciousness, such as Settlers of Catan T-shirts, to be sufficient, IMO. Jclemens ( talk) 07:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Agreement that the subject does not meet notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Spitalny

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

The subject has played a bit role in Trump University. As far as I can tell he's received almost no coverage in the reliable sources, and the coverage he has received has been insignificant. I suggest this article be WP:BLARred. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and a redirect would be of little value. Minor figure in the creation of Trump University. Aside from his current and former employers, reliable sources yield zero biographical depth to support an article. The New York Post article listing some of the business deals he made is clearly not enough to pass WP:BIO. The article's creator says on the talk page that they found "interesting" information. They need to produce non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources to prove it. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete When you have to give a horribly worded quote to try and make the person look notable because there are no public sources that actually explain what he really did, than he is clearly not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject is not notable and if the one think was notable it would still only be one event. Allaboutjane8181 ( talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not reach notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Allaboutjane8181: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is what is needed. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Leighanne Littrell

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

No indication of independent notability from spouse Brian Littrell, only a few guest appearances. The bulk of the article is a fan magazine article about the wedding, possibly copied Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hannibal Tabu

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

Non-notable writer. Currently there is only two links in the article, both to primary websites. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and there is no evidence he meets WP:AUTHOR. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo ( talk) 10:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My closure of this discussion has been contested; relisting for further comments. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. kelapstick( bainuu) 22:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Colin Cheng

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

One-liner on apparently non-notable sailor. Does a single participation in the Olympics automatically grant notability, irrespective of ranking or actual non-routine media coverage? — JFG talk 21:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Materialscientist ( talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stated to be a hoax page at OTRS Ticket#2016060910013251 to harass the real club PFC CSKA SOFIA Ronhjones   (Talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Skystalker

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Contested prod. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Philippe Lefebvre (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Materialscientist ( talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Alexia Thomas (activist)

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

Article was AfD'd before and it was decided that this person was marginally notable. On the talk page it has been found, however, that most of the referneces are bogus or highly questionable. Another discussion seems to be in order. H.dryad ( talk) 20:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete The gap between the claims made on the page, and the sources I am finding in my searches is so enormous that it makes me wonder if some of the sources are of the sort that accept self-description. For example a simple news google search turns up [1] a Q & A, a type of article that many reliable publications routinely print, called : How Europe is trying to kill millions of Africans - Prof Alexia Thomas. It opens routinely enough with what looks editorial copy: "Professor Alexia Thomas, Chairman, The Commonwealth Liberation Party, TCLP United Kingdom (UK), Chairman of Alliance Treaty Commission and President, Independent Diplomat Commission (IDC) in this interview reveals her Oracle status with a third-eye into the future, as she exposed sequence of danger and disaster that awaits Commonwealth nations. For example, she believes that 500 million citizens of Commonwealth nations would become victims of massacre 15 years from now as being orchestrated and led by the British Government against the coloured people." [2]. What is she a "Professor" of? Where does she teach? But then comes the first question: Q. "Q: Tell us how you were able to transit into the future in your latest revelation as an Oracle?" Ladies and gentlemen, this looks very WP:FRINGE Nevertheless, I persevered. I figured, a notable human rights campaigner in the Commonwealth will have been mentioned in The Guardian, right? A search for her in The Guardian came up absolutely empty [3]. I should mention that the vetting of sources on the article's talk page is persuasive. And that I don't see much in the way of reliable sources, or anything at all like a RS profile in my searches. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a crank at best. No evidence of her being a professor at any accredited university, despite claims to offer legal assistance does not provide any specific details of her legal qualifications. Thank you for revisiting this and to E.M. Gregory for the detailed summary above. Blythwood ( talk) 04:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Blythwood: WP:BLP applies to all areas of Wikipedia. I suggest you should strike your potentially libellous comments. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Kristopher Van Varenberg

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

Non-notable, only claim to fame is being Jean-Claude Van Damme's son. The article claims he's notable as an actor, martial artist, and film producer. However, obtaining a green belt does not make someone a notable martial artist, the article doesn't mention anything that he's produced, and the only movies and shows he's appeared in are those starring his father. There is no significant independent coverage of him. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:MANOTE, and every other notability criteria. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Same article, different title -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of records of India — Spaceman Spiff 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

World Records From India

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

I believe this is a case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note that the article is entirely unreferenced. I suppose many entries could be referenced to Guiness or similar publications but others look completely dubious :Youngest Lyricist in World, Longest Pen, 1st Poetry Book (I'm not even sure what the last one means). Pichpich ( talk) 17:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Good catch. I've nominated the article for speedy deletion. Pichpich ( talk) 18:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I knew my eidetic memory would pay off one day. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jian-Shan Junior High School

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

Junior High Schools are not ordinarily notable, and there is no indication that this one is an exception DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is needed. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Quoting SCHOOLOUTCOMES Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. I would also like to specify that there is no existing redirect target here; hence my delete !vote. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Portrait of Goffredo Mameli

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

Declined prod. No notability for this drawing (the artist obviously is notable). This drawing doesn't seem to have been the subject of significant independent attention. Note that the site used as a source, while being an extremely useful source in itself, is not an indicator of notability, being a directory of "53,203,536 artworks, artefacts, books, videos and sounds from across Europe." [5] Most of these 53million works don't have the notability for a separate article, and I see no reason why this one would be an exception. Fram ( talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Greater Middle East

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

Recently PRODded by Damianmx as "largely unreferenced WP:OR which does not tell our readers anything that is not already covered under relevant subsections of the main Middle East article." PROD was declined by Kvng as not uncontroversial. The term "Greater Middle East" was apparently used briefly by a previous US administration to signify a large part of the Muslim world. In an attempt to demonstrate notability, the article has added similar but unrelated usages. There is no encyclopedic topic here with any ongoing relevance. The few incoming links would be satisfied by a link to a section in the main article. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Redirect Per above. Whatever little information this article contains is already addressed on the Middle East page and merits nothing more than a section of its own.-- Damianmx ( talk) 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
No one is saying that the term/concept of Greater Middle East is not being used. But this is not a dictionary and not every term/concept deserves an article of its own, especially when its more than adequately explained in the main article. That's what we're discussing here.-- Damianmx ( talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
With some exceptions, every notable subject is eligible to have its own Wikipedia article. WP:NOTDICT doesn't work here. Can you suggest a specific WP:DEL-REASON we should be considering. ~ Kvng ( talk) 07:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I think this is a prime example of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There is nothing in this "article" that already isn't or cannot be covered under Middle_East#Other_definitions_of_the_Middle_East. So yes, a redirect to that section would be fine.-- Damianmx ( talk) 08:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
That's a supportable and self-consistent position but it is different from the delete position you registered above. I still beleive the article should be kept but conversion to redirect can be discussed or done boldly at any later time. ~ Kvng ( talk) 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Kvng: My apologies for the confusion, a redirect is actually what I'm supporting, that's why I said that it "merits nothing more than a section of its own". I believe @ Fayenatic london: is also of the same opinion since he said "The few incoming links would be satisfied by a link to a section in the main article." I guess I used Delete/Redirect interchangeably since a Redirect involves manual blanking of the page.-- Damianmx ( talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for updating above. We could all save a bunch of overhead in these discussions by considering alternatitaves to deletion before nominating or advocating for deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I could boldly redirect the article to a corresponding section in Middle East since everyone seems to be ok with that, as opposed to deletion.-- Damianmx ( talk) 17:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It is generally not considered good form to do that until this AfD has closed. Also I still support keeping this so may be inclined to revert. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The entry for the "Greater Middle East" needs to stay. In fact, just 2 months ago retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich of the United States Army released a book: "America's war on the Greater Middle East ("GME")". This book continues specifying the geo-political significance of this collection of countries. You can easily google this book which also contains a map on Page 2, which is the same map referenced in the entry "GME". I will happily provide you with references if you cant find it on your own. Let me know. ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The article right now is a bit choppy, but this does not take away from the political significance of the term "Greater Middle East". I would be happy to clean up once our debate ends. Thanks ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You seem to have missed the whole point of this discussion. No one argues that the term Greater Middle East does not exist or is insignificant, but rather that it can easily be contained within the Middle East article, with no compelling reason to have a two-paragraph article just for its sake.-- Damianmx ( talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Disagre. Please see my reference above about specific operations taking place to re-define the current geographic area. It is of immense significance. I have reverted back to the version that has been stable for years, until a few weeks ago where there were mass edits/deletions done. ~-AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

In addition to my source listed above, I found an interesting discussion on this entry's TALK section from a couple of years ago (See below): "This is an extremely pertinent article representing the way in which the US is shaping its foreign policy. We as users should not simply include exclude countries in this topic. The geographic region known as "The Greater Middle East" is a very specific grouping of countries that high level politicians have grouped together. Please see the details of why certain countries were included in the "HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE" - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96429/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96429.pdf ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to: Various - See AFD. - As the consensus is to merge to various articles I'm closing this as Merge to "Various - See AFD" - (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 22:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

John Wadham (died 1578)

John Wadham (died 1578) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A slightly difficult case, which has been discussed at Talk:John Wadham (died 1578)#Notability. John Wadham certainly existed, and had a notable father and a notable son. He appears in genealogical lists (a written form of family tree) from the 16th century onwards, so we know when he was born and when he died, and which children he had. Other than this, however, there is no other information on his life - he was simply a gentleman in Devon. There is a depiction of him on a carved memorial to Joan Tregarthin in the local church, but he didn't design or built this himself, having died some years before (the memorial is mentioned in the article on the church concerned). He doesn't appear to have done anything notable - he didn't hold political office, do anything significant that we know of etc. - and he isn't included in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for example. The article as it stands pads out the date of birth etc. with information on other people - e.g. details of his son-in-laws's memorial brasses etc., which aren't directly related to Wadham - but once you've discounted these, there's really not much left. The discussion on the talk page had only three participants, but two of these concluding that Wadham isn't notable according to our guidelines. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect - I find Hydronium's argument persuasive. I feel sorry saying this, because it's obvious that the article creator has taken great care to find things to put in, but there just isn't much here about John himself. Blythwood ( talk) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

K3 en het ijsprinsesje

K3 en het ijsprinsesje (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references in this article, so that this movie appears to be non-notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon: " Appearing" non-notable is a reason to look for sources and even to add them, and is not one to delete simply due to "appearances"... specially as topic notability is to be determined through sources being available, and not through a lack of their being used. I invite you to study guidelines WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with K3 (band). The band is notable. The band is notable for doing things like this movie. Yet the main K3 page doesn't mention this movie. The movie doesn't look notable independently, but it does look like the sort of thing that should be included in their main page. Often, this sort of thing is cruft and deletable, but given that this sort of thing is what K3 is known for, MERGE it. Fieari ( talk) 05:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Oswald Gudenlach

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

A nonnotable medium-rank "Gestapo police offical". Some episodes in a couple books is WP:UNDUE to immortalize in wikipedia. there are hundreds of thou of such Nazi guys. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There appears to be a typo in the title, per K.e.coffmann's observation. While all but one of these sources is in German, and the mention in the English source is a passing one, he may just meet GNG, although we would need access to the German texts to confirm it. On that basis, we should probably give this article the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Malta's Top Model

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

Fails WP:NTV. Only one reliable source found: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2009-09-07/news/and-now-also-maltas-top-model-262987/ Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 02:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

D'Arcy Trinkwon

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

Nothing currently convincing for a solidly notable article and my searches have found only a few links at Books and browsers, there's nothing to suggest this can be amply improved and kept for convincing notability. Notifying 2009 PRODer RHaworth. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft redirect. The article may be restored by any administrator on request. MelanieN ( talk) 00:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jack of All Trades (EP)

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

I don't believe this meets WP:NALBUM. It apparently did not chart, and none of the sources used look reliable. The band itself has questionable notability. Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 00:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

HiTi Digital Inc.

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Not much to the article other than PR speak, created and contributed to SPA/COI. Nothing significant in article (DIMA, where they got awards, does not seem a major award), nothing significant found in a google search Rayman60 ( talk) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Coverage available in searches is primarily about the company's printers. However, not finding much about the company itself. Posting sources found for others to peruse below. North America 1000 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Prince Bagdasarian

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

Looks like the case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Some notability exists, but I can't find any independent reviews from reliable sources as well as mentioned awards. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 06:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Uğur Pektaş

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

My searches have found nothing to actually suggest the needed solid independent notability and there's no inherited notability from Survivor Turkey, his IMDb also lists nothing else convincing aside from 1 TV series of 87 episodes, of which this would be best redirected to the TV series if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 22:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

SonoVol

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

Fails GNG by a mile. Out of the nine sources, 1 is the company website, 1 is the website of the faculty founder, 2 are press releases, 3 are funding award notices at the NSF, 1 is an interview with a company employee about his grant-writing prowess, and one is a scientific paper about the underlying technology. No independent sources with substantial coverage about the company. None. Was created by and almost all edits are by a company employee who is new to Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep
Source 1: Independent agency's description of the company. Source 2: an independent UNC media published article. Source 3: an independent UNC published media about the founder. Source 4: an independent organization detailing funding Source 5: an independent organization detailing funding Source 6: an independent organization detailing funding Source 7: an independent organization published press release about another company Source 8: an independent journal--highly respected Radiology--that has already approved the medical research following peer review. Source 9: an independent(FIXED below) organization's interview with company founder. As someone with ties to the company, I welcome edits for neutrality. However this page is notable in the field of micro ultrasound with multiple independent sources. Jamesobutler ( talk) 16:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I have fixed the issues debated below. While my numbered sources above don't match up anymore. I do encourage others to edit the page for improvement to continue the peer review process. Thanks Jamesobutler ( talk) 14:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You haven't added any independent, reliable sources with substantial discussion of the company. The number of those remains zero. Jytdog ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog ( talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jytdog ( talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Updated article by removing statement that was sourced with an interview and stated as not independent. Thanks for the revision advice! Will continue to improve page with simple edits. Jamesobutler ( talk) 19:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
so here you introduced content that is WP:CRYSTALBALL (itself invalid per policy) with sources:
So invalid content, 2 press releases, and a trade rag. Not moving toward meeting WP:ORG Jytdog ( talk) 22:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The "press release" was not written by the business or organization that it was written about. Jamesobutler ( talk) 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
They both originate from the university from which the company was spunout which means they are not independent and they are WP:SPS trashy/promotional sources. They are not what we call reliable sources that are independent of this whole thing, and they are not about the company in any case, but rather its underlying IP/technology. I am not going to keep responding to you here as it just clutters the AfD Jytdog ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not a single one of the sources is substantial coverage of SonoVol, in addition to the fact that, as explained above, they are not independent sources. There really is no evidence anywhere that this satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article is also substantially promotional, but not so blatantly promotional as to justify speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete References include a mixture of pages not mentioning SoloVol and pages barely mentioning it, which gives no evidence of notability, even apart from the fact that several of the sources are independent. The king of the sun ( talk) 15:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing this AfD is easy -- there's overwhelming (near unanimous) consensus to delete the page, with most arguments citing WP:FRINGE and WP:FORK. There were a small number of suggestions to do a selective merge, but also some cogent arguments against the merge.

The more complicated part is what to do about the copy-paste version of the article in User:Msheflin. Normally, I'm a proponent of laissez-faire when it comes to user pages. But, given that this user has already declared, I will no longer be using or editing wikipedia, and that the copy appears to be a direct violation of WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE, I'm going to go ahead and delete that content from the user page.

There's a lot of other related discussion material there as well, but I'm going to confine my user-page-cleanup to just the material forked from the mainspace version of this article. The other stuff, while probably not appropriate for a user page, I think falls outside of the scope of what I should be cleaning up as part of an AfD close.

-- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There were some irregularities in the (almost) completed Democratic primaries, but they aren't so notable as to deserve their own article, or even a redirect (hence my decision not to recommend a merge). the past titles included the word "fraud", indicating this article was created with the idea that the vote was "rigged", which is a fringe theory. These irregularities also seem to be unrelated to each other, aside from happening in the 2016 Dem primaries. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I dunno if any of this can be resolved in this forum, but the original creator of the article under consideration here has also copied & pasted various old talk page threads from both the page under consideration here & some other talk pages to his user page. Guy1890 ( talk)
It can't be resolved in general. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It would fall under the criteria for speedy deletion as that isn't what user pages are used for. You can have a draft or sub-user-page but you cant make your userpage look like a main-space article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Cite to that rule. That's not what the rule he cited said. It doesn't matter either way. It's backed up on Wikia. You will not be able to hide the process you've railroaded here. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Now this entire AfD discussion is being mirrored on that same user's page. Almost none of what is on that user page is allowed to be there in the first place. I guess that'll be something for the closing administrator to deal with in a few days. Guy1890 ( talk) 22:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I think you're reading the language too emphatically. My talk page serves a threefold purpose - 1) it shows what this article/page could have been if you guys weren't disingenuous and actually contributed rather than attempting to excise a minority opinion; 2) it retains a record of the wholly illegitimate process of that excision; 3) while the narrative is now closer to my personal thoughts - because not one single person including you bothered to contribute meaningfully to this page... so I said screw it and now I'm telling the story I see - it obviously doesn't bring Wikipedia into ill repute. And while the "rule" you cite says that "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," for the reasons I just cited that is not the case here. Maybe you should be more "generally tolerant and offer[] fairly wide latitude" as Wikipedia requires you to do regarding your judgment of my personal user talk page - which is currently an accounting of why I've left the Wikipedia community. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I learned a long time ago that here on Wikipedia things don't always go how you want them to, as long as you maintain discussion though you can at least have some of what you want included. If you truly have left the community, and do not wish to contribute any longer then why are you still here? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I learned a long time ago that Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for the majority viewpoint. I'm just surprised to see it so unabashedly, uninformedly, and unsupportedly become the mouthpiece for a monolithic viewpoint. Do you really think that belief in irregular or unfair elections or primaries is a fringe opinion - even notwithstanding the clearly at this point knowing lie that the sources are fringe? And if it is not, then why is none of it included in the Primaries page... kind of seems like it was a deliberate attempt to squelch a minority viewpoint. And if you actually read the reasons cited by opposed editors, it doesn't just SEEM that way. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nobody is trying to hide anything, by making a separate article devoted to alleged fraud you are promoting the idea. Minor inclusion in a main article is fine as long as you provide the other side's POV. Where for example is the DNC's take on the missing NYC voters issue? Computer errors, and machine breakdowns for example do happen yet that angle is not mentioned once in the article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not judging intent, though I may appear to be. The impact is what I described. So in spite of your efforts, you appear to be losing. And that loss is a loss for everyone. Per your suggestion, you cannot add any of this or any other irregularities info to the Primaries page bc that page decided - for the same spurious and dishonest reasons you'll see below - that CNN and the New York Times are not reputable or mainstream sources. So any legitimate info is in fact hidden... I don't really care what's in the hearts or minds of the people who suppressed the information anymore (to be honest). I spent a very long time trying to engage with them on the level. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'd be willing to bet anything that nobody said "CNN and the New York Times are not reputable or mainstream sources". They probably said that those sources don't say what you say they say. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
How much were you willing to bet, did you say - "because the sources are actually fringe theories that have not been proven by any reputable sources"? If you're saying nobody's verbatim said that... you're correct. People state their deletion opinions without looking at the article. Pretty sneaky sis! Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're misinterpreting what that user wrote. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I disagree. That user was asserting that facts are proven by consensus. Both Wikipedia and I disagree with that. But if you go back to the original thread you will find it riddled with claims that all sources are disreputable and with the implication that regardless of the veracity or verifiability of the underlying *information, no sources could possibly ever be found that would be reputable... and that thus the information must be priorly restrained. Oops... it's been archived/excised. Feel free to browse my talk page, though. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Extremely Selective Merge with Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, or as Guy1890 proposed. No redirect required, since there is absolutely no way anyone would search "Irregularities during the..." The material does not appear to be mentioned in that article, and I think at least some inclusion is appropriate, although mitigating the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE aspects is equally important. As a second choice, Selective Merge to the articles on each individual primary. GAB gab 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You cannot include any of this information, nor any information about irregularities or alleged fraud, in the primaries article without reopening and reversing the overwhelming consensus against any inclusion of any information - without any legitimate concern cited. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:FRINGE and not being notable for a stand-alone article. Any merging should consider WP:UNDUE. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as many of the allegations are poorly-sourced fringe theories. If there are well-sourced allegations they can be included in the individual states' primary pages. Michelangelo1992 ( talk) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE. Really, few people take this stuff seriously, and the reliable sources only talk about allegations and claims, rather than facts. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE because the sources are actually fringe theories that have not been proven by any reputable sources. It seems like the motives of some of these obvious Biased Bernie editors are wrapped in WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information. Perhaps post it to a blog or some other site that isn't an online encyclopedia where people come to get factual information that is proven by consensus and backed with reputable sources. -- Gcock2k10 ( talk) 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Which sources are fringe - the New York Times, the Attorney General for the State of New York, the New York City Comptroller, the Sanders Campaign, CNN, NBC News, Vice, the Las Vegas Sun, Salon, NPR, al Jazeera, USA Today, or The Hill? I know I said I wouldn't post again, but this is the same horseshit slander that showed up in the response to inclusion in the article. And it's predicated on stupidity. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) *Let's just be very clear on the fact that the source complaint is an obvious lie. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Until you can (1) provide sources that clearly state factual evidence and (2) provide secondary sources that back up the findings and certify that the findings are indeed actual irregularities and fraud, this article needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform that promotes speculation and/or subjects that have not been covered by reputable and unbiased sources. There is no known consensus surrounding these fringe theories; therefore, they remain fringe theories. That's not slander, it's called the truth. -- Gcock2k10 ( talk) 22:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Where did you concoct these standards? We don't use those verifiability standards for anything else. And who knows what the truth is... that doesn't enter into this at all. We've cited a winner in California; whatever the reality is - nobody's won - so that's not the truth, even though it's verifiable. The theories are not fringe, though they are minority viewpoints. There you appear to merely be ignorant, so perhaps it is not slander. However, regardless of the "theories," i.e. what these reputable sources state, the sources provide reputable verifiability. In other words, your standard of judgment seems to be erroneous, no? Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
These standards are derived directly from the five pillars of Wikipedia. WP:CIVIL, which you're failing to adhere to, also comes from the five pillars. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Lol. My longtime civility gained us nothing. You may need to provide a more specific citation, since "fact" and "certification" appear to appear not once in the 5 pillars. They are also not most relevantly applicable to standards for inclusion. If you'd like I can go back through my notes and find the criteria which are, all of which were met by this article - and any minor problems within which would not normally be grounds for deletion. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Using reputable secondary sources is in the five pillars. Once again, Wikipedia is not a platform to be used to promote fringe theories. Until there are reputable secondary sources that state there are undeniable accounts of irregularities and fraud, this page has no reason for existence. Also, the sources you used do not say there is undeniable evidence of anything; therefore, this page and whoever created it is trying to use Wikipedia to assist a fringe theory that has not been taken seriously. -- Gcock2k10 ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
But Clinton won California and that - and the numerical results - are unassailable, and our analysis of how to do citations with regard to that follows an identical process... This is why my civility tanked. There's no way for a normal person to perceive this as consistent. There's lots of ways for normal people to perceive this as horseshit. And 'undeniability' is a clearly disingenuous standard. There will always be both fringe and minority viewpoints. Squelching them [*by which I meant minority, but not fringe, viewpoints] is not a path to truth. But in this discussion, logic isn't even a beginning. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 23:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The only reason your "civility tanked" is that you chose to tank it. That's your choice and has nothing to do with anything else you're alleging. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay... I apologize for being uncivil in directly responding to your points. Personally, I'd prefer that to nominally condescending, nominally civil incommensurability. But I have no endgame here and it was counterproductive to reinsert myself. Good luck deleting the page, guys. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete There are scores of serious documented problems with the vote during the primary. Please don't consign them to the Memory Hole. This is my first comment ever. Please excuse minor problems with post. We need Wikipedia to help us list the problems and provide appropriate documentation. This is not a fringe issue. Everyone is affected when the vote is manipulated. I will provide two references just for starters. Let us go to work on it. I can bring a bunch of excellent researchers from Quora. Arizona cut polling places by 2/3s in Maricopa County where Phoenix is. [1] - [2] polling places in NY did not open until noon. [3] The biggest example of vote manipulation is here in my home state of California. The night before the primary the mainstream news announced that HRC had "clinched" the nomination. She did not have the pledged delegates at that time. Some media issued retractions in tiny print the next few days. Lets find out the truth, not repress it. debocracy ( talk)June 14 2016 12:48PM PDT —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're not going to find unbiased editors here, so consider reserving judgment about Wikipedia's structural problems and intractable bias based solely on these exchanges. If you simply need whitespace, you're more than welcome to add a page to this - http://2016-dem-primary-fraud.wikia.com/wiki/Alleged%20Fraud%20&%20Irregularities%20in%202016%20Dem%20Primaries%20Wikia - and use it however you and whoever else please. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/cutting-back-polling-places-not-key
  2. ^ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/
  3. ^ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/14/1515325/-WTF-Majority-of-New-York-Polling-Places-Don-t-Open-Until-Noon-Demand-the-Same-Hours-For-All
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article deleted under WP:G5. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM 15:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Look at my African-American over here, look at him

Look at my African-American over here, look at him (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like some news to me. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

And the page has been deleted per G5. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Voters did not agree whether sources are reliable. Pretty usual situation, one can try again in a couple of years.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The Irrational Atheist

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

While the author is a notable figure, this book itself doesn't appear notable. It was recommended by the National Review Online... that's pretty much it. The rest of the page is just information about the book from Amazon. FPTI ( talk) 01:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. FPTI ( talk) 01:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, have found these reviews - Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists in New Oxford Review - "What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language .. Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration."" [8], Dawkins’ Debunkers A Reading List in Catholic Answers - "If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book." [9], Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism at Creation.com - "The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism." [10], so close to meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • tepid keep on the basis of reviews found by User:Coolabahapple Also, it has gotten itself talked about, google news search: [11], a little. Not a slam dunk, but we do keep books that get multiple reviews in RS. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above, even noting that since the author was (is?) a contributor to wnd.com, substantially all of the references to that site are just to his bio. BUT, that shouldn't make a big difference anyways, because Wikipedia doesn't consider WND a news site, even if Google does. Jclemens ( talk) 05:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the feedback, y'all are right, this ought to be kept. I'm gonna do my best to beef it up a little bit. FPTI ( talk) 09:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've worked on this article a lot, mostly removing advertising but really there isn't much meat to be had. The book is basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles. I believe the previous afd decision was to delete as well. Suppafly ( talk) 21:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Book by notable author does not make book automatically notable ( WP:INHERIT); from what I gather from a quick Google search, book doesn't seem notable by itself. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence of notability as a work separate fro its author. Artw ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Praise reviews from clearly non-neutral websites do not count. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note Just to be clear. The "neutrality" of the media that review a book are irrelevant. As is the fact that the book was a "hit piece"; many significant books are "hit pieces." The question at issue here is whether the book is notable, and the usual gauge is whether it is discussed in reliable sources, which includes the sources brought above by Coolabahapple. 3 such reviews have been the usual standard for keeping a book page. But here, in addition to the 3 reviews above - which could be added to the page, there has been discussion of the book in reliable media, some of which is now on the page. I fail to see policy-based reasons for deletion here, although I could imagine an argument for a redirect to the author's page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The neutrality likely refers to the National Review, which is currently seen as a RS when used with attribution, although it is frequently challenged. Now I will say that the source is light and is actually an article where "regular contributors and friends" list recommendations for Christmas gifts rather than a list of recommendations by the magazine/website itself. This means that what we need to question is whether or not the source is heavy enough to be seen as more than trivial. I've used articles like this as a source in the past, but I've often had them challenged as trivial sources so I rarely rely on them for notability. The general rule of thumb is that general shopping recommendation lists don't (summer, holiday, etc) but you can use official end of year lists and recommendation lists that give a substantial enough writeup. So the question here is whether or not the writeup is substantial enough. The mention in the article is two sentences long, so it runs that thin line of usable and unusable. It helps that it was a recommendation by a notable person, since that gives it extra oomph. Offhand I'm inclined to see it as usable though.
However I need to note that the Sun Herald is a WP:TRIVIAL source since it's only mentioned once in passing. I haven't looked at Coolhabapple's reviews above, but this does need to be taken into consideration since this means that the article has only two reliable and notability giving, but fairly light sources currently on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect as there are some reviews but it's still questionable at best and, instead, it's sufficient to therefore have the information listed at the author's article. Nothing for particular independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sacramone, Anthony (2008-02-19). "The Irrational Atheist". First Things. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      Just when atheists thought it was safe to enter the public square, a book like this comes along. The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day is not a work of Christian apologetics. It is, instead, a merciless deconstruction of atheist thought—or what passes for thought. That’s the gimmick, if you will, of the book: Day does not accept a single assertion made by any one of the “Unholy Trinity”—Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens—without first pinning it to a sheet of wax as in a seventh-grade science class, dissecting it until there’s nothing left but a case for anti-vivisection legislation.

      ...

      Nevertheless, whether you embrace Day’s theology or toss it, there is no avoiding the cumulative force of the author’s counterassaults or the sting of his wit when it comes to the true focus of the book—atheism’s continuing love affair with nonsense. In short, The Irrational Atheist is a blast and will no doubt occasion many a late-night debate. And don’t forget to thank your village atheist when you get the chance. Like heretics before them, atheists are inspiring a steady flow of truly inspired Christian polemic, which may prove to win the world for Christ in ways that must send shivers down the collective spine of that most “Unholy Trinity.”

    2. Gardiner, Anne Barbeau (November 2008). "Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists". New Oxford Review. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      In The Irrational Atheist, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Vox Day uses logic and facts (not theology) to refute the "unholy trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language -- the rhetorical fireworks with which he takes on the new atheists. High spirits and clever phrasing provoke continual chuckles, as for example when he remarks that not since the craze for Marx and Freud "has there been so much enthusiasm about the non-existence of God," and that this new evangelism is directed at "atheists whose lack of faith is weak." He employs mock praise, too, as in, "Hitchens and Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine." Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration."

    3. Seddon, Andrew M. (March 2009). "Dawkins' Debunkers: A Reading List". Catholic Answers Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 3. Catholic Answers. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day (Benbella Books, 2008) If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book. Day (a non-denominational Protestant) doesn’t limit his pointed rebuttals to Dawkins—he also takes aim at Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. Do you want to know how many people died in the Spanish Inquisition (a topic the atheists regularly raise)? Fewer than the state of Texas executes per year. How many people died under atheist regimes (a topic the atheists try to sweep under the rug)? About 150 million. How many wars in history were religious wars (since the atheists claim that religion is a major cause of war)? About 7 percent of history’s approximately 1800 significant conflicts. And so on, from Socrates to the European Union.

      In a couple of places the book is unnecessarily crude, and Day’s sarcastic humor can become tiresome. He includes a chapter combining computer-game concepts and lingo with theology which is only peripherally related to the book’s central purpose.

    4. Cosner, Lita (December 2008). "Excellent refutation of 'new atheists' flawed by heterodox open theism: A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day". Journal of Creation. Vol. 22, no. 3. Creation Ministries International. pp. 28–31. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      Vox Day does not claim to be a scholar, yet, except in the area of theology, he holds his own against atheist intellectuals. He is not content to refute them only, he mocks them relentlessly. Day’s writing is filled with insults and delightfully sarcastic wit, and his footnotes are as likely to add on an extra insult as to cite a source. He makes his victims look ridiculous; however, as delightful as it is to hear him call Dawkins a ‘supercilious old fart’ (p. 68), sometimes after several pages of reading how stupid a particular argument is, one forgets the serious point he was trying to make. This makes Day’s book an entertaining volume, but one that the reader might take less seriously than other criticisms of the ‘new atheists’. That said, The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism.

    5. Smith, Lori (2008-08-03). "In Defense of God". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 255, no. 9. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims that religion causes war, that religious people are more apt to commit crime and that the Bible and other sacred texts are unreliable and fictitious.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Irrational Atheist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:

    A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

    The Irrational Atheist clearly meets the notability guidelines for books because it received reviews in First Things, New Oxford Review, Catholic Answers, and the Journal of Creation.

    Praise reviews from clearly non-neutral websites do not count. – the sources are all reliable. That the publications have political leanings do not make them unreliable for being reviews of what the publication's reviewers had to say about the book and sufficient to count as a review under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

    The book is basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles. – I don't think that the book's being "basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles" is a valid argument for deletion. As long as the book has received at least two reviews as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, it is notable.

    Book by notable author does not make book automatically notable ( WP:INHERIT); from what I gather from a quick Google search, book doesn't seem notable by itself. – this argument does not refute Coolabahapple's sources presented in the AfD discussion.

    no evidence of notability as a work separate fro its author. – the reviews from four publications analyzing the book demonstrate independent notability.

    Cunard ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). North America 1000 12:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I get it. (I started in Wikipedia in 2008, but have had a few gaps.) My point is people sometimes put a huge effort into an AFD defense so why not put the effort directly into the article ? And thence improve the article and fend off the AFD at the same time. I was trying to encourage, for example @ Cunard: to do so directly. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I like Cunard's work in performing source searching; it does take time and effort. Then, of course, after refuting a deletion nomination after said source searches and typing out the post, it takes even more time to then work on the article. Pitch in. North America 1000 14:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. I see no reviews which both cover this in depth and are published in reliable sources. Sources like Creation Magazine are unreliable for almost anything, nevermind a book review for a book about atheism. And before you say "they're reliable for their own opinions", yes, but we can't base an encyclopedia article on opinions in biased sources. Publisher Weekly sounds like a good one, but it's a brief mention, not a real review. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources:

    Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

    Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

    The guideline notes that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".

    Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It does not require the reliable sources to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

    • Yup. "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...". "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." A generalization that biased sources can be reliable says nothing about this context being among the contexts in which they are reliable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No reliable sources cover this with any sort of depth that we expect for a stand alone article on a book. In fact the reliability of the sources that do cover coudn't be worse for reviewing a book on this topic. Not to mention that it makes writing a neutral article impossible. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per references above. tahc chat 23:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename the article to "Murder of Laetitia Toureaux" leaving a redirect. MelanieN ( talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Laetitia Toureaux

...moved to 1937 Laetitia Toureaux murder
Laetitia Toureaux (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1937 Laetitia Toureaux murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, Fails WP:GNG ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

She is mentioned in many French sources and it's not possible to translate the contents of Google books. X-Men XtremE 14:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Shawn in Montreal This editor is simply harassing me along with others and they are nominating all my articles. I sourced them through google books. Only one article which I created 1929 Netta Fornario murder may not be notable. Rest I find notable. X-Men XtremE 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, it's the 'along with others' part that I'd urge you to consider. This isn't a case where a single editor is following you and nominating all your articles -- there are several members of the community that have concerns. Also, I do see one article created by you that has not been nominated, at least not when I checked. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Shawn in Montreal Most sources are in European languages. I don't read and comprehend European languages. They are spelt differently. And if all nominate withing minutes how I will find time to improve the articles, can these editors answer. X-Men XtremE 14:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shawn in Montreal: see WP:FT/N. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Renaming the article would be better. She is also the first murder victim in Paris Metro and double agent. There are some non-English sources. Before I created the article, she was mentioned before in Locked-room mystery and fr:Laetitia Toureaux. Other than books, she was also mentioned in German website Bild few days ago. Washingtontimes reviewed the book based on her murder. There are many French sources. X-Men XtremE 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as notable. This 1937 murder has evidently generated a lot of interest even decades after the event. I see a book written about this, a television programme and multiple mentions. I'd imagine that many sources are in French and I gather it was covered extensively in the French press in the late 1930s, which will not be available online. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. Brunelle, Gayle K.; Finley-Croswhite, Annette (2010). Murder in the Métro: Laetitia Toureaux and the Cagoule in 1930s France. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN  978-0807136164.
  2. Copperwaite, Paul (2011). The Mammoth Book of Undercover Cops. Robinson. ISBN  978-1849016193.
  3. Guéry, Cécile (30 August 2004). "Le crime était vraiment parfait". l'express (in French).
  4. Schmidt, Patrick. "Des crimes presque parfaits - Laetitia Toureaux, le crime mystérieux du métro". Programme TV (in French).
  5. Proust, Claudine (18 July 2001). "Tuée dans le métro un dimanche de Pentecôte". Le Parisien (in French).
  6. "Der perfekte Mord an der schönen Laetitia (29)". BILD (in German).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Netta Fornario

Netta Fornario (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1929 Netta Fornario murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: The article has been moved to 1929 Netta Fornario murder. The king of the sun ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Non-notable WP:FRINGE topic, fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. An article about a person with no claim to notability other that she was murdered, taken up by various obscure writers on a fringe topic. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Ditto - non-notable event, terrible sources. -- Krelnik ( talk) 13:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete There was an article in the Milwaukee Sentinel in 1930 following the death of Nora Emil Fonario in the Hebrides (although the Island of Iona appears to be misidentified). The newspaper story doesn't really support any of the details in the article at present. A Stornoway Gazette article from 2011 describes how a play had been written loosely based on what little is known of the circumstances surrounding her death; the play was performed on various Scottish islands. There certainly doesn't seem any clear indication of murder. As the nominator indicates, the unexplained death of a young lady in the late 1920s is not in itself notable. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn because the cemetery chapel is a listed building. Thanks, Philafrenzy. Fram ( talk) 06:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tredworth Road Cemetery

Tredworth Road Cemetery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
And try alternate name: Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Prod removed without explanation (or reason). No notability for this cemetery has been established or could be found. That it contains war graves is no claim to notability, from the source for this: " There are more than 170,000 Commonwealth war graves in the United Kingdom [...] The graves, many of them privately owned and marked by private memorials, will be found in more than 12,000 cemeteries and churchyards". Google gives 29 results, some from flickr, some passing mentions in relaible sources. No book results, apparently. [12] Fram ( talk) 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Couldn't you have waited a little? Wasn't it obvious that I had just started to expand it? Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I also don't know why Davidson decided to remove the ProD at a time when no notability was yet established in the article (your expansion at that time did nothing to improve this). But in any case, I checked and couldn't find any indication of notability. Feel free to prove me wrong of course. Fram ( talk) 13:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I hadn't finished, which was why I hadn't yet removed the prod. Cemeteries this old and this large are invariably notable if you interrogate old newspapers and local history books (which I have) in my experience. Not everything is in a simple Google search. I will do it over the next few days. Philafrenzy ( talk) 13:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The PROD process is not cleanup. Instead, it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and that is not the case here. As for notability, the place is documented in sources such as The Military Heritage of Britain & Ireland and the BBC. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • No, it isn't ckleanup, it is for deletion, thanks for stating the obvious. Prod removal should also not be done frivolously and without any explanation. Please tell me how I could know that there would be genuine opposition to the deletion? As for notability, it is a short comment in the margin of the main body of that book, hardly the kind of significant indepth coverage one expects for a notable cemetery. And is there any AfD where you don't link either WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE, no matter what the discussion is about and how it will end? Fram ( talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Search shows it in the news, including for a 2013 attempted grave-robbing. -- do ncr am 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Shops aren't notable because there has been an attempted or successful shoplifting? This is not coverage about the cemetery. Fram ( talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • And of course, in normal parlance "including" means that there is more. However, that Daily Mail article seems to be all there is: [13] and [14]. The article [15] doens't contain coverage of the cemetery itself. Fram ( talk) 14:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It was even in The Times on September 4. [16]. It is perfectly okay to mention this event at the cemetery article. I agree the event does not on its own go far towards establishing notability of the cemetery, but it is not nothing: the event was itself newsworthy in part because it was at this cemetery, as opposed to being in some obscure place in the world where grave-robbery would not be so unusual. I agree with User:Philafrenzy that "Not everything is in a simple Google search", and note that User:Andrew Davidson found mention or coverage in a book (although i don't find it in my own search within that google book).
      • I also found mentions of interrments there. For notability of cemeteries, the burial of notable persons is relevant, but I don't immediately find Wikipedia-notability of the persons I tried looking up. -- do ncr am 17:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
        • So it still was in the news for this one event, not for things "including" this event. And none of the articles seem to consider the graverobbing notable because it was at "this" cemetery, which is what you claim. British newspapers found it newsworthy because it was a British cemetery, yes, but that has nothing to do with being "this" cemetery of course. I have replied already about the Davidson book (yes, it is mentioned in it, but no, it isn't significant coverage, just a note at the side of the main text). Fram ( talk) 20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

-- do ncr am 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The cemetery chapel, which cannot realistically be separated from the cemetery itself, is grade II listed with Historic England. Listed buildings are covered by WP:GEOFEAT and presumed notable. I assume Fram will now withdraw this nomination? Philafrenzy ( talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ragheb el-Sergany

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

don't have any important work in surgeon and he is not have any academic certificate in islam Reza Amper ( talk) 11:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. It's obvious that there's no possibility this article will be kept, and since there's literally not a single reliable source used, even if it's determined that the topic is notable it will need to be blanked and rebuilt from scratch. There seems nothing to be gained by keeping this AFD open for more people to pile on. ‑  Iridescent 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

1957 Pollock Twins case

1957 Pollock Twins case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every statement in this article is sourced to unreliable sources. Rather than just have a blank article, it should just be deleted. St Anselm ( talk) 10:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep How are these unreliable sources? And they are not just terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books as commented below.
If Youtube videos can be shown, FTD news, verified youtube channel. X-Men XtremE 11:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Check the above sources again.
RickinBaltimore I didn't delete, I was frustrated. X-Men XtremE 14:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply


I have provided some extra sources above. X-Men XtremE 00:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The votes should not be whether claims re-incarnation of the girls were true or fake/hoax. The incident is notable as I have shown above with reliable sources. X-Men XtremE 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, as nominator I want to strongly affirm the first sentence above - this discussion should have nothing to do with whether the girls were really reincarnated or whether it was a mistake/hoax. But sources that believe the girls to be reincarnated are unlikely to be reliable. And in this case, even factual claims can be dubious - e.g. the similarity of the girls' scars. AFAIK all we have is the father's word for it that they were the same. So statements as we currently have in the article ("Jacqueline had a scar mark on her forehead above her right eye. Jennifer had an unusual white scar mark in the same place with the same shape.") are completely unacceptable. St Anselm ( talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Worldwide Helpers

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

Shamelessly promotional and entirely self-referenced Rathfelder ( talk) 23:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sufficient consensus exists herein at this time. North America 1000 06:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

David Donachie

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

Although the PROD was removed in December by DGG with the basis of searching for reviews being needed, I myself have searched and found none so, with the analysis being again questionable for notability, I question whether this can actually be saved and assessed as notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep added reviews of a couple of his books and some essays that discuss his work and that of 3 or 4 other authors of seafaring historicals. I think there's enough here to pass, in additions ot the fact that WP:PRESERVE lists of popular series are useful - as evidenced that his page has been getting 25-30 hits a day since 15 August 1781 (that's the day Admiral Nelson took command of HMS Albemarle - adding link the landlubbers among us.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There has been some work on this article since the nomination for deletion. I think there is now a sufficiently diverse array of coverage in reliable sources to say that this individual passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Afro-Rican

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

Frankly my searches have found nothing better at all and the current article contains nothing convincing for the applicable notability especially no sources to easily confirm accuracy and notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Eduard Aymerich Verdaguer

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

I don't see any sources verifying that he's the 2016 "mestre català", though I do see sources verifying the Girona championship. Nevertheless, I don't believe these local and regional distinctions are sufficient for notability under WP:BIO. (Do we have notability guidelines for competitive endeavors that aren't sports? Chess isn't listed under Wikipedia:Notability (sports).) Even these have to, essentially, lead to passing WP:GNG as well, and he doesn't, with no coverage independent of the organizations running the competitions. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sony TEC

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

Unreferenced article about a satellite TV channel. For some reason, though the name of the article is "Sony TEC", the article keeps calling it Sony Aath, which already has a separate article. Looking for sources to figure this out, I can find little beyond a mention in a list, and a mention in a rehashed press release. This is far from what is needed for notability and given that the article actually appears to be for a different TV channel, verifiability of this information is a huge concern. Whpq ( talk) 16:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mahil

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed only because there were no responses. Boleyn ( talk) 08:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Last.fm number-one songs of the 2000s

List of Last.fm number-one songs of the 2000s (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
List of Last.fm number-one songs of the 2010s (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing against Last.fm itself but a list of its number ones seems infringing on WP:SINGLEVENDOR. While it claims to measure performance from other services, it only does so from Last.fm users. Also, I was unable to find any archive of chart performance as each week's chart link goes to the same page. Third-party sources are Last.fm press releases distributed by newswire service Relaxnews. Possible WP:BADCHART candidate. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 04:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr. Taylor, you should not write about your own research in Wikipedia. If it is of any significance, others will do that for you.  Sandstein  20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Taylor polyhedra

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

No evidence that this term is used by anyone other than the author of those self-published references, nor if these polyhedra are named and discussed by anybody else. Given the interpretation of {4/2} used here as a compound of two digons, going directly against the work of Grünbaum and others who have published on similar degenerate uniform polyhedra, I doubt there is any. Double sharp ( talk) 08:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply


My name is Patrick Taylor; some years ago I discovered that it is possible to create a series of polyhedra based on the symmetry {4,4/2} that produces a set of forms directly analogous to the star polyhedra based on {5,5/2}; I have published extensively on this and nowhere have I ever used the term 'Taylor Polyhedra'; What happened was that someone picked up my work, liked it and without my knowledge created a Wikipedia page entitled 'List of the Taylor Polyhedra';

I felt honoured at being so recognized; Originally the page included many other forms from my published work not included in the official 'Uniform Polyhedra', but later I edited it down to cover just those that involved the {4/2} symmetry, which I had discovered, and which I felt truly deserved their own place in the limelight;

I used the term {4/2} for the cross polygon symmetry because it works and felt natural and it truncates to a double square in exactly the same way the star polygon {5/2} truncates to a double pentagon; I thus believe Grunbaum's reading of this is unhelpful; My own work builds the case from first principles for the numbering of polygons and their truncations in the way I have found most useful;

What really concerns me though is the way someone who thinks they know better can come along and redirect people off what I consider my page, containing my discoveries, sending them to their page, which itself does not actually contain any of the forms I describe; They have effectively wiped off of Wikipedia any reference to my discoveries which stand separately from the acknowledged polyhedra;

This is not the way things move forward and does not encourage new discoveries as I think Wikipedia should; I find it very difficult and time consuming to deal with the strange conventions of Wikipedia, so if you let this page go off the radar now, it will be your loss: I will still have this odd corner of knowledge to myself, as will anyone who cares to buy my printed publications

Polystar ( talk) 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . The sourcing simply doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and from the above discussion is unlikely to be improvable any time soon. Also because the existing red sea here is manifestly not useful for anyone hoping to learn something useful about this subject, but (for the same sourcing reasons) is again unlikely to be improvable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply


I would be happy to engage in further discussion, but find some of your terms unintelligible: what is sourcing? what are these sourcing standards? what is improvable? and where does the red sea come into the discussion? If improving the presentation to enable more to be learnt is a problem, then I do have ample illustrations of all the polyhedra concerned (I had to draw them for my publications), but I am a little daunted at how to upload them: at present my time is better spent moving my geometric theory onwards to deal with the skew polyhedra in four dimensions, rather than struggling with Wikipedia's formatting problems: You do not have a page on that new subject either so if I make one in due course, will that get redirected to a page that does not include any of that material at all? Polystar ( talk) 08:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Some further thoughts for your consideration: the reason these polyhedra are not named or discussed by anyone else is that I am the one that has named them and published them; some of them do appear in Holden's book ('Shapes and Symmetry' if I recall correctly) as 'nolids' however when you fill in the gaps to create the whole {4,4/2} family of forms, most actually do have three dimensional volume; what seems to be missing here is any recognition that I have created original work, adding something that has not been published before and which parallels exactly another symmetry family of accepted polyhedra {5,5/2}; I find the denial of the existence of these forms by those who would delete my page almost medieval, trying to refer interested parties back to another page where they do not exist has a touch of the flat earth about it Polystar ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Presumably the same will hold for my work on the tilings published in 'Incomplete Tilings' (1998): here I include the {6,6/2} symmetry family where {6/2} is a 'Star of David', probably not as Grunbaum would have it; These could easily be called the Taylor Tilings, but I have not been so presumptuous; They again include a full range of truncations completely analogous to the {5,5/2} star polyhedra family, the book as a whole including various other tilings that can be derived by considering different Schwarz triangles; Would it be possible to put forward a Wikipedia page covering these, or would that too get deleted because the material has not been described before by someone else? Original research here seems to be suffering discouragement Polystar ( talk) 14:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

So the question now seems to be whether anyone else has used my work or referred to it so as to be a 'secondary source': the only such person I know of is Douglas Boffey who started this all off by liking what I had published enough to set up the page in the first place, a not inconsiderable piece of work in itself; This is a very fringe subject and the ideas not something likely to be in common circulation, so how does a new piece of geometry get established other than by being published and then hopefully picked up and discussed further?: I have done the publication bit and this forum seems to be the only place where any discussion is taking place, but that discussion is all about whether my work should be deleted or not depending on your guidelines, rather than about whether it is correct or significant, which is the discussion needed to get past your guidelines: catch 22 I think is the term used; I find this all rather discouraging and would have hoped that those denigrating my work, would have at least read it as published in full rather than relying on what appears on the page which is but a summary and not illustrated as yet Polystar ( talk) 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Polystar: please do understand that we have nothing against you nor your work. Personally, being a retired electronics & IT engineer, I am charmed by anything related to math, science and engineering. The thing is that Wikipedia records history, it does not participate in creating history other than it's own. You have your sights aimed at the wrong podium for your work. This is the same for everybody, not just you or a group. We are not denigrating your work nor would we tolerate anybody doing so on Wikipedia; in fact, I look forward to your work meeting the guidelines and having a good article on Wikipedia that can stand any test like this, because it means that the scientific community has recognized and validated your work! Don't give up. DeVerm ( talk) 14:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (duh).
@ Polystar: this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a collection scientific newspapers. It should not publish original research.
While there are sometimes reasons to "get past the guidelines", those are rare (and "but my work is important!" is never a good reason). If you disagree with the guidelines ( WP:OR or WP:GNG) themselves, you could try to get them changed at WP:VPP but your chances are extremely thin considering that (unlike other obscure Wikipedia guidelines) those are core principles.
When people say your work is "not notable", it does not imply that it is worthless or wrong. If Wikipedia existed in 1543, an article about Copernicus' book would almost surely be deleted, and (at least until 1620 or so) heliocentrism would be labelled as a fringe theory if mentioned at all. It may be that your work will be recognized later on, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your ideas nor to assess their worth. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply


Going back to the original complaint at the top of this discussion, which I reproduce here:

"No evidence that this term is used by anyone other than the author of those self-published references, nor if these polyhedra are named and discussed by anybody else. Given the interpretation of {4/2} used here as a compound of two digons, going directly against the work of Grünbaum and others who have published on similar degenerate uniform polyhedra, I doubt there is any."

I did not originate the term 'Taylor Polyhedra', someone other than me, i.e. Douglas Boffey did that as your records will show; These polyhedra are discussed elsewhere as some are shown in Holden's book 'Shapes and Symmetry' as 'nolids', and most have been published in a paper I presented in Delft at a conference some years ago, which was independently reviewed and published in the proceedings (I cannot lay my hands on details just now but have a copy back home); The interpretation of {4/2} I use is entirely in accordance with the Schlafli notation and your own Wikipedia page on Schlafli symbols shows {6/2}, {8/2} and {9/3} exactly as I would interpret them, a pair of out of phase triangles, a pair of out of phase squares and three out of phase triangles respectively, i.e. 'directly against the work of Grunbaum' who would have these numbers representing a pair of coincident triangles, a pair of coincident squares and three coincident triangles respectively; The question that arises here is what symbol does Grunbaum actually allocate to the Star of David or hexagram which I call {6/2} and what does he get when he truncates it? I get a double coincident hexagon as the result, which Grunbaum would I think call {12/2}?

The important thing here is that what I have done in whatever notation we choose, leads to an interesting set of symmetries not before acknowledged or explored; Both {4,4/2} and {6,6/2} yield full sets of truncations completely analogous to the generally accepted {5,5/2} family of star polyhedra; Surely this knowledge should not be consigned to the trash bin without some consideration of its merits and certainly not in a way that redirects the enquirer to a page that does not even acknowledge that knowledge's existence and which slavishly follows a particular interpretation of polygon notation, which I think is mistaken as it does not include all polygons Polystar ( talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I suspect Grünbaum would say that your {6/2} is not actually a polygon at all, as its edges do not form a single closed circuit. He would call it 2{3}, as it is a compound of two triangles. The difference between {12/2} and t(2{3}), then, is that the first is a dodecagon (it has 12 edges, going ABCDEFGHIJKL and then ending up back at A, it being a complete accident of realisation that A and G coincide – as an abstract polytope they are distinct vertices, and in fact this is no different from the regular non-degenerate dodecagon {12}), while the second is two coinciding hexagons (each of which has 6 edges; they may coincide completely, but their vertex circuits don't contain any common elements, being ABCDEFA and GHIJKLG. Again, it does not matter that A coincides with G. If you like, you can informally think of this shape as the limit of two hexagons as they get closer and closer. By informally thinking of continuity, as I shove the hexagons into and past each other, there is no reason why the number of vertices and edges I have should suddenly halve when they coincide completely for a brief moment).
Please understand that I have nothing against your work in particular. I might not agree with your notation, or indeed some of your interpretations of what is going on with these polyhedra, but I am not advocating its deletion from Wikipedia for these reasons. I am doing that because it is your original research, which, while it certainly would have a place in a journal, is not yet notable enough for Wikipedia by our policies. I originally redirected it because I wanted to save its history at least on Wikipedia (if you click "view history" on a page you can get older versions), but since you reverted it it appears to have to be off Wikipedia for the time being. Double sharp ( talk) 11:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the difference between Grunbaum's {12/2} and t2{3}, but it does highlight the fact that Grunbaum does not have a notation for the double polygons obtained by truncating compounds with even denominators, other than calling them t2{3} (or t2{2} in the case of the truncation of the cross polygon which I call {4/2}); He is prevented from calling these 2{6} or 2{4} respectively because these notations belong in his book to out of phase pairs of polygons rather than coincident ones; Whilst there may be good topological, set theory or other reasons for only dealing with complete continuous circuits of vertices in his work, we are dealing here with polyhedra, some of which we have to accept as compound and which accordingly have compound truncations, requiring compound truncated polygons to make them up;

Interestingly it is the even denominator rather than the 'being compound' that causes the problem, for {9/3}, or 3{3} in Grunbaum's notation, truncates to {18/3}, or 3{6} for Grunbaum: all neat and tidy; What I am saying then is that if we are to be able to describe the various compound polyhedra and tilings satisfactorily, we need to adopt a notation that allows for the truncations of {4/2}, {6/2} and its inverse {6/4} to be described in a meaningful way without ambiguity: my solution sticks with the numbers just given for the original polygons in accordance with Schlafli and then introduces the double square, double hexagon and double hexagram respectively for the truncations which are two coincident squares, hexagons or hexagrams; These truncations sit well within the series that includes double triangle and double pentagon as the truncations of {3/2} and {5/2}, but which Grunbaum describes as {6/2} and {10/2}, numbers which Schlafli gives a definite different meaning to;

The question seems to boil down to who is right: Schlafli or Grunbaum? and if it is the latter then the Wikipedia page on star polygons needs editing accordingly as the notation there is all Schlafli's

Polystar ( talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to QuarkXPress. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Quark Interactive Designer

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

My searches noticeably found nothing better than this, this, this and this, nothing at all particularly better convincing with the best source only being the MacWorld (English and Spanish reviews from browsers). At best, it's still thin for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to QuarkXPress, which presently has no mention of the topic. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. Some sources exist, such as those listed below, some of which I have added to the article, but the overall depth of coverage about the topic may not be enough to support a standalone article. North America 1000 09:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  • Merge to QuarkXPress. Software article of borderline notability, given the RS Maclife article. The QuarkXPress 8 book is RS, but since it is primarily about the main product, does little to show that Quark Interactive Designer has notability independent of QuarkXPress. Dialectric ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Nathan Bryan (scientist)

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

See WorldCat and also here, my searches have found nothing noticeably better at all and other of my searches not listed also found nothing else. Notifying past tagger and recent user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Passes WP:Prof#C1 per having been a part of the authorship of a substantial number of scholarly articles (48 counted in Google Scholar), and many of the articles have significant citation rates. For example, This paper is cited in 183 documents. North America 1000 11:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep for a shoddy nomination. As Xxanthippe already stated, and as anyone else doing the same search would see, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. I am unable to even explain this nomination except to hypothesize that the nominator saw the phrase "assistant professor" and stopped there, not even trying to do a search for the author's name on Google scholar, despite claiming to do so in the nom. (The subject, it should be noted, is not actually an assistant professor, but an industry researcher with a courtesy title.) A hint to the lack of attention in making this nomination is given in the author's contributions, where seven edits relating to the creation of this AfD are sandwiched so tightly between two other deletion nominations that the software shows no difference in their timestamps. Another hint (typical for all of this editor's contributions to AfD) is a statement so vague that it could be cut and pasted on any other AfD, with nothing in the nomination statement specific to the actual subject of the nomination. That is not the thoughtful attention to notability that we should hope for in the creation of a discussion that is supposed to occupy the attention of multiple other editors for a period of at least a week. And a WP:TROUT to the nominator in addition, for being so miserly of their own time that they end up wasting ours instead. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, lack of WP:BEFORE by the usual suspects... Cavarrone 08:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Steve Took's Horns

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

This articles citations consist heavily of references to the fansite Stevetook.mercurymoon.co.uk (not reliable and probably not independent), to a book called "Blow It" which does not seem to exist on Google Books, a link to Archive.classicrockmagazine.com which I could not verify, and to a link to an empty page. I was not able to find non-trivial discussion of the subject in independent reliable verifiable secondary sources— lots of fancruft, but not reliable published sources, which is what this article needs in order to be retained. Anyone? KDS4444 ( talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

"Blow It" is the CD album release on Cherry Red Records. Citation clearly states that the liner notes are the source (and that it is not in any way a "book") 2.26.165.35 ( talk) 13:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Steve Peregrin Took. The notable members make it worth including somewhere. There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage, so if it was trimmed to sourceable encyclopedic content it may not need much more than current section in the Took article. -- Michig ( talk) 07:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As noted on talk page, satisfies WP:BAND "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians - (1) Steve Peregrin Took, (2) Trev Thoms. This is noted in the opening paragraph." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.165.35 2.26.165.35 ( talk) 14:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Argument for deletion is badly flawed, if "book" is actually liner of CD (and correctly cited complete with catalogue number etc) then perhaps it is not surprising that it is not on Google Books! 95.148.20.75 ( talk) 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep like other editors say, it passes WP:BAND for notable musicians. Also, despite the personalised band name, Steve Took article *not* necessarily the obvious candidate for a merge/redirect; also good case for Inner City Unit as Horns were a progenitor for ICU as the band that brought Trev & Dino together. Come to that, Trev Thoms article would also be an option. Since rival options exist for where to relocate this data, obvious solution is to keep the independent article (which is why the "two or more notable musicians" rule exists) Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The above point regarding CD booklet notes as a source got me wondering about album sleevenotes as sources generally. So I checked the Reliablity of Sources noticeboard and turned up a couple of threads which are both reasonably positive.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Album_Liner_Notes
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Liner_notes_for_albums_and_DVD_compilations
It's worth also mentioning that Cherry Red Records who put the CD out have a book-publishing wing and so are acutely aware of the legalities of publishing. So it's reasonable to suppose that they would subject a CD booklet to the same editorial/legal scrutiny that they would with a book before publishing it. Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
And another thing: the Classic Rock reference does correctly cite the edition and page number of the print edition of the review (as well as a retrieval date) so should be considered valid - perhaps the URL should be binned and it should be made just a print edition reference. Also cheers to the person who fixed the Funtopia reference to link to the Wayback Machine archive version - perhaps the original print ref for this too should be quoted ( Forced Exposure #11, winter 1987. Larry Wallis interview by Nigel Cross)
So overall, we have four sources - a CD booklet from big indie label Cherry Red Records and three references to Wiki-notable journals ( Melody Maker, Classic Rock, Forced Exposure) and it passes WP:BAND too. Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4, the article is a copy of the one deleted via AfD last month — Spaceman Spiff 04:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ezra (2016 film)

AfDs for this article:
Ezra (2016 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - 2nd time nomination. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF. The only article I can see which talks about the film's photography is this, and it does not explicitly mention anything specific about it. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 07:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of upcoming shopping malls in Minecraft

List of upcoming shopping malls in Minecraft (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet wp:gng, the one entry that exists is not notable.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 20:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Minecraft Walk

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

Fails to meet wp:gng, article may be hoax given links to real malls in the philippines  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly against deletion, and not enough support for merging to close this discussion as such. Editors may still consider merging through normal channels, keeping in mind WP:SPLIT. At any rate, this content is to be developed further. postdlf ( talk) 19:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of BlazBlue characters

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

WP:GAMETRIVIA No. 6: a long list of characters without any WP:VG/RS'es going into detail. Looking up a couple of names on the custom Google search engine I get little results, where they're mentioned in passing. Nothing worthwhile on development or reception, which would make this a decent list. Redirect to BlazBlue#Playable characters should be fine. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, I agree that the Complex sources alone wouldn't have been enough, as they are pretty brief, but with the other three sources I provided, I would say otherwise. And with a franchise as popular as BlazBlue, you would think that more coverage exists of its characters. Kokoro20 ( talk) 09:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Satellizer: and @ Kokoro20:, we've got two additional sources, apparently Complex isn't usable. I haven't had a chance to check the other sources (I'm on vacation, greetings from lovely Valencia!), but is the IGN one so in-depth it allows for a list of BlazBlue characters? Because the other sources discusses one character, right? And we could remove every character that isn't sourced, but isn't having a properly sourced character section on its main article a better option? (I think there's a guideline on having one good article instead of two okay articles, but looking up guidelines is a pain). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
What do you mean that Complex isn't usable? In all discussions I've seen for it, it's been declared as a reliable source. Actually, I provided three other sources, not two. Both the IGN and GameRadar sources discuss multiple characters (including Ragna the Bloodedge, Jin Kisaragi, Noel Vermillion, Litchi Faye-Ling and more), while Venture Beat source only discusses on (Noel Vermillion). The IGN source, in particular, goes pretty in-depth with their background, and how they are in battle and everything.
@ Czar: said they were only listicles where some characters are mentioned in passing ( "the 50 hottest video game characters"), and Complex is not considered a WP:VG/RS. So how are they usable?
To clarify, Complex should be fine for reliability—it's just that these specific links (read them) give us literally nothing worth citing in an article about BlazBlue characters (par for listicles, really) and are thus worthless for a notability discussion. (Notability discussions are for proving that a topic is widely covered such that we can write an article without resorting to original research and primary sources—so a one-sentence mention in a list of the top 25 pervs in video games is exactly the type of "coverage" that we ignore.) czar 08:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I already addressed the concern of those sources being "in passing" in my previous posts. And just because Complex isn't listed at WP:VG/RS, doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. Kokoro20 ( talk) 14:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't agree with just not having any character who is not sourced in the list at all. If it's a list, it should mention all characters in some way, whether or not they can be sourced. But either way, I'm sure sources for other characters can be found, even if they are in passing. Kokoro20 ( talk) 03:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
What do you mean? Information has to be sourced, otherwise that's just WP:OR. If WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, where are they? And they shouldn't just be mentioned in passing, that's the whole point of having a list of notable video game characters (see WP:VGSCOPE No. 6). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, but we don't need to cite every little thing ( WP:BLUE). Anyone who has played the games should know what characters are in it, so the game itself can used as a source for basic mentions of the characters. We shouldn't be removing basic knowledge, just because they can't be cited to a third-party source. Then for notability purposes, that's where the sources I mentioned come in. I'll ping @ Satellizer: for his thoughts on this matter. Kokoro20 ( talk) 14:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree with Kokoro20. Somewhat relevant is WP:LISTN, which says that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Thus, a WP:PRIMARY reference to the game itself to verify that the character actually exists in the game should be sufficient to counter OR, which is meant to stop synthesis and hoaxing. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi everyone, I'm at the airport right now, I'll try to reply tomorrow, if I get the chance. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Kokoro20: and @ Satellizer: Ah, there we go! Replying on the mobile site is a pain.
To go over the sources:
  • IGN's spotlight describes the characters in-game, without mentioning development or reception. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception".
  • The piece on VentureBeat isn't by their staff, it's user-submitted.
  • GamesRadar's piece is pretty good! A lot about the development, where the characters come from.
  • Complex on Taokaka: "Taokaka may seem like your average innocent catgirl but she's got a lecherous obsession with breasts – only the big ones, though. They're “bouncy and squishy” and any female character that doesn't fuel her strange obsession is of no interest to her. Of course, her strange fixation might simply be a childish obsession, but who knows? This girl loves boobs."
  • Complex on Litchi Faye-Ling: "The hottest doctor in video games is is a toughie that can control a staff using a panda hairpin. According to her story, she's also a firecracker after a few drinks. A rowdy drunk with a medical degree sounds like a keeper!"
  • Complex on Hakumen: "This swordsman is known as the one of the great six heroes for good reason. Catch him in his counter stance and be prepared to get laced with kick combos and a massive blade to the face."
The only really usable source is GamesRadar. How does that meet WP:GNG, or allows for WP:LISTN? At this point I'm still not convinced that a small, sourced section wouldn't be a better option than what we've got now. I had WP:VGSCOPE No. 2 in mind earlier: "Don't create multiple small articles when one larger compilation will do". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I have some counter points to make:
  • 1. I don't really see why it should make such a different to have sources to how they are in-game, at least not when they are the only sources about the characters (which is not the case here). The gameplay details they give them are very useful anyway, and is the kind of thing we should be looking for in articles.
  • 2. It is not writer by staff, but it is written by a "community writer", indicating that they would still have some authenticity. And going by their " Contact" page, they don't just let any user submitted content go through, if that's anything to go by.
  • 3. Like I said, I would agree if the Complex sources were the only source available, but they are not.
But the list of BlazBlue characters article is not that small, which is a given with how many characters the series has. Kokoro20 ( talk) 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
If you want to try and change consensus on WP:VG/MOS you're more than welcome to try, but right now, those are the guidelines. First, Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. There are plenty of websites that allow for in-depth information with strategy guides, collectables and detailed biographies from fictional characters. But for Wikipedia, explaining in detail the backstory of Ragna the Bloodedge moves and his abilities is just that: trivial game information. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6 says: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information". That's why IGN's piece on the character isn't useful either. Second, concerning WP:VG/RS: it is consensus to not use user-submitted articles and pieces, even if it that is somehow okay by their standards. Same goes for other websites that sometimes feature user-submitted pieces, like Kotaku for instance. And we can't possibly use it either, because it is a loveletter. And maybe I'm not making myself clear: I am saying Complex can't be used at all, because of its tone and that it says absolutely nothing informative for the general reader. IGN is gameguide material, VentureBeat is a user-submitted declaration of love and Complex is juvenile in tone (and again, not a WP:VG/RS). So we have GamesRadar. We have one reliable source. How does that meet WP:GNG? The fact that the series has a lot of characters does not mean we should ignore the fact that Wikipedia has certain guidelines that need to be followed. So far, the stand-alone notability of these characters have not been proven. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The IGN source wouldn't violate WP:GAMEGUIDE, if we use it properly. Mentioning a few gameplay characteristics of a character is not the same as a "game guide", nor any kind of "how-to's" for a game. For example, let's say I implemented this piece where it says "According to IGN, Ragna is one of the easiest characters to use" to the article. That's an opinion piece, and I fail to see how it is any kind of game guide. Explaining gameplay characteristics in detail as not my intentions.
Yeah, but as I said, the VentureBeat source is written by a "community writer", which I'm not sure if it's the same as a user submitted article. Someone should probably look further into that. And what exactly does is being a "loveletter" have anything to do with it?
Past discussion indicates that Complex is reliable though by multiple users ( [18] [19]). So far, you're the only one I've seen who disagrees that it's reliable. Also, first you say Complex isn't unusable, then you say it isn't a reliable source? Kokoro20 ( talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying IGN somehow violates WP:GAMEGUIDE; it couldn't, because WP:GAMEGUIDE says Wikipedia shouldn't be. I am saying that the only information that piece provides will serve as gameguide material: i.e., special attacks and character backstory. I wouldn't object to a sentence like "According to IGN, Ragna is one of the easiest characters to use", but that's the best we can get out of the piece is my point.
Have you read the user-submitted piece? "Now that I have an Xbox, I think I'm in love with someone else: Noel Vermillion from Blazblue. I didn't think I'd ever play as such an unusual character who acts so similar to me in real life". "She's just as good at fighting as I am at writing news stories". "She's a loving person who probably wouldn't want to see me broke and living around mom and dad all the time". Are you honestly going to use an opinion piece like that?
I've made a mistake, apparently Complex is a WP:VG/RS! But let's not forget that it doesn't automatically mean we can use it everytime (like this discussion makes clear (@ Masem:, @ Sergecross73:, I noticed your replies there, any thoughts?) So far I'm the only who disagrees? @ Czar: also said we can't use them here, and we're only a handful of people actually partaking in this discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I see that part, but let's not forget about other things he says, such as "Oddly enough, she's one of the few game characters who I can truly sympathize with." when he praises her story and everything. Czar said we shouldn't be using Complex here to establish notability, not because it's unreliable. But in any case, let's see what the people who you pinged has to say. Kokoro20 ( talk) 19:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The problem with a list like Complex's is that it's, best as I can describe, pandering. It's not really constructive criticism as opposed to personal justification why they are included on a list. It doesn't mean its not a usable source, but it's skirting the edge of what I would consider to be good secondary information that is used to judge notability. -- MASEM ( t) 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, my main objections to using Complex is when we're basing entire reception sections out of sourcing these 4 sentence listicle entries that amount to " Chun-li was ranked 78th out of the top 100 fighting game characters of 2003 because writer Jim Smith 'thought she was hawt' and 'liked those long legs"." Its that sort of crap that isn't significant coverage or meaningful content. These sources don't seem to be as bad as that though. I'm currently undecided. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't want to become too involved in this, but I will add that there's a difference between not using a source and saying that source doesn't contribute much towards notability. Whether "Chun-Li is hot"-type Top 10 lists make her notbale can be up for debate I guess but I wouldn't go as far as to remove them from the article, because they are still RS sources. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 14:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Correct. I do believe it to be an RS, and usable to source info in general (if one can find content worth adding to an encyclopedia article.) I think they could in theory be used in an article to prove notability, if they wrote something of length and substance. Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Not even a merge to a character section at BlazBlue? Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 14:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've done some more searching now, and found some more coverage. Here's another Complex article, which discusses V-13, and another article by VentureBeat, which discusses Arakune and Hazama (you need to click on the gallery link). Here's another article that gives some coverage on Arakune too. I'll try and implement some of these sources to the article soon. Kokoro20 ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Choking On Air

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

Article is about a non-notable band. Fails the requirements of WP:Band. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, even aside from the obvious sourcing issues (Facebook is not a reliable source!) in the article, I cannot find any comprehensive coverage to support notability. All the coverage I see is either passing mentions, self-authored, from unreliable sources (ie: facebook/soundcloud/etc.), or simply event announcements. They're just not ready yet. Waggie ( talk) 03:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under G5 criteria: Banned/blocked user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superheroprashast. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Battlefield Enforcement

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

Non-notable upcoming film, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY 2008 01:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Adam Ray (adraycun)

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

Self-created, promotional article, mostly social media as references, no clear evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT Melcous ( talk) 00:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Spina CMS

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

PRODded for lack of notability, an IP editor added references and Kvng (ping) deprodded on the basis of those refs.

All of those refs are primary, therefore contributing zilch to notability by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG standards. As written in the PROD, the only external ref I could find is this (which is clearly not enough). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and this should've stayed deleted as PROD, because regardless of the sources, there's simply still nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, only a newly started software among several. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs are incidental mentions or by the developers. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. The www.lafermeduweb.net page linked above is an incidental mention linking to an article by one of the software's developers. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Hmm, I think that link changed from when I posted it. I could swear there was a bit of text in there, not just a title and a picture. Not a reliable source anyways... Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mary Norris

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

With the utmost sympathy for the woman in question, I do not think Mary Norris meets our notability requirements. She's a victim of the Irish Magdalene Asylum system, she has spoken about her life to the Irish Independent newspaper, and gets a few g.hits as a named victim of the Magdalenes. All of which is insufficient for me. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I agree, while the story is tragic, it's sadly not particularly unusual, and she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly noteworthy. By long consensus going right back to the deletion of individual articles on 9/11 victims back in Nupedia days, victimhood in and of itself has never been considered grounds for notability on Wikipedia. ‑  Iridescent 15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject clearly passes GNG and is written about over time in several RS:

I had started working on the article, but was not finished fixing it up or adding sources. Not all sources are in the article yet. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep in the strongest terms. First of all, there are clearly more than adequate sources covering this person's life. Second, she is notable for being one of the people to tell the tale of these institutions, thus blowing open this dark episode of history. Finally, I am absolutely floored that the nominator of this AfD labeled such a courageous survivor so condescendingly as a "victim," which absolutely diminishes her very humanity and belittles the very real suffering she endured and the courage it took to talk about it and tell the world. Unbelievable. To make a "victim" "insufficient"? Criminy, let's just "victimize" her all over again by minimizing and invalidating her whole life! (grumble, grumble, grumble...) Why don't we just delete all the articles on "victims of bad things" like, oh, slaves and holocaust survivors next? (<--that last sentence is intended as scathing sarcasm, for anyone who is not certain of my meaning) Sheesh! Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect you already know the answer to that; we don't include articles on slaves or holocaust survivors as a matter of course, but only if they've done something to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, any more than we host biographies of army veterans just because they fought in a notable battle unless they've either achieved notability independent of their military service, or their military service was extraordinary enough to be notable in its own right. I'm willing to be persuaded if the sources can be found to demonstrate that she's independently noteworthy, but if you're already scrabbling around with sources like the Mirror (which makes the Daily Mail look like the New York Times) I'm not convinced her status is anything more than "spokeswoman for a particular group of survivors". ‑  Iridescent 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: So we don't cover whistleblowers if they are "victims", are only the perpetrators are notable? Seriously? Shall we delete Elie Wiesel because he mostly wrote about his own experience in concentration camps and urged people to never forget? How about Frederick Douglass because he mostly was a writer about his "victimhood" too? (yes, that is sarcasm, I am not advocating these articles be deleted) I am, quite sincerely, failing to understand your logic. This person is one who has come forward to write and speak out... Megalibrarygirl is working quite hard on expansion and has listed multiple respected sources above, including The New York Times. Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Tagishsimon and Iridescent that victimhood alone doesn't confer notability. However, in this particular case, I believe there is a claim to notability as Mary Norris is one of the few vocal survivors who is actively trying to raise awareness about this. For example, from this, "Some of the most powerful views of the twentieth century Magdalen Asylums come from former penitents like Mary Norris, who now works to memorialize the Magdalens by speaking out about her experience and establishing a memorial with the names and birthdates of penitents who died in the Laundries and were buried in mass graves." Another claim is this Irish Examiner article which says "The headstone and names were only placed on the grave by the Order following a campaign by a former resident of the laundry, Mary Norris, in the late 1990s.". In addition, the subject passes GNG quite easily. Victimhood alone is never a criteria, but notable victims (particularly those who campaign to bring awareness) generally have their own articles. See Song Sin-do, Liu Huang A-tao and Kim Hak-sun for similar examples. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that the article doesn't yet focus on the level of work by her into calling to attention the details of the laundry experiences and memorialise those who died there. But since it was being worked on and the references mention these attributes, I believe it does meet notability and a google search does being this up. Based on the "General notability guideline" an article on this woman meets each, there is coverage in reputable independent sources across various periods in time. ☕ Antiqueight haver 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Megalibrarygirl, Lemongirl, MontanaBW. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notability well established above through multiple bios in reliable sources. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Eamonn O'Reilly

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

Although my searches have found several links at Books, of which were noticeably tour and travel guides, and also then at News which also contained non-convincing sources, my searches at news The Irish Times and The Independent have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh Talk 13:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ken Musgrave

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

Seemingly nothing at all for any applicable notability, WP:CREATIVE, WP:PROF and WP:GNG, my searches have found only a few links at Books and he was apparently only an Assistant Professor at the university thus there's no actual solid notability from simply that and his website also lists nothing noticeably convincing for notability. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • uncertain. From Worldcat, he seems to have written one part of a standard book in the field, but he was not the principal author . That's not enough by itself. But from ?Google Scholar [21] he is also the principal author of a number of papers, one with over 400 citations (others: 63,61, ...) That's all together not a very strong evidence for being an recognized effort in his field, but it isn't trivial. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No opinion on notability of the subject for the moment, but let me note that there is another person called Ken Musgrave [22] who is the Director Director of Industrial Design and Usability at Dell. Various Google searches for "Ken Musgrave" return many hits for this namesake of the subject, so one needs to be careful when conducting such searches. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Seems too early at present. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Probable keep The article does make claims to notability. I just sourced one of them that had been tagged for sourcing; I would have at least googled a direct quote like this before dragging an article to AFD, which is too often used as s substitute for a reimprove template. My next search was on google books "Ken Musgrave" + Fractal [23]. Whole pages of persuasive hits in reliable-looking books that don't merely cite his work, they discuss his role in fractals. That, plus the paper citations DGG found, above, make me think this should be kept. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh Talk 13:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sergio Garcia (bodybuilder)

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

Several notes about this, one is that there are claims of notability claims such as Mr. Universe but none of the sources are at all acceptably convincing and my searches are simply found nothing at all. I should also note the bodybuilding.com link is actually simply own his profile. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh Talk 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jean-Michel Coulon

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

Interesting and peculiar maybe, but surely fails WP:ARTIST TheLongTone ( talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 15:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing at all to suggest they were collected by any noting museums or anything otherwise convincing, delete as there's simply nothing to keep regarding notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Jean-Michel Coulon did two exhibitions at the "galerie Jeanne Bucher", with no doubt the most famous gallery in France for the "new School of Paris". Very few painters managed to exhibit in this gallery and all of them, except Jean-Michel Coulon who kept his work secret thereafter, are well-known today. You can find the record of all those exhibitions on the website of the gallery. The first exhibition was done with painters which are all famous today, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The guest book of the second exhibition, only dedicated to JM Coulon, shows that many great artists went to see his work: Rothko, Lanskoy, Deyrolle, Arnal, Vieillard, Szenes and Vieira da Silva. Feel free to call the Jeanne Bucher gallery itself to check this information, they have this guest book with the signatures of those painters. If someone like Rothko thought that it was worth visiting the exhibition of JM Coulon, knowing how difficult Rothko was, I guess JM Coulon deserves an article on wikipedia. JM Coulon died recently, there will be probably more to hear about him in the next few years if his relatives decide to unveil his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehomard08 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Those arguments are essentially inherited. As I said, I think this is interesting, unlike most Wikipedia articles (which tend to be on Azerbajani footballers or Norwegian "death metal" bands, or the like). However I don't think the references establish notability; however prestigious a commercial gallery is, they remain commercial organisations. The refs prove that he had an exhibition, but this is not enough to satisfy WP:ARTIST. I'd consider changing my "vote" to userfy to give you some time to come up with more substantial refs... obits would possibly suffice if the publication is solid enough. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm curious to know where all the information is coming from for the page, as I cannot find any refs online or in Google books. Books? Where are the refs for those books? For an artist who has been dead this long, there should be ample references in art history sources. As there are essentially none, he fails WP:GNG. If Picasso had kept all his paintings mostly hidden from the world and only done three or four shows in his life, he wouldn't have a Wikipedia page either. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 07:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but tentative. The english article is a direct translation of the french article. I can find some references in french, but not a lot, but that could be because my french is almost zero ! I suggest we get a french reader to comment. GNG should not mean only english GNG ! How do we ping Category:User fr-N ? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
the best way to do that is to move it to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Seven Wonders of Uzbekistan

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

No sources, overly promotional and seemingly arbitrary, nothing to suggest Seven Wonders of Uzbekistan is a noteworthy concept or indeed that this list wasn't just complied by one person from their own knowledge Jac16888 Talk 00:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; No credible indication that this is notable... appears to be a google translation of [24], a russion page. That article also likely qualifies for deletion, so if anyone is on the russian wiki as well could they have a look at it?   Insert CleverPhrase Here  01:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Highly promotional page, which seems to be derived from a PR campaign to publicize Uzbekistan's attractions: [25] [26] [27]. While this is not a completely arbitrary list, it is certainly non-notable, anyways. GAB gab 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer at 03:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Damian Callinan

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

Borderline comedian, but seems to me to fall on the non-notable side of the line. Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 02:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed st170e talk 00:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_10&oldid=1142622151"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 June 11 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 06:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Vegepygmy

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 23:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Trivial Google search shows that it has been included in 3rd party D&D-like games like Pathfinder, among other independent RS'es which show use outside the several D&D games published by TSR and Wizards. While many of the creatures you've nominated clearly are better represented in list form, these and most OGL creatures have extended their influences beyond those two publishers' games, adequately demonstrating notability per our guidelines. Jclemens ( talk) 05:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think the fact that it exists in multiple works really inherently signifies potential for notability. That alone doesn't solve the lack of sources or the lack of real world information. It's still just a minor creature that has not left any real critical impact from what I can tell. TTN ( talk) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Just to clarify, I disagree that inclusion in other companies' games isn't real world impact. Real world impact for games needn't rise to the level of prevailing social consciousness, such as Settlers of Catan T-shirts, to be sufficient, IMO. Jclemens ( talk) 07:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Agreement that the subject does not meet notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Spitalny

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

The subject has played a bit role in Trump University. As far as I can tell he's received almost no coverage in the reliable sources, and the coverage he has received has been insignificant. I suggest this article be WP:BLARred. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and a redirect would be of little value. Minor figure in the creation of Trump University. Aside from his current and former employers, reliable sources yield zero biographical depth to support an article. The New York Post article listing some of the business deals he made is clearly not enough to pass WP:BIO. The article's creator says on the talk page that they found "interesting" information. They need to produce non-trivial coverage by independent reliable sources to prove it. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete When you have to give a horribly worded quote to try and make the person look notable because there are no public sources that actually explain what he really did, than he is clearly not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject is not notable and if the one think was notable it would still only be one event. Allaboutjane8181 ( talk) 23:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that the subject does not reach notability standards for an article in the encyclopedia. Allaboutjane8181: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is what is needed. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Leighanne Littrell

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

No indication of independent notability from spouse Brian Littrell, only a few guest appearances. The bulk of the article is a fan magazine article about the wedding, possibly copied Acroterion (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hannibal Tabu

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

Non-notable writer. Currently there is only two links in the article, both to primary websites. I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and there is no evidence he meets WP:AUTHOR. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 09:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo ( talk) 10:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My closure of this discussion has been contested; relisting for further comments. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. kelapstick( bainuu) 22:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Colin Cheng

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

One-liner on apparently non-notable sailor. Does a single participation in the Olympics automatically grant notability, irrespective of ranking or actual non-routine media coverage? — JFG talk 21:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Materialscientist ( talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia

PFC CSKA 1948 Sofia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stated to be a hoax page at OTRS Ticket#2016060910013251 to harass the real club PFC CSKA SOFIA Ronhjones   (Talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Skystalker

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No evidence of real-world notability. Contested prod. Josh Milburn ( talk) 21:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Philippe Lefebvre (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete . Materialscientist ( talk) 00:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Alexia Thomas (activist)

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

Article was AfD'd before and it was decided that this person was marginally notable. On the talk page it has been found, however, that most of the referneces are bogus or highly questionable. Another discussion seems to be in order. H.dryad ( talk) 20:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete The gap between the claims made on the page, and the sources I am finding in my searches is so enormous that it makes me wonder if some of the sources are of the sort that accept self-description. For example a simple news google search turns up [1] a Q & A, a type of article that many reliable publications routinely print, called : How Europe is trying to kill millions of Africans - Prof Alexia Thomas. It opens routinely enough with what looks editorial copy: "Professor Alexia Thomas, Chairman, The Commonwealth Liberation Party, TCLP United Kingdom (UK), Chairman of Alliance Treaty Commission and President, Independent Diplomat Commission (IDC) in this interview reveals her Oracle status with a third-eye into the future, as she exposed sequence of danger and disaster that awaits Commonwealth nations. For example, she believes that 500 million citizens of Commonwealth nations would become victims of massacre 15 years from now as being orchestrated and led by the British Government against the coloured people." [2]. What is she a "Professor" of? Where does she teach? But then comes the first question: Q. "Q: Tell us how you were able to transit into the future in your latest revelation as an Oracle?" Ladies and gentlemen, this looks very WP:FRINGE Nevertheless, I persevered. I figured, a notable human rights campaigner in the Commonwealth will have been mentioned in The Guardian, right? A search for her in The Guardian came up absolutely empty [3]. I should mention that the vetting of sources on the article's talk page is persuasive. And that I don't see much in the way of reliable sources, or anything at all like a RS profile in my searches. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a crank at best. No evidence of her being a professor at any accredited university, despite claims to offer legal assistance does not provide any specific details of her legal qualifications. Thank you for revisiting this and to E.M. Gregory for the detailed summary above. Blythwood ( talk) 04:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Blythwood: WP:BLP applies to all areas of Wikipedia. I suggest you should strike your potentially libellous comments. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Kristopher Van Varenberg

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

Non-notable, only claim to fame is being Jean-Claude Van Damme's son. The article claims he's notable as an actor, martial artist, and film producer. However, obtaining a green belt does not make someone a notable martial artist, the article doesn't mention anything that he's produced, and the only movies and shows he's appeared in are those starring his father. There is no significant independent coverage of him. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:MANOTE, and every other notability criteria. Mdtemp ( talk) 18:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Same article, different title -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of records of India — Spaceman Spiff 09:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

World Records From India

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

I believe this is a case of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Note that the article is entirely unreferenced. I suppose many entries could be referenced to Guiness or similar publications but others look completely dubious :Youngest Lyricist in World, Longest Pen, 1st Poetry Book (I'm not even sure what the last one means). Pichpich ( talk) 17:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Good catch. I've nominated the article for speedy deletion. Pichpich ( talk) 18:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I knew my eidetic memory would pay off one day. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jian-Shan Junior High School

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

Junior High Schools are not ordinarily notable, and there is no indication that this one is an exception DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is needed. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Quoting SCHOOLOUTCOMES Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected in AfD. I would also like to specify that there is no existing redirect target here; hence my delete !vote. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Portrait of Goffredo Mameli

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

Declined prod. No notability for this drawing (the artist obviously is notable). This drawing doesn't seem to have been the subject of significant independent attention. Note that the site used as a source, while being an extremely useful source in itself, is not an indicator of notability, being a directory of "53,203,536 artworks, artefacts, books, videos and sounds from across Europe." [5] Most of these 53million works don't have the notability for a separate article, and I see no reason why this one would be an exception. Fram ( talk) 10:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Greater Middle East

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

Recently PRODded by Damianmx as "largely unreferenced WP:OR which does not tell our readers anything that is not already covered under relevant subsections of the main Middle East article." PROD was declined by Kvng as not uncontroversial. The term "Greater Middle East" was apparently used briefly by a previous US administration to signify a large part of the Muslim world. In an attempt to demonstrate notability, the article has added similar but unrelated usages. There is no encyclopedic topic here with any ongoing relevance. The few incoming links would be satisfied by a link to a section in the main article. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Redirect Per above. Whatever little information this article contains is already addressed on the Middle East page and merits nothing more than a section of its own.-- Damianmx ( talk) 17:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
No one is saying that the term/concept of Greater Middle East is not being used. But this is not a dictionary and not every term/concept deserves an article of its own, especially when its more than adequately explained in the main article. That's what we're discussing here.-- Damianmx ( talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
With some exceptions, every notable subject is eligible to have its own Wikipedia article. WP:NOTDICT doesn't work here. Can you suggest a specific WP:DEL-REASON we should be considering. ~ Kvng ( talk) 07:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I think this is a prime example of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. There is nothing in this "article" that already isn't or cannot be covered under Middle_East#Other_definitions_of_the_Middle_East. So yes, a redirect to that section would be fine.-- Damianmx ( talk) 08:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
That's a supportable and self-consistent position but it is different from the delete position you registered above. I still beleive the article should be kept but conversion to redirect can be discussed or done boldly at any later time. ~ Kvng ( talk) 06:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Kvng: My apologies for the confusion, a redirect is actually what I'm supporting, that's why I said that it "merits nothing more than a section of its own". I believe @ Fayenatic london: is also of the same opinion since he said "The few incoming links would be satisfied by a link to a section in the main article." I guess I used Delete/Redirect interchangeably since a Redirect involves manual blanking of the page.-- Damianmx ( talk) 06:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for updating above. We could all save a bunch of overhead in these discussions by considering alternatitaves to deletion before nominating or advocating for deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I could boldly redirect the article to a corresponding section in Middle East since everyone seems to be ok with that, as opposed to deletion.-- Damianmx ( talk) 17:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It is generally not considered good form to do that until this AfD has closed. Also I still support keeping this so may be inclined to revert. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The entry for the "Greater Middle East" needs to stay. In fact, just 2 months ago retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich of the United States Army released a book: "America's war on the Greater Middle East ("GME")". This book continues specifying the geo-political significance of this collection of countries. You can easily google this book which also contains a map on Page 2, which is the same map referenced in the entry "GME". I will happily provide you with references if you cant find it on your own. Let me know. ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 21:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The article right now is a bit choppy, but this does not take away from the political significance of the term "Greater Middle East". I would be happy to clean up once our debate ends. Thanks ~ AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You seem to have missed the whole point of this discussion. No one argues that the term Greater Middle East does not exist or is insignificant, but rather that it can easily be contained within the Middle East article, with no compelling reason to have a two-paragraph article just for its sake.-- Damianmx ( talk) 22:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Disagre. Please see my reference above about specific operations taking place to re-define the current geographic area. It is of immense significance. I have reverted back to the version that has been stable for years, until a few weeks ago where there were mass edits/deletions done. ~-AX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 22:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

In addition to my source listed above, I found an interesting discussion on this entry's TALK section from a couple of years ago (See below): "This is an extremely pertinent article representing the way in which the US is shaping its foreign policy. We as users should not simply include exclude countries in this topic. The geographic region known as "The Greater Middle East" is a very specific grouping of countries that high level politicians have grouped together. Please see the details of why certain countries were included in the "HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE" - http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg96429/pdf/CHRG-108shrg96429.pdf ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.223.111 ( talk) 23:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to: Various - See AFD. - As the consensus is to merge to various articles I'm closing this as Merge to "Various - See AFD" - (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 22:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

John Wadham (died 1578)

John Wadham (died 1578) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A slightly difficult case, which has been discussed at Talk:John Wadham (died 1578)#Notability. John Wadham certainly existed, and had a notable father and a notable son. He appears in genealogical lists (a written form of family tree) from the 16th century onwards, so we know when he was born and when he died, and which children he had. Other than this, however, there is no other information on his life - he was simply a gentleman in Devon. There is a depiction of him on a carved memorial to Joan Tregarthin in the local church, but he didn't design or built this himself, having died some years before (the memorial is mentioned in the article on the church concerned). He doesn't appear to have done anything notable - he didn't hold political office, do anything significant that we know of etc. - and he isn't included in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for example. The article as it stands pads out the date of birth etc. with information on other people - e.g. details of his son-in-laws's memorial brasses etc., which aren't directly related to Wadham - but once you've discounted these, there's really not much left. The discussion on the talk page had only three participants, but two of these concluding that Wadham isn't notable according to our guidelines. Hchc2009 ( talk) 07:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 17:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect - I find Hydronium's argument persuasive. I feel sorry saying this, because it's obvious that the article creator has taken great care to find things to put in, but there just isn't much here about John himself. Blythwood ( talk) 07:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 00:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

K3 en het ijsprinsesje

K3 en het ijsprinsesje (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references in this article, so that this movie appears to be non-notable. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Robert McClenon: " Appearing" non-notable is a reason to look for sources and even to add them, and is not one to delete simply due to "appearances"... specially as topic notability is to be determined through sources being available, and not through a lack of their being used. I invite you to study guidelines WP:NRVE and WP:NEXIST. Thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with K3 (band). The band is notable. The band is notable for doing things like this movie. Yet the main K3 page doesn't mention this movie. The movie doesn't look notable independently, but it does look like the sort of thing that should be included in their main page. Often, this sort of thing is cruft and deletable, but given that this sort of thing is what K3 is known for, MERGE it. Fieari ( talk) 05:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Oswald Gudenlach

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

A nonnotable medium-rank "Gestapo police offical". Some episodes in a couple books is WP:UNDUE to immortalize in wikipedia. there are hundreds of thou of such Nazi guys. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There appears to be a typo in the title, per K.e.coffmann's observation. While all but one of these sources is in German, and the mention in the English source is a passing one, he may just meet GNG, although we would need access to the German texts to confirm it. On that basis, we should probably give this article the benefit of the doubt at this stage. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Malta's Top Model

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

Fails WP:NTV. Only one reliable source found: http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2009-09-07/news/and-now-also-maltas-top-model-262987/ Linguist Please respond on the current page. Except on my talk, please ping me (type {{SUBST:ping|Linguist111}} before your message) 02:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

D'Arcy Trinkwon

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

Nothing currently convincing for a solidly notable article and my searches have found only a few links at Books and browsers, there's nothing to suggest this can be amply improved and kept for convincing notability. Notifying 2009 PRODer RHaworth. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a WP:Soft redirect. The article may be restored by any administrator on request. MelanieN ( talk) 00:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jack of All Trades (EP)

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

I don't believe this meets WP:NALBUM. It apparently did not chart, and none of the sources used look reliable. The band itself has questionable notability. Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Random86 ( talk) 22:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 16:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 00:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

HiTi Digital Inc.

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Not much to the article other than PR speak, created and contributed to SPA/COI. Nothing significant in article (DIMA, where they got awards, does not seem a major award), nothing significant found in a google search Rayman60 ( talk) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Coverage available in searches is primarily about the company's printers. However, not finding much about the company itself. Posting sources found for others to peruse below. North America 1000 16:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Prince Bagdasarian

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

Looks like the case of Wikipedia:Too soon. Some notability exists, but I can't find any independent reviews from reliable sources as well as mentioned awards. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 06:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Uğur Pektaş

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

My searches have found nothing to actually suggest the needed solid independent notability and there's no inherited notability from Survivor Turkey, his IMDb also lists nothing else convincing aside from 1 TV series of 87 episodes, of which this would be best redirected to the TV series if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 04:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 22:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

SonoVol

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

Fails GNG by a mile. Out of the nine sources, 1 is the company website, 1 is the website of the faculty founder, 2 are press releases, 3 are funding award notices at the NSF, 1 is an interview with a company employee about his grant-writing prowess, and one is a scientific paper about the underlying technology. No independent sources with substantial coverage about the company. None. Was created by and almost all edits are by a company employee who is new to Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep
Source 1: Independent agency's description of the company. Source 2: an independent UNC media published article. Source 3: an independent UNC published media about the founder. Source 4: an independent organization detailing funding Source 5: an independent organization detailing funding Source 6: an independent organization detailing funding Source 7: an independent organization published press release about another company Source 8: an independent journal--highly respected Radiology--that has already approved the medical research following peer review. Source 9: an independent(FIXED below) organization's interview with company founder. As someone with ties to the company, I welcome edits for neutrality. However this page is notable in the field of micro ultrasound with multiple independent sources. Jamesobutler ( talk) 16:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I have fixed the issues debated below. While my numbered sources above don't match up anymore. I do encourage others to edit the page for improvement to continue the peer review process. Thanks Jamesobutler ( talk) 14:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You haven't added any independent, reliable sources with substantial discussion of the company. The number of those remains zero. Jytdog ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jytdog ( talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jytdog ( talk) 18:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Updated article by removing statement that was sourced with an interview and stated as not independent. Thanks for the revision advice! Will continue to improve page with simple edits. Jamesobutler ( talk) 19:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
so here you introduced content that is WP:CRYSTALBALL (itself invalid per policy) with sources:
So invalid content, 2 press releases, and a trade rag. Not moving toward meeting WP:ORG Jytdog ( talk) 22:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The "press release" was not written by the business or organization that it was written about. Jamesobutler ( talk) 23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
They both originate from the university from which the company was spunout which means they are not independent and they are WP:SPS trashy/promotional sources. They are not what we call reliable sources that are independent of this whole thing, and they are not about the company in any case, but rather its underlying IP/technology. I am not going to keep responding to you here as it just clutters the AfD Jytdog ( talk) 03:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not a single one of the sources is substantial coverage of SonoVol, in addition to the fact that, as explained above, they are not independent sources. There really is no evidence anywhere that this satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article is also substantially promotional, but not so blatantly promotional as to justify speedy deletion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 14:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  10:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete References include a mixture of pages not mentioning SoloVol and pages barely mentioning it, which gives no evidence of notability, even apart from the fact that several of the sources are independent. The king of the sun ( talk) 15:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Closing this AfD is easy -- there's overwhelming (near unanimous) consensus to delete the page, with most arguments citing WP:FRINGE and WP:FORK. There were a small number of suggestions to do a selective merge, but also some cogent arguments against the merge.

The more complicated part is what to do about the copy-paste version of the article in User:Msheflin. Normally, I'm a proponent of laissez-faire when it comes to user pages. But, given that this user has already declared, I will no longer be using or editing wikipedia, and that the copy appears to be a direct violation of WP:UP#COPIES and WP:FAKEARTICLE, I'm going to go ahead and delete that content from the user page.

There's a lot of other related discussion material there as well, but I'm going to confine my user-page-cleanup to just the material forked from the mainspace version of this article. The other stuff, while probably not appropriate for a user page, I think falls outside of the scope of what I should be cleaning up as part of an AfD close.

-- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Irregularities during the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There were some irregularities in the (almost) completed Democratic primaries, but they aren't so notable as to deserve their own article, or even a redirect (hence my decision not to recommend a merge). the past titles included the word "fraud", indicating this article was created with the idea that the vote was "rigged", which is a fringe theory. These irregularities also seem to be unrelated to each other, aside from happening in the 2016 Dem primaries. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I dunno if any of this can be resolved in this forum, but the original creator of the article under consideration here has also copied & pasted various old talk page threads from both the page under consideration here & some other talk pages to his user page. Guy1890 ( talk)
It can't be resolved in general. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It would fall under the criteria for speedy deletion as that isn't what user pages are used for. You can have a draft or sub-user-page but you cant make your userpage look like a main-space article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Cite to that rule. That's not what the rule he cited said. It doesn't matter either way. It's backed up on Wikia. You will not be able to hide the process you've railroaded here. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Now this entire AfD discussion is being mirrored on that same user's page. Almost none of what is on that user page is allowed to be there in the first place. I guess that'll be something for the closing administrator to deal with in a few days. Guy1890 ( talk) 22:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I think you're reading the language too emphatically. My talk page serves a threefold purpose - 1) it shows what this article/page could have been if you guys weren't disingenuous and actually contributed rather than attempting to excise a minority opinion; 2) it retains a record of the wholly illegitimate process of that excision; 3) while the narrative is now closer to my personal thoughts - because not one single person including you bothered to contribute meaningfully to this page... so I said screw it and now I'm telling the story I see - it obviously doesn't bring Wikipedia into ill repute. And while the "rule" you cite says that "you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia," for the reasons I just cited that is not the case here. Maybe you should be more "generally tolerant and offer[] fairly wide latitude" as Wikipedia requires you to do regarding your judgment of my personal user talk page - which is currently an accounting of why I've left the Wikipedia community. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I learned a long time ago that here on Wikipedia things don't always go how you want them to, as long as you maintain discussion though you can at least have some of what you want included. If you truly have left the community, and do not wish to contribute any longer then why are you still here? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I learned a long time ago that Wikipedia is a mouthpiece for the majority viewpoint. I'm just surprised to see it so unabashedly, uninformedly, and unsupportedly become the mouthpiece for a monolithic viewpoint. Do you really think that belief in irregular or unfair elections or primaries is a fringe opinion - even notwithstanding the clearly at this point knowing lie that the sources are fringe? And if it is not, then why is none of it included in the Primaries page... kind of seems like it was a deliberate attempt to squelch a minority viewpoint. And if you actually read the reasons cited by opposed editors, it doesn't just SEEM that way. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nobody is trying to hide anything, by making a separate article devoted to alleged fraud you are promoting the idea. Minor inclusion in a main article is fine as long as you provide the other side's POV. Where for example is the DNC's take on the missing NYC voters issue? Computer errors, and machine breakdowns for example do happen yet that angle is not mentioned once in the article. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not judging intent, though I may appear to be. The impact is what I described. So in spite of your efforts, you appear to be losing. And that loss is a loss for everyone. Per your suggestion, you cannot add any of this or any other irregularities info to the Primaries page bc that page decided - for the same spurious and dishonest reasons you'll see below - that CNN and the New York Times are not reputable or mainstream sources. So any legitimate info is in fact hidden... I don't really care what's in the hearts or minds of the people who suppressed the information anymore (to be honest). I spent a very long time trying to engage with them on the level. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'd be willing to bet anything that nobody said "CNN and the New York Times are not reputable or mainstream sources". They probably said that those sources don't say what you say they say. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
How much were you willing to bet, did you say - "because the sources are actually fringe theories that have not been proven by any reputable sources"? If you're saying nobody's verbatim said that... you're correct. People state their deletion opinions without looking at the article. Pretty sneaky sis! Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're misinterpreting what that user wrote. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I disagree. That user was asserting that facts are proven by consensus. Both Wikipedia and I disagree with that. But if you go back to the original thread you will find it riddled with claims that all sources are disreputable and with the implication that regardless of the veracity or verifiability of the underlying *information, no sources could possibly ever be found that would be reputable... and that thus the information must be priorly restrained. Oops... it's been archived/excised. Feel free to browse my talk page, though. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Extremely Selective Merge with Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, or as Guy1890 proposed. No redirect required, since there is absolutely no way anyone would search "Irregularities during the..." The material does not appear to be mentioned in that article, and I think at least some inclusion is appropriate, although mitigating the WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE aspects is equally important. As a second choice, Selective Merge to the articles on each individual primary. GAB gab 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You cannot include any of this information, nor any information about irregularities or alleged fraud, in the primaries article without reopening and reversing the overwhelming consensus against any inclusion of any information - without any legitimate concern cited. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:FRINGE and not being notable for a stand-alone article. Any merging should consider WP:UNDUE. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as many of the allegations are poorly-sourced fringe theories. If there are well-sourced allegations they can be included in the individual states' primary pages. Michelangelo1992 ( talk) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE. Really, few people take this stuff seriously, and the reliable sources only talk about allegations and claims, rather than facts. -- Scjessey ( talk) 02:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE because the sources are actually fringe theories that have not been proven by any reputable sources. It seems like the motives of some of these obvious Biased Bernie editors are wrapped in WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of information. Perhaps post it to a blog or some other site that isn't an online encyclopedia where people come to get factual information that is proven by consensus and backed with reputable sources. -- Gcock2k10 ( talk) 20:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Which sources are fringe - the New York Times, the Attorney General for the State of New York, the New York City Comptroller, the Sanders Campaign, CNN, NBC News, Vice, the Las Vegas Sun, Salon, NPR, al Jazeera, USA Today, or The Hill? I know I said I wouldn't post again, but this is the same horseshit slander that showed up in the response to inclusion in the article. And it's predicated on stupidity. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) *Let's just be very clear on the fact that the source complaint is an obvious lie. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 21:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Until you can (1) provide sources that clearly state factual evidence and (2) provide secondary sources that back up the findings and certify that the findings are indeed actual irregularities and fraud, this article needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform that promotes speculation and/or subjects that have not been covered by reputable and unbiased sources. There is no known consensus surrounding these fringe theories; therefore, they remain fringe theories. That's not slander, it's called the truth. -- Gcock2k10 ( talk) 22:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Where did you concoct these standards? We don't use those verifiability standards for anything else. And who knows what the truth is... that doesn't enter into this at all. We've cited a winner in California; whatever the reality is - nobody's won - so that's not the truth, even though it's verifiable. The theories are not fringe, though they are minority viewpoints. There you appear to merely be ignorant, so perhaps it is not slander. However, regardless of the "theories," i.e. what these reputable sources state, the sources provide reputable verifiability. In other words, your standard of judgment seems to be erroneous, no? Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
These standards are derived directly from the five pillars of Wikipedia. WP:CIVIL, which you're failing to adhere to, also comes from the five pillars. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Lol. My longtime civility gained us nothing. You may need to provide a more specific citation, since "fact" and "certification" appear to appear not once in the 5 pillars. They are also not most relevantly applicable to standards for inclusion. If you'd like I can go back through my notes and find the criteria which are, all of which were met by this article - and any minor problems within which would not normally be grounds for deletion. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Using reputable secondary sources is in the five pillars. Once again, Wikipedia is not a platform to be used to promote fringe theories. Until there are reputable secondary sources that state there are undeniable accounts of irregularities and fraud, this page has no reason for existence. Also, the sources you used do not say there is undeniable evidence of anything; therefore, this page and whoever created it is trying to use Wikipedia to assist a fringe theory that has not been taken seriously. -- Gcock2k10 ( talk) 22:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
But Clinton won California and that - and the numerical results - are unassailable, and our analysis of how to do citations with regard to that follows an identical process... This is why my civility tanked. There's no way for a normal person to perceive this as consistent. There's lots of ways for normal people to perceive this as horseshit. And 'undeniability' is a clearly disingenuous standard. There will always be both fringe and minority viewpoints. Squelching them [*by which I meant minority, but not fringe, viewpoints] is not a path to truth. But in this discussion, logic isn't even a beginning. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 23:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The only reason your "civility tanked" is that you chose to tank it. That's your choice and has nothing to do with anything else you're alleging. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 23:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay... I apologize for being uncivil in directly responding to your points. Personally, I'd prefer that to nominally condescending, nominally civil incommensurability. But I have no endgame here and it was counterproductive to reinsert myself. Good luck deleting the page, guys. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete There are scores of serious documented problems with the vote during the primary. Please don't consign them to the Memory Hole. This is my first comment ever. Please excuse minor problems with post. We need Wikipedia to help us list the problems and provide appropriate documentation. This is not a fringe issue. Everyone is affected when the vote is manipulated. I will provide two references just for starters. Let us go to work on it. I can bring a bunch of excellent researchers from Quora. Arizona cut polling places by 2/3s in Maricopa County where Phoenix is. [1] - [2] polling places in NY did not open until noon. [3] The biggest example of vote manipulation is here in my home state of California. The night before the primary the mainstream news announced that HRC had "clinched" the nomination. She did not have the pledged delegates at that time. Some media issued retractions in tiny print the next few days. Lets find out the truth, not repress it. debocracy ( talk)June 14 2016 12:48PM PDT —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're not going to find unbiased editors here, so consider reserving judgment about Wikipedia's structural problems and intractable bias based solely on these exchanges. If you simply need whitespace, you're more than welcome to add a page to this - http://2016-dem-primary-fraud.wikia.com/wiki/Alleged%20Fraud%20&%20Irregularities%20in%202016%20Dem%20Primaries%20Wikia - and use it however you and whoever else please. Michael Sheflin ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://crooksandliars.com/2016/03/cutting-back-polling-places-not-key
  2. ^ http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/03/22/live-arizona-primary-coverage-presidential-preference-election/82096726/
  3. ^ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/14/1515325/-WTF-Majority-of-New-York-Polling-Places-Don-t-Open-Until-Noon-Demand-the-Same-Hours-For-All
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Article deleted under WP:G5. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM 15:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Look at my African-American over here, look at him

Look at my African-American over here, look at him (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like some news to me. Dat Guy Talk Contribs 15:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

And the page has been deleted per G5. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Voters did not agree whether sources are reliable. Pretty usual situation, one can try again in a couple of years.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The Irrational Atheist

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

While the author is a notable figure, this book itself doesn't appear notable. It was recommended by the National Review Online... that's pretty much it. The rest of the page is just information about the book from Amazon. FPTI ( talk) 01:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. FPTI ( talk) 01:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, have found these reviews - Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists in New Oxford Review - "What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language .. Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration."" [8], Dawkins’ Debunkers A Reading List in Catholic Answers - "If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book." [9], Excellent refutation of ‘new atheists’ flawed by heterodox open theism at Creation.com - "The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism." [10], so close to meeting WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • tepid keep on the basis of reviews found by User:Coolabahapple Also, it has gotten itself talked about, google news search: [11], a little. Not a slam dunk, but we do keep books that get multiple reviews in RS. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above, even noting that since the author was (is?) a contributor to wnd.com, substantially all of the references to that site are just to his bio. BUT, that shouldn't make a big difference anyways, because Wikipedia doesn't consider WND a news site, even if Google does. Jclemens ( talk) 05:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for the feedback, y'all are right, this ought to be kept. I'm gonna do my best to beef it up a little bit. FPTI ( talk) 09:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I've worked on this article a lot, mostly removing advertising but really there isn't much meat to be had. The book is basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles. I believe the previous afd decision was to delete as well. Suppafly ( talk) 21:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 15:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Book by notable author does not make book automatically notable ( WP:INHERIT); from what I gather from a quick Google search, book doesn't seem notable by itself. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no evidence of notability as a work separate fro its author. Artw ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Praise reviews from clearly non-neutral websites do not count. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note Just to be clear. The "neutrality" of the media that review a book are irrelevant. As is the fact that the book was a "hit piece"; many significant books are "hit pieces." The question at issue here is whether the book is notable, and the usual gauge is whether it is discussed in reliable sources, which includes the sources brought above by Coolabahapple. 3 such reviews have been the usual standard for keeping a book page. But here, in addition to the 3 reviews above - which could be added to the page, there has been discussion of the book in reliable media, some of which is now on the page. I fail to see policy-based reasons for deletion here, although I could imagine an argument for a redirect to the author's page. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The neutrality likely refers to the National Review, which is currently seen as a RS when used with attribution, although it is frequently challenged. Now I will say that the source is light and is actually an article where "regular contributors and friends" list recommendations for Christmas gifts rather than a list of recommendations by the magazine/website itself. This means that what we need to question is whether or not the source is heavy enough to be seen as more than trivial. I've used articles like this as a source in the past, but I've often had them challenged as trivial sources so I rarely rely on them for notability. The general rule of thumb is that general shopping recommendation lists don't (summer, holiday, etc) but you can use official end of year lists and recommendation lists that give a substantial enough writeup. So the question here is whether or not the writeup is substantial enough. The mention in the article is two sentences long, so it runs that thin line of usable and unusable. It helps that it was a recommendation by a notable person, since that gives it extra oomph. Offhand I'm inclined to see it as usable though.
However I need to note that the Sun Herald is a WP:TRIVIAL source since it's only mentioned once in passing. I haven't looked at Coolhabapple's reviews above, but this does need to be taken into consideration since this means that the article has only two reliable and notability giving, but fairly light sources currently on it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect as there are some reviews but it's still questionable at best and, instead, it's sufficient to therefore have the information listed at the author's article. Nothing for particular independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sacramone, Anthony (2008-02-19). "The Irrational Atheist". First Things. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      Just when atheists thought it was safe to enter the public square, a book like this comes along. The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day is not a work of Christian apologetics. It is, instead, a merciless deconstruction of atheist thought—or what passes for thought. That’s the gimmick, if you will, of the book: Day does not accept a single assertion made by any one of the “Unholy Trinity”—Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens—without first pinning it to a sheet of wax as in a seventh-grade science class, dissecting it until there’s nothing left but a case for anti-vivisection legislation.

      ...

      Nevertheless, whether you embrace Day’s theology or toss it, there is no avoiding the cumulative force of the author’s counterassaults or the sting of his wit when it comes to the true focus of the book—atheism’s continuing love affair with nonsense. In short, The Irrational Atheist is a blast and will no doubt occasion many a late-night debate. And don’t forget to thank your village atheist when you get the chance. Like heretics before them, atheists are inspiring a steady flow of truly inspired Christian polemic, which may prove to win the world for Christ in ways that must send shivers down the collective spine of that most “Unholy Trinity.”

    2. Gardiner, Anne Barbeau (November 2008). "Exploding the False Claims of the New Atheists". New Oxford Review. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      In The Irrational Atheist, WorldNetDaily.com columnist Vox Day uses logic and facts (not theology) to refute the "unholy trinity" of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. What makes Day's book entertaining is his exuberant language -- the rhetorical fireworks with which he takes on the new atheists. High spirits and clever phrasing provoke continual chuckles, as for example when he remarks that not since the craze for Marx and Freud "has there been so much enthusiasm about the non-existence of God," and that this new evangelism is directed at "atheists whose lack of faith is weak." He employs mock praise, too, as in, "Hitchens and Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine." Yet the humor doesn't get in the way of subtle analysis, for he lays bare Dawkins's "incessant shell games," Harris's "exercises in self-parody," and Hitchens's "epic feat of intellectual self-evisceration."

    3. Seddon, Andrew M. (March 2009). "Dawkins' Debunkers: A Reading List". Catholic Answers Magazine. Vol. 20, no. 3. Catholic Answers. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      The Irrational Atheist by Vox Day (Benbella Books, 2008) If you want facts and statistics to counter atheist arguments, this is your book. Day (a non-denominational Protestant) doesn’t limit his pointed rebuttals to Dawkins—he also takes aim at Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. Do you want to know how many people died in the Spanish Inquisition (a topic the atheists regularly raise)? Fewer than the state of Texas executes per year. How many people died under atheist regimes (a topic the atheists try to sweep under the rug)? About 150 million. How many wars in history were religious wars (since the atheists claim that religion is a major cause of war)? About 7 percent of history’s approximately 1800 significant conflicts. And so on, from Socrates to the European Union.

      In a couple of places the book is unnecessarily crude, and Day’s sarcastic humor can become tiresome. He includes a chapter combining computer-game concepts and lingo with theology which is only peripherally related to the book’s central purpose.

    4. Cosner, Lita (December 2008). "Excellent refutation of 'new atheists' flawed by heterodox open theism: A review of The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Day". Journal of Creation. Vol. 22, no. 3. Creation Ministries International. pp. 28–31. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      Vox Day does not claim to be a scholar, yet, except in the area of theology, he holds his own against atheist intellectuals. He is not content to refute them only, he mocks them relentlessly. Day’s writing is filled with insults and delightfully sarcastic wit, and his footnotes are as likely to add on an extra insult as to cite a source. He makes his victims look ridiculous; however, as delightful as it is to hear him call Dawkins a ‘supercilious old fart’ (p. 68), sometimes after several pages of reading how stupid a particular argument is, one forgets the serious point he was trying to make. This makes Day’s book an entertaining volume, but one that the reader might take less seriously than other criticisms of the ‘new atheists’. That said, The Irrational Atheist is a good refutation of many core ‘New Atheist’ arguments, if flawed by Day’s open theism.

    5. Smith, Lori (2008-08-03). "In Defense of God". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 255, no. 9. Archived from the original on 2016-06-20. Retrieved 2016-06-20.

      The article notes:

      Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims that religion causes war, that religious people are more apt to commit crime and that the Bible and other sacred texts are unreliable and fictitious.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Irrational Atheist to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria notes:

    A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

    The Irrational Atheist clearly meets the notability guidelines for books because it received reviews in First Things, New Oxford Review, Catholic Answers, and the Journal of Creation.

    Praise reviews from clearly non-neutral websites do not count. – the sources are all reliable. That the publications have political leanings do not make them unreliable for being reviews of what the publication's reviewers had to say about the book and sufficient to count as a review under Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.

    The book is basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles. – I don't think that the book's being "basically an anti-atheist hit piece designed to hide that fact and hasn't had any impact outside of anti-atheism circles" is a valid argument for deletion. As long as the book has received at least two reviews as required by Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, it is notable.

    Book by notable author does not make book automatically notable ( WP:INHERIT); from what I gather from a quick Google search, book doesn't seem notable by itself. – this argument does not refute Coolabahapple's sources presented in the AfD discussion.

    no evidence of notability as a work separate fro its author. – the reviews from four publications analyzing the book demonstrate independent notability.

    Cunard ( talk) 00:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Information icon Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). North America 1000 12:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I get it. (I started in Wikipedia in 2008, but have had a few gaps.) My point is people sometimes put a huge effort into an AFD defense so why not put the effort directly into the article ? And thence improve the article and fend off the AFD at the same time. I was trying to encourage, for example @ Cunard: to do so directly. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I like Cunard's work in performing source searching; it does take time and effort. Then, of course, after refuting a deletion nomination after said source searches and typing out the post, it takes even more time to then work on the article. Pitch in. North America 1000 14:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NBOOK. I see no reviews which both cover this in depth and are published in reliable sources. Sources like Creation Magazine are unreliable for almost anything, nevermind a book review for a book about atheism. And before you say "they're reliable for their own opinions", yes, but we can't base an encyclopedia article on opinions in biased sources. Publisher Weekly sounds like a good one, but it's a brief mention, not a real review. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources:

    Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

    Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

    The guideline notes that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".

    Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It does not require the reliable sources to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply

    • Yup. "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources...". "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." A generalization that biased sources can be reliable says nothing about this context being among the contexts in which they are reliable. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No reliable sources cover this with any sort of depth that we expect for a stand alone article on a book. In fact the reliability of the sources that do cover coudn't be worse for reviewing a book on this topic. Not to mention that it makes writing a neutral article impossible. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per references above. tahc chat 23:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and rename the article to "Murder of Laetitia Toureaux" leaving a redirect. MelanieN ( talk) 01:20, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Laetitia Toureaux

...moved to 1937 Laetitia Toureaux murder
Laetitia Toureaux (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1937 Laetitia Toureaux murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, Fails WP:GNG ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 13:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

She is mentioned in many French sources and it's not possible to translate the contents of Google books. X-Men XtremE 14:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Shawn in Montreal This editor is simply harassing me along with others and they are nominating all my articles. I sourced them through google books. Only one article which I created 1929 Netta Fornario murder may not be notable. Rest I find notable. X-Men XtremE 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, it's the 'along with others' part that I'd urge you to consider. This isn't a case where a single editor is following you and nominating all your articles -- there are several members of the community that have concerns. Also, I do see one article created by you that has not been nominated, at least not when I checked. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Shawn in Montreal Most sources are in European languages. I don't read and comprehend European languages. They are spelt differently. And if all nominate withing minutes how I will find time to improve the articles, can these editors answer. X-Men XtremE 14:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shawn in Montreal: see WP:FT/N. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Renaming the article would be better. She is also the first murder victim in Paris Metro and double agent. There are some non-English sources. Before I created the article, she was mentioned before in Locked-room mystery and fr:Laetitia Toureaux. Other than books, she was also mentioned in German website Bild few days ago. Washingtontimes reviewed the book based on her murder. There are many French sources. X-Men XtremE 15:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as notable. This 1937 murder has evidently generated a lot of interest even decades after the event. I see a book written about this, a television programme and multiple mentions. I'd imagine that many sources are in French and I gather it was covered extensively in the French press in the late 1930s, which will not be available online. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. Brunelle, Gayle K.; Finley-Croswhite, Annette (2010). Murder in the Métro: Laetitia Toureaux and the Cagoule in 1930s France. Louisiana State University Press. ISBN  978-0807136164.
  2. Copperwaite, Paul (2011). The Mammoth Book of Undercover Cops. Robinson. ISBN  978-1849016193.
  3. Guéry, Cécile (30 August 2004). "Le crime était vraiment parfait". l'express (in French).
  4. Schmidt, Patrick. "Des crimes presque parfaits - Laetitia Toureaux, le crime mystérieux du métro". Programme TV (in French).
  5. Proust, Claudine (18 July 2001). "Tuée dans le métro un dimanche de Pentecôte". Le Parisien (in French).
  6. "Der perfekte Mord an der schönen Laetitia (29)". BILD (in German).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Netta Fornario

Netta Fornario (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1929 Netta Fornario murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
NOTE: The article has been moved to 1929 Netta Fornario murder. The king of the sun ( talk) 14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Non-notable WP:FRINGE topic, fails WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. An article about a person with no claim to notability other that she was murdered, taken up by various obscure writers on a fringe topic. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 13:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Ditto - non-notable event, terrible sources. -- Krelnik ( talk) 13:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete There was an article in the Milwaukee Sentinel in 1930 following the death of Nora Emil Fonario in the Hebrides (although the Island of Iona appears to be misidentified). The newspaper story doesn't really support any of the details in the article at present. A Stornoway Gazette article from 2011 describes how a play had been written loosely based on what little is known of the circumstances surrounding her death; the play was performed on various Scottish islands. There certainly doesn't seem any clear indication of murder. As the nominator indicates, the unexplained death of a young lady in the late 1920s is not in itself notable. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 17:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn because the cemetery chapel is a listed building. Thanks, Philafrenzy. Fram ( talk) 06:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tredworth Road Cemetery

Tredworth Road Cemetery (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
And try alternate name: Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Prod removed without explanation (or reason). No notability for this cemetery has been established or could be found. That it contains war graves is no claim to notability, from the source for this: " There are more than 170,000 Commonwealth war graves in the United Kingdom [...] The graves, many of them privately owned and marked by private memorials, will be found in more than 12,000 cemeteries and churchyards". Google gives 29 results, some from flickr, some passing mentions in relaible sources. No book results, apparently. [12] Fram ( talk) 12:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Couldn't you have waited a little? Wasn't it obvious that I had just started to expand it? Philafrenzy ( talk) 12:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I also don't know why Davidson decided to remove the ProD at a time when no notability was yet established in the article (your expansion at that time did nothing to improve this). But in any case, I checked and couldn't find any indication of notability. Feel free to prove me wrong of course. Fram ( talk) 13:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I hadn't finished, which was why I hadn't yet removed the prod. Cemeteries this old and this large are invariably notable if you interrogate old newspapers and local history books (which I have) in my experience. Not everything is in a simple Google search. I will do it over the next few days. Philafrenzy ( talk) 13:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The PROD process is not cleanup. Instead, it "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected" and that is not the case here. As for notability, the place is documented in sources such as The Military Heritage of Britain & Ireland and the BBC. See also WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • No, it isn't ckleanup, it is for deletion, thanks for stating the obvious. Prod removal should also not be done frivolously and without any explanation. Please tell me how I could know that there would be genuine opposition to the deletion? As for notability, it is a short comment in the margin of the main body of that book, hardly the kind of significant indepth coverage one expects for a notable cemetery. And is there any AfD where you don't link either WP:BEFORE or WP:PRESERVE, no matter what the discussion is about and how it will end? Fram ( talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Search shows it in the news, including for a 2013 attempted grave-robbing. -- do ncr am 14:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Shops aren't notable because there has been an attempted or successful shoplifting? This is not coverage about the cemetery. Fram ( talk) 14:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • And of course, in normal parlance "including" means that there is more. However, that Daily Mail article seems to be all there is: [13] and [14]. The article [15] doens't contain coverage of the cemetery itself. Fram ( talk) 14:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • It was even in The Times on September 4. [16]. It is perfectly okay to mention this event at the cemetery article. I agree the event does not on its own go far towards establishing notability of the cemetery, but it is not nothing: the event was itself newsworthy in part because it was at this cemetery, as opposed to being in some obscure place in the world where grave-robbery would not be so unusual. I agree with User:Philafrenzy that "Not everything is in a simple Google search", and note that User:Andrew Davidson found mention or coverage in a book (although i don't find it in my own search within that google book).
      • I also found mentions of interrments there. For notability of cemeteries, the burial of notable persons is relevant, but I don't immediately find Wikipedia-notability of the persons I tried looking up. -- do ncr am 17:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
        • So it still was in the news for this one event, not for things "including" this event. And none of the articles seem to consider the graverobbing notable because it was at "this" cemetery, which is what you claim. British newspapers found it newsworthy because it was a British cemetery, yes, but that has nothing to do with being "this" cemetery of course. I have replied already about the Davidson book (yes, it is mentioned in it, but no, it isn't significant coverage, just a note at the side of the main text). Fram ( talk) 20:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

-- do ncr am 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The cemetery chapel, which cannot realistically be separated from the cemetery itself, is grade II listed with Historic England. Listed buildings are covered by WP:GEOFEAT and presumed notable. I assume Fram will now withdraw this nomination? Philafrenzy ( talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America 1000 21:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ragheb el-Sergany

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

don't have any important work in surgeon and he is not have any academic certificate in islam Reza Amper ( talk) 11:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. It's obvious that there's no possibility this article will be kept, and since there's literally not a single reliable source used, even if it's determined that the topic is notable it will need to be blanked and rebuilt from scratch. There seems nothing to be gained by keeping this AFD open for more people to pile on. ‑  Iridescent 19:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

1957 Pollock Twins case

1957 Pollock Twins case (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every statement in this article is sourced to unreliable sources. Rather than just have a blank article, it should just be deleted. St Anselm ( talk) 10:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep How are these unreliable sources? And they are not just terrible pop-culture mystery-mongering books as commented below.
If Youtube videos can be shown, FTD news, verified youtube channel. X-Men XtremE 11:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Check the above sources again.
RickinBaltimore I didn't delete, I was frustrated. X-Men XtremE 14:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply


I have provided some extra sources above. X-Men XtremE 00:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The votes should not be whether claims re-incarnation of the girls were true or fake/hoax. The incident is notable as I have shown above with reliable sources. X-Men XtremE 02:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, as nominator I want to strongly affirm the first sentence above - this discussion should have nothing to do with whether the girls were really reincarnated or whether it was a mistake/hoax. But sources that believe the girls to be reincarnated are unlikely to be reliable. And in this case, even factual claims can be dubious - e.g. the similarity of the girls' scars. AFAIK all we have is the father's word for it that they were the same. So statements as we currently have in the article ("Jacqueline had a scar mark on her forehead above her right eye. Jennifer had an unusual white scar mark in the same place with the same shape.") are completely unacceptable. St Anselm ( talk) 18:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Worldwide Helpers

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

Shamelessly promotional and entirely self-referenced Rathfelder ( talk) 23:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sufficient consensus exists herein at this time. North America 1000 06:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

David Donachie

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

Although the PROD was removed in December by DGG with the basis of searching for reviews being needed, I myself have searched and found none so, with the analysis being again questionable for notability, I question whether this can actually be saved and assessed as notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep added reviews of a couple of his books and some essays that discuss his work and that of 3 or 4 other authors of seafaring historicals. I think there's enough here to pass, in additions ot the fact that WP:PRESERVE lists of popular series are useful - as evidenced that his page has been getting 25-30 hits a day since 15 August 1781 (that's the day Admiral Nelson took command of HMS Albemarle - adding link the landlubbers among us.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There has been some work on this article since the nomination for deletion. I think there is now a sufficiently diverse array of coverage in reliable sources to say that this individual passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 19:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Afro-Rican

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

Frankly my searches have found nothing better at all and the current article contains nothing convincing for the applicable notability especially no sources to easily confirm accuracy and notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Eduard Aymerich Verdaguer

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

I don't see any sources verifying that he's the 2016 "mestre català", though I do see sources verifying the Girona championship. Nevertheless, I don't believe these local and regional distinctions are sufficient for notability under WP:BIO. (Do we have notability guidelines for competitive endeavors that aren't sports? Chess isn't listed under Wikipedia:Notability (sports).) Even these have to, essentially, lead to passing WP:GNG as well, and he doesn't, with no coverage independent of the organizations running the competitions. Largoplazo ( talk) 16:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sony TEC

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

Unreferenced article about a satellite TV channel. For some reason, though the name of the article is "Sony TEC", the article keeps calling it Sony Aath, which already has a separate article. Looking for sources to figure this out, I can find little beyond a mention in a list, and a mention in a rehashed press release. This is far from what is needed for notability and given that the article actually appears to be for a different TV channel, verifiability of this information is a huge concern. Whpq ( talk) 16:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 19:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mahil

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed only because there were no responses. Boleyn ( talk) 08:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Last.fm number-one songs of the 2000s

List of Last.fm number-one songs of the 2000s (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
List of Last.fm number-one songs of the 2010s (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing against Last.fm itself but a list of its number ones seems infringing on WP:SINGLEVENDOR. While it claims to measure performance from other services, it only does so from Last.fm users. Also, I was unable to find any archive of chart performance as each week's chart link goes to the same page. Third-party sources are Last.fm press releases distributed by newswire service Relaxnews. Possible WP:BADCHART candidate. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 04:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr. Taylor, you should not write about your own research in Wikipedia. If it is of any significance, others will do that for you.  Sandstein  20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Taylor polyhedra

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

No evidence that this term is used by anyone other than the author of those self-published references, nor if these polyhedra are named and discussed by anybody else. Given the interpretation of {4/2} used here as a compound of two digons, going directly against the work of Grünbaum and others who have published on similar degenerate uniform polyhedra, I doubt there is any. Double sharp ( talk) 08:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply


My name is Patrick Taylor; some years ago I discovered that it is possible to create a series of polyhedra based on the symmetry {4,4/2} that produces a set of forms directly analogous to the star polyhedra based on {5,5/2}; I have published extensively on this and nowhere have I ever used the term 'Taylor Polyhedra'; What happened was that someone picked up my work, liked it and without my knowledge created a Wikipedia page entitled 'List of the Taylor Polyhedra';

I felt honoured at being so recognized; Originally the page included many other forms from my published work not included in the official 'Uniform Polyhedra', but later I edited it down to cover just those that involved the {4/2} symmetry, which I had discovered, and which I felt truly deserved their own place in the limelight;

I used the term {4/2} for the cross polygon symmetry because it works and felt natural and it truncates to a double square in exactly the same way the star polygon {5/2} truncates to a double pentagon; I thus believe Grunbaum's reading of this is unhelpful; My own work builds the case from first principles for the numbering of polygons and their truncations in the way I have found most useful;

What really concerns me though is the way someone who thinks they know better can come along and redirect people off what I consider my page, containing my discoveries, sending them to their page, which itself does not actually contain any of the forms I describe; They have effectively wiped off of Wikipedia any reference to my discoveries which stand separately from the acknowledged polyhedra;

This is not the way things move forward and does not encourage new discoveries as I think Wikipedia should; I find it very difficult and time consuming to deal with the strange conventions of Wikipedia, so if you let this page go off the radar now, it will be your loss: I will still have this odd corner of knowledge to myself, as will anyone who cares to buy my printed publications

Polystar ( talk) 19:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete . The sourcing simply doesn't meet our standards for inclusion and from the above discussion is unlikely to be improvable any time soon. Also because the existing red sea here is manifestly not useful for anyone hoping to learn something useful about this subject, but (for the same sourcing reasons) is again unlikely to be improvable. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply


I would be happy to engage in further discussion, but find some of your terms unintelligible: what is sourcing? what are these sourcing standards? what is improvable? and where does the red sea come into the discussion? If improving the presentation to enable more to be learnt is a problem, then I do have ample illustrations of all the polyhedra concerned (I had to draw them for my publications), but I am a little daunted at how to upload them: at present my time is better spent moving my geometric theory onwards to deal with the skew polyhedra in four dimensions, rather than struggling with Wikipedia's formatting problems: You do not have a page on that new subject either so if I make one in due course, will that get redirected to a page that does not include any of that material at all? Polystar ( talk) 08:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Some further thoughts for your consideration: the reason these polyhedra are not named or discussed by anyone else is that I am the one that has named them and published them; some of them do appear in Holden's book ('Shapes and Symmetry' if I recall correctly) as 'nolids' however when you fill in the gaps to create the whole {4,4/2} family of forms, most actually do have three dimensional volume; what seems to be missing here is any recognition that I have created original work, adding something that has not been published before and which parallels exactly another symmetry family of accepted polyhedra {5,5/2}; I find the denial of the existence of these forms by those who would delete my page almost medieval, trying to refer interested parties back to another page where they do not exist has a touch of the flat earth about it Polystar ( talk) 06:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Presumably the same will hold for my work on the tilings published in 'Incomplete Tilings' (1998): here I include the {6,6/2} symmetry family where {6/2} is a 'Star of David', probably not as Grunbaum would have it; These could easily be called the Taylor Tilings, but I have not been so presumptuous; They again include a full range of truncations completely analogous to the {5,5/2} star polyhedra family, the book as a whole including various other tilings that can be derived by considering different Schwarz triangles; Would it be possible to put forward a Wikipedia page covering these, or would that too get deleted because the material has not been described before by someone else? Original research here seems to be suffering discouragement Polystar ( talk) 14:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

So the question now seems to be whether anyone else has used my work or referred to it so as to be a 'secondary source': the only such person I know of is Douglas Boffey who started this all off by liking what I had published enough to set up the page in the first place, a not inconsiderable piece of work in itself; This is a very fringe subject and the ideas not something likely to be in common circulation, so how does a new piece of geometry get established other than by being published and then hopefully picked up and discussed further?: I have done the publication bit and this forum seems to be the only place where any discussion is taking place, but that discussion is all about whether my work should be deleted or not depending on your guidelines, rather than about whether it is correct or significant, which is the discussion needed to get past your guidelines: catch 22 I think is the term used; I find this all rather discouraging and would have hoped that those denigrating my work, would have at least read it as published in full rather than relying on what appears on the page which is but a summary and not illustrated as yet Polystar ( talk) 07:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Polystar: please do understand that we have nothing against you nor your work. Personally, being a retired electronics & IT engineer, I am charmed by anything related to math, science and engineering. The thing is that Wikipedia records history, it does not participate in creating history other than it's own. You have your sights aimed at the wrong podium for your work. This is the same for everybody, not just you or a group. We are not denigrating your work nor would we tolerate anybody doing so on Wikipedia; in fact, I look forward to your work meeting the guidelines and having a good article on Wikipedia that can stand any test like this, because it means that the scientific community has recognized and validated your work! Don't give up. DeVerm ( talk) 14:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (duh).
@ Polystar: this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, not a collection scientific newspapers. It should not publish original research.
While there are sometimes reasons to "get past the guidelines", those are rare (and "but my work is important!" is never a good reason). If you disagree with the guidelines ( WP:OR or WP:GNG) themselves, you could try to get them changed at WP:VPP but your chances are extremely thin considering that (unlike other obscure Wikipedia guidelines) those are core principles.
When people say your work is "not notable", it does not imply that it is worthless or wrong. If Wikipedia existed in 1543, an article about Copernicus' book would almost surely be deleted, and (at least until 1620 or so) heliocentrism would be labelled as a fringe theory if mentioned at all. It may be that your work will be recognized later on, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your ideas nor to assess their worth. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply


Going back to the original complaint at the top of this discussion, which I reproduce here:

"No evidence that this term is used by anyone other than the author of those self-published references, nor if these polyhedra are named and discussed by anybody else. Given the interpretation of {4/2} used here as a compound of two digons, going directly against the work of Grünbaum and others who have published on similar degenerate uniform polyhedra, I doubt there is any."

I did not originate the term 'Taylor Polyhedra', someone other than me, i.e. Douglas Boffey did that as your records will show; These polyhedra are discussed elsewhere as some are shown in Holden's book 'Shapes and Symmetry' as 'nolids', and most have been published in a paper I presented in Delft at a conference some years ago, which was independently reviewed and published in the proceedings (I cannot lay my hands on details just now but have a copy back home); The interpretation of {4/2} I use is entirely in accordance with the Schlafli notation and your own Wikipedia page on Schlafli symbols shows {6/2}, {8/2} and {9/3} exactly as I would interpret them, a pair of out of phase triangles, a pair of out of phase squares and three out of phase triangles respectively, i.e. 'directly against the work of Grunbaum' who would have these numbers representing a pair of coincident triangles, a pair of coincident squares and three coincident triangles respectively; The question that arises here is what symbol does Grunbaum actually allocate to the Star of David or hexagram which I call {6/2} and what does he get when he truncates it? I get a double coincident hexagon as the result, which Grunbaum would I think call {12/2}?

The important thing here is that what I have done in whatever notation we choose, leads to an interesting set of symmetries not before acknowledged or explored; Both {4,4/2} and {6,6/2} yield full sets of truncations completely analogous to the generally accepted {5,5/2} family of star polyhedra; Surely this knowledge should not be consigned to the trash bin without some consideration of its merits and certainly not in a way that redirects the enquirer to a page that does not even acknowledge that knowledge's existence and which slavishly follows a particular interpretation of polygon notation, which I think is mistaken as it does not include all polygons Polystar ( talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I suspect Grünbaum would say that your {6/2} is not actually a polygon at all, as its edges do not form a single closed circuit. He would call it 2{3}, as it is a compound of two triangles. The difference between {12/2} and t(2{3}), then, is that the first is a dodecagon (it has 12 edges, going ABCDEFGHIJKL and then ending up back at A, it being a complete accident of realisation that A and G coincide – as an abstract polytope they are distinct vertices, and in fact this is no different from the regular non-degenerate dodecagon {12}), while the second is two coinciding hexagons (each of which has 6 edges; they may coincide completely, but their vertex circuits don't contain any common elements, being ABCDEFA and GHIJKLG. Again, it does not matter that A coincides with G. If you like, you can informally think of this shape as the limit of two hexagons as they get closer and closer. By informally thinking of continuity, as I shove the hexagons into and past each other, there is no reason why the number of vertices and edges I have should suddenly halve when they coincide completely for a brief moment).
Please understand that I have nothing against your work in particular. I might not agree with your notation, or indeed some of your interpretations of what is going on with these polyhedra, but I am not advocating its deletion from Wikipedia for these reasons. I am doing that because it is your original research, which, while it certainly would have a place in a journal, is not yet notable enough for Wikipedia by our policies. I originally redirected it because I wanted to save its history at least on Wikipedia (if you click "view history" on a page you can get older versions), but since you reverted it it appears to have to be off Wikipedia for the time being. Double sharp ( talk) 11:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the difference between Grunbaum's {12/2} and t2{3}, but it does highlight the fact that Grunbaum does not have a notation for the double polygons obtained by truncating compounds with even denominators, other than calling them t2{3} (or t2{2} in the case of the truncation of the cross polygon which I call {4/2}); He is prevented from calling these 2{6} or 2{4} respectively because these notations belong in his book to out of phase pairs of polygons rather than coincident ones; Whilst there may be good topological, set theory or other reasons for only dealing with complete continuous circuits of vertices in his work, we are dealing here with polyhedra, some of which we have to accept as compound and which accordingly have compound truncations, requiring compound truncated polygons to make them up;

Interestingly it is the even denominator rather than the 'being compound' that causes the problem, for {9/3}, or 3{3} in Grunbaum's notation, truncates to {18/3}, or 3{6} for Grunbaum: all neat and tidy; What I am saying then is that if we are to be able to describe the various compound polyhedra and tilings satisfactorily, we need to adopt a notation that allows for the truncations of {4/2}, {6/2} and its inverse {6/4} to be described in a meaningful way without ambiguity: my solution sticks with the numbers just given for the original polygons in accordance with Schlafli and then introduces the double square, double hexagon and double hexagram respectively for the truncations which are two coincident squares, hexagons or hexagrams; These truncations sit well within the series that includes double triangle and double pentagon as the truncations of {3/2} and {5/2}, but which Grunbaum describes as {6/2} and {10/2}, numbers which Schlafli gives a definite different meaning to;

The question seems to boil down to who is right: Schlafli or Grunbaum? and if it is the latter then the Wikipedia page on star polygons needs editing accordingly as the notation there is all Schlafli's

Polystar ( talk) 10:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge to QuarkXPress. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Quark Interactive Designer

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

My searches noticeably found nothing better than this, this, this and this, nothing at all particularly better convincing with the best source only being the MacWorld (English and Spanish reviews from browsers). At best, it's still thin for solidity. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to QuarkXPress, which presently has no mention of the topic. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. Some sources exist, such as those listed below, some of which I have added to the article, but the overall depth of coverage about the topic may not be enough to support a standalone article. North America 1000 09:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  • Merge to QuarkXPress. Software article of borderline notability, given the RS Maclife article. The QuarkXPress 8 book is RS, but since it is primarily about the main product, does little to show that Quark Interactive Designer has notability independent of QuarkXPress. Dialectric ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Nathan Bryan (scientist)

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

See WorldCat and also here, my searches have found nothing noticeably better at all and other of my searches not listed also found nothing else. Notifying past tagger and recent user DGG. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Passes WP:Prof#C1 per having been a part of the authorship of a substantial number of scholarly articles (48 counted in Google Scholar), and many of the articles have significant citation rates. For example, This paper is cited in 183 documents. North America 1000 11:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep for a shoddy nomination. As Xxanthippe already stated, and as anyone else doing the same search would see, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. I am unable to even explain this nomination except to hypothesize that the nominator saw the phrase "assistant professor" and stopped there, not even trying to do a search for the author's name on Google scholar, despite claiming to do so in the nom. (The subject, it should be noted, is not actually an assistant professor, but an industry researcher with a courtesy title.) A hint to the lack of attention in making this nomination is given in the author's contributions, where seven edits relating to the creation of this AfD are sandwiched so tightly between two other deletion nominations that the software shows no difference in their timestamps. Another hint (typical for all of this editor's contributions to AfD) is a statement so vague that it could be cut and pasted on any other AfD, with nothing in the nomination statement specific to the actual subject of the nomination. That is not the thoughtful attention to notability that we should hope for in the creation of a discussion that is supposed to occupy the attention of multiple other editors for a period of at least a week. And a WP:TROUT to the nominator in addition, for being so miserly of their own time that they end up wasting ours instead. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep, lack of WP:BEFORE by the usual suspects... Cavarrone 08:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Steve Took's Horns

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

This articles citations consist heavily of references to the fansite Stevetook.mercurymoon.co.uk (not reliable and probably not independent), to a book called "Blow It" which does not seem to exist on Google Books, a link to Archive.classicrockmagazine.com which I could not verify, and to a link to an empty page. I was not able to find non-trivial discussion of the subject in independent reliable verifiable secondary sources— lots of fancruft, but not reliable published sources, which is what this article needs in order to be retained. Anyone? KDS4444 ( talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

"Blow It" is the CD album release on Cherry Red Records. Citation clearly states that the liner notes are the source (and that it is not in any way a "book") 2.26.165.35 ( talk) 13:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to Steve Peregrin Took. The notable members make it worth including somewhere. There doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage, so if it was trimmed to sourceable encyclopedic content it may not need much more than current section in the Took article. -- Michig ( talk) 07:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As noted on talk page, satisfies WP:BAND "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians - (1) Steve Peregrin Took, (2) Trev Thoms. This is noted in the opening paragraph." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.165.35 2.26.165.35 ( talk) 14:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Argument for deletion is badly flawed, if "book" is actually liner of CD (and correctly cited complete with catalogue number etc) then perhaps it is not surprising that it is not on Google Books! 95.148.20.75 ( talk) 22:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep like other editors say, it passes WP:BAND for notable musicians. Also, despite the personalised band name, Steve Took article *not* necessarily the obvious candidate for a merge/redirect; also good case for Inner City Unit as Horns were a progenitor for ICU as the band that brought Trev & Dino together. Come to that, Trev Thoms article would also be an option. Since rival options exist for where to relocate this data, obvious solution is to keep the independent article (which is why the "two or more notable musicians" rule exists) Romomusicfan ( talk) 08:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The above point regarding CD booklet notes as a source got me wondering about album sleevenotes as sources generally. So I checked the Reliablity of Sources noticeboard and turned up a couple of threads which are both reasonably positive.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Album_Liner_Notes
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Liner_notes_for_albums_and_DVD_compilations
It's worth also mentioning that Cherry Red Records who put the CD out have a book-publishing wing and so are acutely aware of the legalities of publishing. So it's reasonable to suppose that they would subject a CD booklet to the same editorial/legal scrutiny that they would with a book before publishing it. Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
And another thing: the Classic Rock reference does correctly cite the edition and page number of the print edition of the review (as well as a retrieval date) so should be considered valid - perhaps the URL should be binned and it should be made just a print edition reference. Also cheers to the person who fixed the Funtopia reference to link to the Wayback Machine archive version - perhaps the original print ref for this too should be quoted ( Forced Exposure #11, winter 1987. Larry Wallis interview by Nigel Cross)
So overall, we have four sources - a CD booklet from big indie label Cherry Red Records and three references to Wiki-notable journals ( Melody Maker, Classic Rock, Forced Exposure) and it passes WP:BAND too. Romomusicfan ( talk) 09:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4, the article is a copy of the one deleted via AfD last month — Spaceman Spiff 04:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ezra (2016 film)

AfDs for this article:
Ezra (2016 film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - 2nd time nomination. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF. The only article I can see which talks about the film's photography is this, and it does not explicitly mention anything specific about it. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 07:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 21:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of upcoming shopping malls in Minecraft

List of upcoming shopping malls in Minecraft (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet wp:gng, the one entry that exists is not notable.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 20:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Minecraft Walk

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

Fails to meet wp:gng, article may be hoax given links to real malls in the philippines  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly against deletion, and not enough support for merging to close this discussion as such. Editors may still consider merging through normal channels, keeping in mind WP:SPLIT. At any rate, this content is to be developed further. postdlf ( talk) 19:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of BlazBlue characters

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

WP:GAMETRIVIA No. 6: a long list of characters without any WP:VG/RS'es going into detail. Looking up a couple of names on the custom Google search engine I get little results, where they're mentioned in passing. Nothing worthwhile on development or reception, which would make this a decent list. Redirect to BlazBlue#Playable characters should be fine. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 11:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Just to clarify, I agree that the Complex sources alone wouldn't have been enough, as they are pretty brief, but with the other three sources I provided, I would say otherwise. And with a franchise as popular as BlazBlue, you would think that more coverage exists of its characters. Kokoro20 ( talk) 09:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Satellizer: and @ Kokoro20:, we've got two additional sources, apparently Complex isn't usable. I haven't had a chance to check the other sources (I'm on vacation, greetings from lovely Valencia!), but is the IGN one so in-depth it allows for a list of BlazBlue characters? Because the other sources discusses one character, right? And we could remove every character that isn't sourced, but isn't having a properly sourced character section on its main article a better option? (I think there's a guideline on having one good article instead of two okay articles, but looking up guidelines is a pain). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
What do you mean that Complex isn't usable? In all discussions I've seen for it, it's been declared as a reliable source. Actually, I provided three other sources, not two. Both the IGN and GameRadar sources discuss multiple characters (including Ragna the Bloodedge, Jin Kisaragi, Noel Vermillion, Litchi Faye-Ling and more), while Venture Beat source only discusses on (Noel Vermillion). The IGN source, in particular, goes pretty in-depth with their background, and how they are in battle and everything.
@ Czar: said they were only listicles where some characters are mentioned in passing ( "the 50 hottest video game characters"), and Complex is not considered a WP:VG/RS. So how are they usable?
To clarify, Complex should be fine for reliability—it's just that these specific links (read them) give us literally nothing worth citing in an article about BlazBlue characters (par for listicles, really) and are thus worthless for a notability discussion. (Notability discussions are for proving that a topic is widely covered such that we can write an article without resorting to original research and primary sources—so a one-sentence mention in a list of the top 25 pervs in video games is exactly the type of "coverage" that we ignore.) czar 08:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I already addressed the concern of those sources being "in passing" in my previous posts. And just because Complex isn't listed at WP:VG/RS, doesn't mean it can't be used as a source. Kokoro20 ( talk) 14:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't agree with just not having any character who is not sourced in the list at all. If it's a list, it should mention all characters in some way, whether or not they can be sourced. But either way, I'm sure sources for other characters can be found, even if they are in passing. Kokoro20 ( talk) 03:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
What do you mean? Information has to be sourced, otherwise that's just WP:OR. If WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, where are they? And they shouldn't just be mentioned in passing, that's the whole point of having a list of notable video game characters (see WP:VGSCOPE No. 6). soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, but we don't need to cite every little thing ( WP:BLUE). Anyone who has played the games should know what characters are in it, so the game itself can used as a source for basic mentions of the characters. We shouldn't be removing basic knowledge, just because they can't be cited to a third-party source. Then for notability purposes, that's where the sources I mentioned come in. I'll ping @ Satellizer: for his thoughts on this matter. Kokoro20 ( talk) 14:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree with Kokoro20. Somewhat relevant is WP:LISTN, which says that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Thus, a WP:PRIMARY reference to the game itself to verify that the character actually exists in the game should be sufficient to counter OR, which is meant to stop synthesis and hoaxing. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 14:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi everyone, I'm at the airport right now, I'll try to reply tomorrow, if I get the chance. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Kokoro20: and @ Satellizer: Ah, there we go! Replying on the mobile site is a pain.
To go over the sources:
  • IGN's spotlight describes the characters in-game, without mentioning development or reception. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception".
  • The piece on VentureBeat isn't by their staff, it's user-submitted.
  • GamesRadar's piece is pretty good! A lot about the development, where the characters come from.
  • Complex on Taokaka: "Taokaka may seem like your average innocent catgirl but she's got a lecherous obsession with breasts – only the big ones, though. They're “bouncy and squishy” and any female character that doesn't fuel her strange obsession is of no interest to her. Of course, her strange fixation might simply be a childish obsession, but who knows? This girl loves boobs."
  • Complex on Litchi Faye-Ling: "The hottest doctor in video games is is a toughie that can control a staff using a panda hairpin. According to her story, she's also a firecracker after a few drinks. A rowdy drunk with a medical degree sounds like a keeper!"
  • Complex on Hakumen: "This swordsman is known as the one of the great six heroes for good reason. Catch him in his counter stance and be prepared to get laced with kick combos and a massive blade to the face."
The only really usable source is GamesRadar. How does that meet WP:GNG, or allows for WP:LISTN? At this point I'm still not convinced that a small, sourced section wouldn't be a better option than what we've got now. I had WP:VGSCOPE No. 2 in mind earlier: "Don't create multiple small articles when one larger compilation will do". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I have some counter points to make:
  • 1. I don't really see why it should make such a different to have sources to how they are in-game, at least not when they are the only sources about the characters (which is not the case here). The gameplay details they give them are very useful anyway, and is the kind of thing we should be looking for in articles.
  • 2. It is not writer by staff, but it is written by a "community writer", indicating that they would still have some authenticity. And going by their " Contact" page, they don't just let any user submitted content go through, if that's anything to go by.
  • 3. Like I said, I would agree if the Complex sources were the only source available, but they are not.
But the list of BlazBlue characters article is not that small, which is a given with how many characters the series has. Kokoro20 ( talk) 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
If you want to try and change consensus on WP:VG/MOS you're more than welcome to try, but right now, those are the guidelines. First, Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. There are plenty of websites that allow for in-depth information with strategy guides, collectables and detailed biographies from fictional characters. But for Wikipedia, explaining in detail the backstory of Ragna the Bloodedge moves and his abilities is just that: trivial game information. WP:VGSCOPE No. 6 says: "Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information". That's why IGN's piece on the character isn't useful either. Second, concerning WP:VG/RS: it is consensus to not use user-submitted articles and pieces, even if it that is somehow okay by their standards. Same goes for other websites that sometimes feature user-submitted pieces, like Kotaku for instance. And we can't possibly use it either, because it is a loveletter. And maybe I'm not making myself clear: I am saying Complex can't be used at all, because of its tone and that it says absolutely nothing informative for the general reader. IGN is gameguide material, VentureBeat is a user-submitted declaration of love and Complex is juvenile in tone (and again, not a WP:VG/RS). So we have GamesRadar. We have one reliable source. How does that meet WP:GNG? The fact that the series has a lot of characters does not mean we should ignore the fact that Wikipedia has certain guidelines that need to be followed. So far, the stand-alone notability of these characters have not been proven. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The IGN source wouldn't violate WP:GAMEGUIDE, if we use it properly. Mentioning a few gameplay characteristics of a character is not the same as a "game guide", nor any kind of "how-to's" for a game. For example, let's say I implemented this piece where it says "According to IGN, Ragna is one of the easiest characters to use" to the article. That's an opinion piece, and I fail to see how it is any kind of game guide. Explaining gameplay characteristics in detail as not my intentions.
Yeah, but as I said, the VentureBeat source is written by a "community writer", which I'm not sure if it's the same as a user submitted article. Someone should probably look further into that. And what exactly does is being a "loveletter" have anything to do with it?
Past discussion indicates that Complex is reliable though by multiple users ( [18] [19]). So far, you're the only one I've seen who disagrees that it's reliable. Also, first you say Complex isn't unusable, then you say it isn't a reliable source? Kokoro20 ( talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not saying IGN somehow violates WP:GAMEGUIDE; it couldn't, because WP:GAMEGUIDE says Wikipedia shouldn't be. I am saying that the only information that piece provides will serve as gameguide material: i.e., special attacks and character backstory. I wouldn't object to a sentence like "According to IGN, Ragna is one of the easiest characters to use", but that's the best we can get out of the piece is my point.
Have you read the user-submitted piece? "Now that I have an Xbox, I think I'm in love with someone else: Noel Vermillion from Blazblue. I didn't think I'd ever play as such an unusual character who acts so similar to me in real life". "She's just as good at fighting as I am at writing news stories". "She's a loving person who probably wouldn't want to see me broke and living around mom and dad all the time". Are you honestly going to use an opinion piece like that?
I've made a mistake, apparently Complex is a WP:VG/RS! But let's not forget that it doesn't automatically mean we can use it everytime (like this discussion makes clear (@ Masem:, @ Sergecross73:, I noticed your replies there, any thoughts?) So far I'm the only who disagrees? @ Czar: also said we can't use them here, and we're only a handful of people actually partaking in this discussion. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I see that part, but let's not forget about other things he says, such as "Oddly enough, she's one of the few game characters who I can truly sympathize with." when he praises her story and everything. Czar said we shouldn't be using Complex here to establish notability, not because it's unreliable. But in any case, let's see what the people who you pinged has to say. Kokoro20 ( talk) 19:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The problem with a list like Complex's is that it's, best as I can describe, pandering. It's not really constructive criticism as opposed to personal justification why they are included on a list. It doesn't mean its not a usable source, but it's skirting the edge of what I would consider to be good secondary information that is used to judge notability. -- MASEM ( t) 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, my main objections to using Complex is when we're basing entire reception sections out of sourcing these 4 sentence listicle entries that amount to " Chun-li was ranked 78th out of the top 100 fighting game characters of 2003 because writer Jim Smith 'thought she was hawt' and 'liked those long legs"." Its that sort of crap that isn't significant coverage or meaningful content. These sources don't seem to be as bad as that though. I'm currently undecided. Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't want to become too involved in this, but I will add that there's a difference between not using a source and saying that source doesn't contribute much towards notability. Whether "Chun-Li is hot"-type Top 10 lists make her notbale can be up for debate I guess but I wouldn't go as far as to remove them from the article, because they are still RS sources. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 14:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Correct. I do believe it to be an RS, and usable to source info in general (if one can find content worth adding to an encyclopedia article.) I think they could in theory be used in an article to prove notability, if they wrote something of length and substance. Sergecross73 msg me 22:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Not even a merge to a character section at BlazBlue? Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 14:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I've done some more searching now, and found some more coverage. Here's another Complex article, which discusses V-13, and another article by VentureBeat, which discusses Arakune and Hazama (you need to click on the gallery link). Here's another article that gives some coverage on Arakune too. I'll try and implement some of these sources to the article soon. Kokoro20 ( talk) 14:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC ( talk) 20:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Choking On Air

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

Article is about a non-notable band. Fails the requirements of WP:Band. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, even aside from the obvious sourcing issues (Facebook is not a reliable source!) in the article, I cannot find any comprehensive coverage to support notability. All the coverage I see is either passing mentions, self-authored, from unreliable sources (ie: facebook/soundcloud/etc.), or simply event announcements. They're just not ready yet. Waggie ( talk) 03:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete under G5 criteria: Banned/blocked user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superheroprashast. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 02:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Battlefield Enforcement

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

Non-notable upcoming film, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY 2008 01:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 20:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Adam Ray (adraycun)

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

Self-created, promotional article, mostly social media as references, no clear evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT Melcous ( talk) 00:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe decker talk 22:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Spina CMS

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

PRODded for lack of notability, an IP editor added references and Kvng (ping) deprodded on the basis of those refs.

All of those refs are primary, therefore contributing zilch to notability by WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG standards. As written in the PROD, the only external ref I could find is this (which is clearly not enough). Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and this should've stayed deleted as PROD, because regardless of the sources, there's simply still nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, only a newly started software among several. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs are incidental mentions or by the developers. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. The www.lafermeduweb.net page linked above is an incidental mention linking to an article by one of the software's developers. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Hmm, I think that link changed from when I posted it. I could swear there was a bit of text in there, not just a title and a picture. Not a reliable source anyways... Tigraan Click here to contact me 07:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mary Norris

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

With the utmost sympathy for the woman in question, I do not think Mary Norris meets our notability requirements. She's a victim of the Irish Magdalene Asylum system, she has spoken about her life to the Irish Independent newspaper, and gets a few g.hits as a named victim of the Magdalenes. All of which is insufficient for me. -- Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I agree, while the story is tragic, it's sadly not particularly unusual, and she doesn't appear to have done anything particularly noteworthy. By long consensus going right back to the deletion of individual articles on 9/11 victims back in Nupedia days, victimhood in and of itself has never been considered grounds for notability on Wikipedia. ‑  Iridescent 15:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject clearly passes GNG and is written about over time in several RS:

I had started working on the article, but was not finished fixing it up or adding sources. Not all sources are in the article yet. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 16:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep in the strongest terms. First of all, there are clearly more than adequate sources covering this person's life. Second, she is notable for being one of the people to tell the tale of these institutions, thus blowing open this dark episode of history. Finally, I am absolutely floored that the nominator of this AfD labeled such a courageous survivor so condescendingly as a "victim," which absolutely diminishes her very humanity and belittles the very real suffering she endured and the courage it took to talk about it and tell the world. Unbelievable. To make a "victim" "insufficient"? Criminy, let's just "victimize" her all over again by minimizing and invalidating her whole life! (grumble, grumble, grumble...) Why don't we just delete all the articles on "victims of bad things" like, oh, slaves and holocaust survivors next? (<--that last sentence is intended as scathing sarcasm, for anyone who is not certain of my meaning) Sheesh! Montanabw (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect you already know the answer to that; we don't include articles on slaves or holocaust survivors as a matter of course, but only if they've done something to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, any more than we host biographies of army veterans just because they fought in a notable battle unless they've either achieved notability independent of their military service, or their military service was extraordinary enough to be notable in its own right. I'm willing to be persuaded if the sources can be found to demonstrate that she's independently noteworthy, but if you're already scrabbling around with sources like the Mirror (which makes the Daily Mail look like the New York Times) I'm not convinced her status is anything more than "spokeswoman for a particular group of survivors". ‑  Iridescent 17:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: So we don't cover whistleblowers if they are "victims", are only the perpetrators are notable? Seriously? Shall we delete Elie Wiesel because he mostly wrote about his own experience in concentration camps and urged people to never forget? How about Frederick Douglass because he mostly was a writer about his "victimhood" too? (yes, that is sarcasm, I am not advocating these articles be deleted) I am, quite sincerely, failing to understand your logic. This person is one who has come forward to write and speak out... Megalibrarygirl is working quite hard on expansion and has listed multiple respected sources above, including The New York Times. Montanabw (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree with Tagishsimon and Iridescent that victimhood alone doesn't confer notability. However, in this particular case, I believe there is a claim to notability as Mary Norris is one of the few vocal survivors who is actively trying to raise awareness about this. For example, from this, "Some of the most powerful views of the twentieth century Magdalen Asylums come from former penitents like Mary Norris, who now works to memorialize the Magdalens by speaking out about her experience and establishing a memorial with the names and birthdates of penitents who died in the Laundries and were buried in mass graves." Another claim is this Irish Examiner article which says "The headstone and names were only placed on the grave by the Order following a campaign by a former resident of the laundry, Mary Norris, in the late 1990s.". In addition, the subject passes GNG quite easily. Victimhood alone is never a criteria, but notable victims (particularly those who campaign to bring awareness) generally have their own articles. See Song Sin-do, Liu Huang A-tao and Kim Hak-sun for similar examples. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that the article doesn't yet focus on the level of work by her into calling to attention the details of the laundry experiences and memorialise those who died there. But since it was being worked on and the references mention these attributes, I believe it does meet notability and a google search does being this up. Based on the "General notability guideline" an article on this woman meets each, there is coverage in reputable independent sources across various periods in time. ☕ Antiqueight haver 23:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Megalibrarygirl, Lemongirl, MontanaBW. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notability well established above through multiple bios in reliable sources. RashersTierney ( talk) 22:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Eamonn O'Reilly

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

Although my searches have found several links at Books, of which were noticeably tour and travel guides, and also then at News which also contained non-convincing sources, my searches at news The Irish Times and The Independent have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh Talk 13:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ken Musgrave

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

Seemingly nothing at all for any applicable notability, WP:CREATIVE, WP:PROF and WP:GNG, my searches have found only a few links at Books and he was apparently only an Assistant Professor at the university thus there's no actual solid notability from simply that and his website also lists nothing noticeably convincing for notability. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • uncertain. From Worldcat, he seems to have written one part of a standard book in the field, but he was not the principal author . That's not enough by itself. But from ?Google Scholar [21] he is also the principal author of a number of papers, one with over 400 citations (others: 63,61, ...) That's all together not a very strong evidence for being an recognized effort in his field, but it isn't trivial. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. No opinion on notability of the subject for the moment, but let me note that there is another person called Ken Musgrave [22] who is the Director Director of Industrial Design and Usability at Dell. Various Google searches for "Ken Musgrave" return many hits for this namesake of the subject, so one needs to be careful when conducting such searches. Nsk92 ( talk) 23:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete Seems too early at present. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Probable keep The article does make claims to notability. I just sourced one of them that had been tagged for sourcing; I would have at least googled a direct quote like this before dragging an article to AFD, which is too often used as s substitute for a reimprove template. My next search was on google books "Ken Musgrave" + Fractal [23]. Whole pages of persuasive hits in reliable-looking books that don't merely cite his work, they discuss his role in fractals. That, plus the paper citations DGG found, above, make me think this should be kept. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh Talk 13:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sergio Garcia (bodybuilder)

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

Several notes about this, one is that there are claims of notability claims such as Mr. Universe but none of the sources are at all acceptably convincing and my searches are simply found nothing at all. I should also note the bodybuilding.com link is actually simply own his profile. SwisterTwister talk 23:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jbh Talk 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jean-Michel Coulon

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

Interesting and peculiar maybe, but surely fails WP:ARTIST TheLongTone ( talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 15:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing at all to suggest they were collected by any noting museums or anything otherwise convincing, delete as there's simply nothing to keep regarding notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Jean-Michel Coulon did two exhibitions at the "galerie Jeanne Bucher", with no doubt the most famous gallery in France for the "new School of Paris". Very few painters managed to exhibit in this gallery and all of them, except Jean-Michel Coulon who kept his work secret thereafter, are well-known today. You can find the record of all those exhibitions on the website of the gallery. The first exhibition was done with painters which are all famous today, as mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The guest book of the second exhibition, only dedicated to JM Coulon, shows that many great artists went to see his work: Rothko, Lanskoy, Deyrolle, Arnal, Vieillard, Szenes and Vieira da Silva. Feel free to call the Jeanne Bucher gallery itself to check this information, they have this guest book with the signatures of those painters. If someone like Rothko thought that it was worth visiting the exhibition of JM Coulon, knowing how difficult Rothko was, I guess JM Coulon deserves an article on wikipedia. JM Coulon died recently, there will be probably more to hear about him in the next few years if his relatives decide to unveil his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehomard08 ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Those arguments are essentially inherited. As I said, I think this is interesting, unlike most Wikipedia articles (which tend to be on Azerbajani footballers or Norwegian "death metal" bands, or the like). However I don't think the references establish notability; however prestigious a commercial gallery is, they remain commercial organisations. The refs prove that he had an exhibition, but this is not enough to satisfy WP:ARTIST. I'd consider changing my "vote" to userfy to give you some time to come up with more substantial refs... obits would possibly suffice if the publication is solid enough. TheLongTone ( talk) 14:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'm curious to know where all the information is coming from for the page, as I cannot find any refs online or in Google books. Books? Where are the refs for those books? For an artist who has been dead this long, there should be ample references in art history sources. As there are essentially none, he fails WP:GNG. If Picasso had kept all his paintings mostly hidden from the world and only done three or four shows in his life, he wouldn't have a Wikipedia page either. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 07:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but tentative. The english article is a direct translation of the french article. I can find some references in french, but not a lot, but that could be because my french is almost zero ! I suggest we get a french reader to comment. GNG should not mean only english GNG ! How do we ping Category:User fr-N ? Aoziwe ( talk) 12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
the best way to do that is to move it to draft space. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Seven Wonders of Uzbekistan

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

No sources, overly promotional and seemingly arbitrary, nothing to suggest Seven Wonders of Uzbekistan is a noteworthy concept or indeed that this list wasn't just complied by one person from their own knowledge Jac16888 Talk 00:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; No credible indication that this is notable... appears to be a google translation of [24], a russion page. That article also likely qualifies for deletion, so if anyone is on the russian wiki as well could they have a look at it?   Insert CleverPhrase Here  01:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Highly promotional page, which seems to be derived from a PR campaign to publicize Uzbekistan's attractions: [25] [26] [27]. While this is not a completely arbitrary list, it is certainly non-notable, anyways. GAB gab 17:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer at 03:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Damian Callinan

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

Borderline comedian, but seems to me to fall on the non-notable side of the line. Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 02:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearer consensus needed st170e talk 00:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 00:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_10&oldid=1142622151"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE