Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 May 28 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Safwan Ahmedmia

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

Just having a lot of webviews does not mean one meets the WP:GNG. Sources on page seem to only mention him incidentally or just duplicate his content. Not significant coverage at all. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The Draft of this was declined multiple times for the same reason and then just copy pasted over. Peter Rehse ( talk) 08:36, 28 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jed Ismael

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

Main claim to fame seems to the Instagram porn thing which was discovered by the subject. Coverage of this event don't seem to push him over WP:GNG and neither do any sources found by a Google search. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

trusted references such as the daily star are mentioned, with over 55 news website from around the globe mentioning the same issue and the same blogger. it has enough references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.90.183 ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Besides the Daily Star being a tabloid, if Ismael is only known for this one thing, the article should just redirect to Instagram#Hidden pornography. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That section of the Instagram page was added by the same user who created the disputed page in question. i.e. Special:Contributions/Lily9980 — Christopher.akiki ( talk) 14:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

He's also known for hacking major Lebanese companies and banks live on tv, which were references by the corresponding articles written in arabic 178.135.242.154 ( talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, and there are further BLP concerns. Better he be mentioned in the Instagram article per Patar knight above. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤ 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for solid independent notability, nothing convincing this can be acceptable aside from the apparent event. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, certainly a case of WP:BLP1E as mentioned by Fosse8. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:44, 4 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 to keep here. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Terry Poison

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

Sources in article do not establish that this passes WP:BAND nor do sources from a quick Google search. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 22:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:12, 28 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Padraic Cunningham

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the highest level of Irish football, which is confirmed as not fully pro per WP:FPL, meaning that this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Players at the highest level in Ireland have faced deletion going back to 2010 see here where consensus was that they do meet notability at present Galway are in contention for a Europa League spot. Mo ainm ~Talk 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The "consensus" that Mo ainm cites above merely shows that GNG trumps NFOOTBALL, which is not an area of contention, especially when this player fails both. Giant Snowman 09:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Here is some reliable sources to show he doesn't fail GNG Irish Examiner RTE Extra time.ie goal.com midwest radio Connacht Tribune Do we intend to delete every single player who plays in the top flight of Irish football? Mo ainm ~Talk 10:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. There is no consensus that playing in the League of Ireland makes players are notable ( this AfD from April resulted in a unanimous decision to delete). Number 5 7 15:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Is coverage in multiple sources not enough to satisfy GNG? Mo ainm ~Talk 10:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
All the examples you put forward are just reports (or previews) on matches that he played in, so no – I would expect to see articles solely focussed on him as a player. But going further than that, due to the nature of sports coverage, you can write a well-referenced article on players playing well down the semi-pro leagues – during a similar debate a few months ago I created a well-referenced article in my userspace on a player playing for the club I support at level eight in England that included four news articles actually focussing on him (not simply match reports) as an example. Even though he plays for my club, I don't think he's a notable footballer, and I don't want Wikipedia filling up with tens of thousands of articles on semi-pro footballers who fall into the same category. Number 5 7 12:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reply, maybe a change is needed in policy in regard to players who are playing at the highest level in their country, at present Galway are having a very good season and it is not an impossibility that they could qualify for the Europa Cup. Mo ainm ~Talk 12:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That's been suggested and rejected many times in the past; playing at the top level does not make someone notable. The reason we have the fully pro rule is that these are leagues where there is genuinely enough interest to deem the players notable (i.e. in terms of attendances, sponsorship, tv income etc). Number 5 7 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. The "highest level" thing is a bit of a red herring in a way; while the Irish league isn't fully professional, that only means the subject doesn't *automatically* qualify for an article. It's entirely possible for a semi-pro or amateur player to still be notable and well-sourced; this guy appears to be neither, and there's literally nothing substantive in the article. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤ 10:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as others have said, no fully pro appearances made and clear failure of GNG Spiderone 11:40, 4 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. A clear consensus for delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Lincoln Isham

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

Being a great-grandson of Abraham Lincoln isn't enough for an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, very few sources. Agree that being a great- grandson of Abraham Lincoln is not enough to gain him an article.

KoreanWon talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per above. Nothing notable in the article. MB ( talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: notability not conferrable solely by being related to a notable individual. This is very clear, Wikipedia 101. Quis separabit? 14:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for actual notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above, falls down on the GNG (being distantly related to someone famous isn't in itself notable, and there's no claim to notability being *made* otherwise, let alone sourced).  Fosse    8► 16:37, 3 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 is to delete. Kudos to CorporateM for being upfront about his COI disclosure. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sangamo BioSciences

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

The article gives the appearance of being well-sourced without actually being so. The sources are written by a Forbes "contributor" [1], only briefly mention the company [2] [3] or are just press releases [4] [5]. The article has content like "a major step toward immunological functional control of HIV" (a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim) cited to a press release. I have not found any sources to suggest the company is notable and promotional articles on anything marginally notable are typically still deleted. Please see the COI disclosure on my user page. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: copy/pasted promo; clear COI. Quis separabit? 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or perhaps redirect to Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects. I was unable to find more than brief mentions of the company in reliable sources, so it seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Perhaps the most notable thing about the company is their SB-728-T clinical trial, which was discussed in reliable sources like a New York Times article and a Scientific American article. These independent RS suggest that a mention of the trial at WP is reasonable and indeed it is already at Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects in the last sentence. I'd be OK with a redirect to that section, but because it isn't a perfect target, delete is a reasonable option too. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nice work @ Mark viking:. Personally I don't think a redirect is sensible in this case, but incorporating those citations into the Zinc fingers page might be. Not enough source material for a dedicated page, but a few sentences maybe. Please note my COI disclosure. Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I added the NYT source to the zinc finger article. So noted on your disclosure--as always, thank you for being up front about your COI status. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing at all convincing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of available sources confirming notability - the subject appears to fail WP:CORP - and for the overly promotional tone (only really a step away from blatant advertising), which given the notability issues doesn't seem like something that could be fixed by a rewrite. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤ 16:23, 3 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 keep. Appears to have been nominated in error. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Henry-Russell Hitchcock

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

(neelix) No sure on this one. His first name is Henry-Russell. We don't tend to do redirects from people's first names. We don't have Bert redirecting to Bertrand Russell for example. Does this make sense? Si Trew ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Alan Bennett has a lovely little anecdote he was in a cab and the driver said "you're that chap off the telly aren't you". Bennett said well yes I might be. The cab driver said "I had that Bertie Russell in the back of me cab the other day, so I asked him, well Lord Russell, what's it all about? And you know, the bugger couldn't tell me". Si Trew ( talk) 20:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. What does the existence of a bad redirect have to do with anything? A bare glance at the snippets found by a Google book search for his name reveals clear notability: "the book that established Henry-Russell Hitchcock as a pre-eminent American historian of modern architecture" ... "twenty-one original essays were written to honor a scholar who has transformed the study and teaching of architectural history in the United States". Google scholar finds more titles like "Henry-Russell Hitchcock: The Architectural Historian as Critic and Connoisseur" ( JSTOR  42620522) "Lewis Mumford, Henry-Russell Hitchcock and the Bay Region Style" (not online?), "Constructing Modernism, Berenice Abbott and Henry-Russell Hitchcock: A Re-creation of the 1934 Exhibition, the Urban Vernacular of the Thirties, Forties, …" [6], and "Curating history, exhibiting ideas: Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architectural exhibition practices at the MoMA" [7]. Clear pass of WP:GNG. If the nominator intended to delete the redirect Henry-Russell, leaving the article itself in place, this should be withdrawn and speedily closed; it is not the right forum for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep, as no valid rationale for deletion is given. As DE points out above, the notability of the subject is unquestionable here. In fact, the references present in the article are already sufficient to establish such notability. If there is a bad redirect somewhere else, then that redirect needs to be either modified or deleted. That's certainly no reason at all to delete this article. Nsk92 ( talk) 01:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Strong pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Just close it. No need to spend time on debating this. The wording indicates that SimonTrew ( talk · contribs) intended to nominate the redirect page Henry-Russell for deletion and accidentally nominated the article. The most likely explanation: an overreliance on semi-automated editing combined with far too little sleep. -- Hegvald ( talk) 07:11, 29 May 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.
Absolutely sometimes I miss and nominate the article by mistake I had no intention to do that but the redirect. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Usually I catch it but thanks User:Hegvald for catching it for me. I have no intention to delete any article but I do miss, I usually then revert myself but just missed this one, thanks for catching it. Si Trew ( talk) 20:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is to delete. Should the subject meet WP:GNG or plays in a fully pro league in future, do ask for a WP:REFUND or just recreate the article. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Baoringdao Bodo

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he has played youth football, and will play pro football in future. Neither of these confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Delete - seems to be WP:TOOSOON but article should be recreated if subject meets notability requirements in the future. Inter&anthro ( talk) 14:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still nothing at all convincing of any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom Spiderone 16:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NFOOTY, WP:TOOSOON. Although the ISL is fully pro, this is a youth team player who's never actually played in it, and there's no indication of notability beyond those. We don't have articles on every youth/trainee squad footballer at far more notable clubs.  Fosse    8► 16:33, 3 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. If anyone wants to continue the discussion as to whether this should be renamed or merged elsewhere it can be brought up on its talk page. J04n( talk page) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Timeline of senescence research

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

Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions about "breakthroughs" and such, supported by primary sources. Also containing inaccuracies (e.g., group selection is not a "theory of aging"). Randykitty ( talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I agree these sorts of lists shouldn't exist, as they inherently rely on a personal interpretation of events. A well-written article that follows coverage from reliable sources, on the other hand could potentially be of great value to the encyclopaedia. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Presuming the issue is with this being a timeline of research, rather than with the subject itself or with timelines themselves, it seems what would be needed are sources about the overarching subject which provide guidance about the sorts of things that should be included. There are indeed primary sources here, which is problematic, as yes, that would be original research to compile one's own selection of "greatest hits" but there are also citations like History of Research into Ageing/Senescence, A History of Life-Extensionism In The Twentieth Century, etc. which suggest it's not entirely reliant on primary sources. It also doesn't take more than a quick search to find plenty of other reliable sources with their own timelines on senescence/aging, which is a pretty typical standard for stand-alone lists on Wikipedia. I'll also add that this was created hours before the nomination (I deprodded it about an hour an a half after it was created), so I don't see why these aren't issues that couldn't possibly be addressed or even explained to the relatively new user who wrote the article before rushing to delete it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nobody is rushing here. AFD (and PROD as well) provide a whole week to show a subject is notable. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Well yes, but having your first article greeted immediately with an AfD notice is certainly a bit WP:BITEy. A novice editor does not know the timescales of the various WP processes. Tigraan Click here to contact me
In my estimation, an editor who has this as their very first edit, is bound to be familiar with AfD, too. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep as the issues mentioned-Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions ... supported by primary sources ...can be fixed...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hello. Here Wikisanchez. I created the page. I have no internet until tomorrow. Please be patient. I'll fix the problems as soon as possible. Greetings from Argentina. Wikisanchez ( talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Ozzie plus some of the issues are already being fixed by Wikisanchez. DeVerm ( talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Senescence or move to History of senescence and convert to prose. This isn't really a good subject for a list, but it would make either a good history section at the main article or possibly a split, depending on how long the prose turns out to be. ~ Rob Talk 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Please Randykitty at least point at the presumably unreliable sources. There are over fifty references on the page. Wikisanchez ( talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Hmm no, that is not the way it works. You do not put tons of sources and then demand every editor to read in detail every of them before listening to them. A couple of good references is enough to keep, thousands of bad ones have no effect. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Only a few examples: uroworldindata.org, Naturalpedia, several press releases, etc. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
ourworldindata.org is supported by Oxford University. Why wouldn't it be reliable? Wikisanchez ( talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"Supported" can mean many things (I guess here it means "is the web host"), it does not mean "exercizes editorial oversight". Here as Max Roser is the sole editor of the website, hence it is as self-published as you can get. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I think what Wikisanchez is asking isn't "will you do the work of going through the article so I don't have to" but "give me something to go on". If someone doesn't have experience navigating primary vs. secondary sources or Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and reliable sources, a phrase like "idiosyncratic opinions about 'breakthroughs' and such, supported by primary sources" might sound like a desirable thing, so it can be challenging to actually make meaningful improvements (at least the targeted sort that would satisfy critics). He should get to know those policies and dig through the sources to try to figure it out, of course (nobody should get special treatment), but more examples would probably be helpful.
Of course, I may be ascribing a thought process to Wikisanchez that isn't actually applicable :)
@Wikisanchez: Just to summarize a point that may not itself be totally clear: with an article like a timeline, citing studies and other primary research is ok, but those sources do not themselves justify including something. There's always a question of "is this important enough to include in a timeline" -- and answering that without a source is original research. In other words, the sources have the science and the sources also tell us what science is important. If an item in the timeline doesn't have a source independent of the researchers themselves that effectively says "this is important", it shouldn't be in there (even if you know it's important). Another point is that stricter rules can apply to sourcing for anything related to biomedical content on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
For example, I removed the last two entries in the timeline. This discovery may be important, but we need a source saying it's important, and we should never be citing press releases. This organization may be important, but we need something saying it's sufficiently important within the timeline of senescence research, and again should not be citing a press release. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Could someone lay out the argument for why a timeline is better than a history section written in prose? I'm just not seeing the benefit. I mentioned this with my vote above, but I wanted to specifically encourage replies to this point, because I haven't seen any counter-argument. ~ Rob Talk 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I think that would be better, but I don't think that means we have to set other editors' priorities if they don't agree. Ultimately, if we had a perfect array of articles on the subject, I think there would be room for a timeline. We may think the article should take priority, but some people like the timeline format. You could write the history section and someone could use it to build a timeline or someone could build a timeline and you could use it to write the history section. I don't think there should be an absolute requirement that one come before the other, depending on what people are into and how they think. E.g. writing prose might be prohibitively difficult to someone who can still contribute by putting together a timeline, or someone's disability (or just different way of thinking) may make more sense out of a visually linear and table-based timeline than reading prose. I don't know, and I'm obviously not saying someone who prefers timelines must have a disability or something -- just saying I don't see a compelling reason to say "do prose instead". That said, if people don't think this timeline is appropriate on its own merits, merging may be a perfectly reasoanble route -- but I think it should be evaluated on its own, not in relation to the status of other articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I covered events with secondary sources and removed some unreliable sources. I left ouroworldindata.org as reference providing it's well covered by media. The article is not exhaustive, partly due to the large amount of theories on aging, but most of the popular theories (those with high frequency on the internet) are included on this timeline.01:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Wikisanchez ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The topic seems notable although some of the sources don't really fulfil WP:RS. The amount of general information shows that the topic is verifiable and encyclopaedic. As to the question of using pros, I much prefer pros myself but this timeline format is understandable and, for me, is well done. - Pmedema ( talk) 17:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and restructure as History of senescence. I have to say that the scattering of pre-20th century philosophical thoughts does not site well beside the account of the modern development of the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Those philosophical thoughts were the science of that time. They were in charge when modern science didn't exist. Wikisanchez ( talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect - We don't need this, and putting things into a highly subjective timeline form rather than using standard prose isn't helpful. We already have: Life_extension#History_of_the_life_extension_movement. That whole page needs work, and that particular section is a particularly notable example. Basically anything here in this present page that's notable should be uprooted and planted over there. The stuff in this present page that isn't notable, such as the puffy press releases being used as citations, should just be gotten rid of.
Also going to note that if someone objects that historical research into life extension isn't the same thing as historical research into aging, then they're making a distinction without a strong difference in history. Individuals studied how exactly aging happens because of their interest in improving human lives. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Some of this can also go to Life_extension#Current_strategies_and_issues and Life_extension#Proposed_strategies too. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Merging a page isn't the same thing as outright just deleting it, so I tweaked my comment above to be clear. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 23:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sure, this page has issues, but WP:BEFORE really applies here. The unrealiable sources and the heavy reliance on primary sources can easily be fixed. What matters is the information is verified, and that the subject has beyond all doubt received enough coverage to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • BEFORE would apply if I had argued a lack of notability. That is not the case, I basically argue that WP:TNT applies. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:14, 6 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Giuseppe Zocco

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

Subject has a long list of mentions (both listed in the article and found during my BEFORE), but, on closer inspection, all appear to be passing mentions, not "significant," ROUTINE, not independent of the source, or unreliable, thus failing GNG.  Rebb ing  21:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing actually suggesting any solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Recommend keeping page intact, as "significant" direct, dedicated media coverage of subject has been added, including notable characterizations of subject. Additionally, added info backing up significance of firm he co-founded. Taken together, subject now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCOReilly ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and by himself, his achievements are not notable at all.

KoreanWon talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Retain Meets WP:GNG and subject's achievements are indeed notable: co-founded a leading VC firm which has backed some of the largest tech companies such as Facebook; he was called "one of the key VCs in Europe" by TechCrunch editor-at-large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpiven ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Please note that notability is not typically inherited: the fact that Mr. Zocco's firm may be notable does not make him notable. Rubbing elbows with notable companies and individuals and frequent mentions in the press fall far short of the significant and independent coverage described by GNG and BASIC. Rebb ing 18:48, 2 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

K: Secret Eye

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

Upcoming film which does not meet notability for films because there is no coverage in reliable sources. While the film may become notable after release, it is currently too soon. It should also be noted that the article creator's username is the same as the director's first name. Opencooper ( talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper ( talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Opencooper ( talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
in looking beyond the article:
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Secret Eye Abhirup Ghosh Rudranil Ghosh Rajatava Dutta Santanu Chakrobarty Chinmoy Pal
  • Delete and/or draftify per failing WP:NFF. Searches seem to indicate that the fillmaker is a film student, and even if ignoring the common-in-India first name "Abhirup" and a possible WP:COI, filming of this has not been confirmed, and the topic has not the wide coverage that we would prefer. We can wait and revisit the topic in a few months. It is not unsourcable, but THIS needs translation and while THIS does not confirm filming in text, its included movie stills are strongly indicative. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The film has an IMDB page and its Facebook and Twitter pages have shooting stills which establish that shooting has taken place. I think this complies with the terms of Wikipedia. This is the official facebook page [8]. This is the IMDB page [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Just existing isn't enough, articles in Wikipedia require coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Opencooper ( talk) 16:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Times of India is one of the biggest and most trusted newspapers in India. It has written about the film. This link has been shared [10]. I think this is a reliable enough source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Yes I saw the source. Unfortunately that's not enough. It's a short article while notability requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Two short news stories do not lend themselves to an encyclopedia article about the subject. Opencooper ( talk) 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Another source has been added. There are numerous film related wikis which have much lesser sources than K: Secret Eye yet they pass notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

There will always be other articles that might not meet our notability criteria, but that doesn't mean they won't be deleted nor that those films meet our standards. This deletion discussion is talking about this film in particular, so arguments should focus on it specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, that article is from the same newspaper as the previous source, the Prabasher Khaber. Notability requires coverage in multiple sources, and even if we included this one, it would still not constitute significant in-depth coverage. Opencooper ( talk) 05:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 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 redirect to List of Decepticons.  Sandstein  11:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cyclonus

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

This character article fails to establish notability. Other than a trivial "Top 8" reference, all the references reinforce fictional details and trivial toy details. TTN ( talk) 11:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge if there's anything that people want merging; I am, however, opposed to keeping as-is, as I do not see any evidence of real-world notability. While the article is very long, it seems to be mostly made up of trivial details. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to List of Decepticons for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - A Google search indicates the character will appear in Transformers (film series)#Transformers: The Last Knight (2017). If so, there will be plenty of real-world coverage for the character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 May 2016
    • If and when that coverage is forthcoming, the page can be recreated. Appearing film does not automatically grant notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. There are more hits on Google Books for this character than most of the others that have been nominated lately, but the results are basically trivial mentions, price guides, or novels. There isn't enough independent sourcing about the real-world aspects to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:33, 28 May 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 Product_recall#2016. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

CRF Frozen Foods recall

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

Just another news event. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"The company's products include 40 different brands names sold in all 50 states, as well as in Canada and Mexico. The recall continues to grow because other processed foods use CRF ingredients."
Also, per [12], "Products were both packaged for sale as individual products and repackaged by places like Piggly Wiggly, Kroger and ConAgra foods as ingredients in a host of other store-brand and private-label products for stores like Trader Joe's and Costco.
Also, retailers including Target and regional distributors such as Midwest grocery chain Hy-Vee Foods have recently recalled products made by Tokyo-based Ajinomoto Windsor due to the company recalling 70 of its Asian variety products that contain CRF vegetables — about 22 million kilograms worth — some of which were also sold in Canada and Mexico." -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's simply still nothing actually convincing for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above, seems an eminently sensible suggestion - this isn't really article material per WP:NOTNEWS but it's useful information to have *somewhere*.  Fosse    8► 16:42, 3 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 that the article meets NAUTHOR & GNG, (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Asumiko Nakamura

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

No notable works for EN Wikipedia. Is there enough to keep the author around? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep and suggesting withdrawn per WP:HEY, after the expansion it is clear that the subject passes GNG and NAUTHOR. Worth reminding the nominator her works being currently redlinked in en.wikipedia does not mean they are non-notable, and authors/works which are notable in Japan are perfectly suitable for having articles in en.wiki. Cavarrone 07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please note that the notability tag was placed in 2012, so she was not notable prior to that. That her Doukyusei manga got a film adaptation in 2016 does help her notability as well as her other works charting on Oricon in 2015, probably because of the anime film. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What a crappy argument! A notability tag placed in 2012 does not automatically mean she was not notable prior to that, except you are stating that every notability tag means the relevant article is not notable. Also, wathever she was notable or not in 2012, does not mean you are supposed to ignore coverage about her works in 2016! And obviously a manga of her adapted into a film and her other works receiving reviews do not just help but demonstrate notability, both for WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. And as you yourself apparently noted, she had already charted on Oricon back in 2013. Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Look at the article at 2012 [13] and then right before the AFD. [14] There's nothing that showed she was that notable at that time. There is now. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Speedy keep Lack of sources in English does not mean she is not notable when sources in Japanese are available. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Then provide those sources. Make sure they are secondary ones that are independent of the publisher or her blog. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
If you are arguing Asahi Shimbun, Oricon or ダ・ヴィンチニュース are unreliable or have a conflict of interest with the subject you should provide evidences . Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm talking about the state of the article at the time of the AFD. It was supported only by primaries such as JManga (publisher), and DMP (publisher). Nothing in the lead paragraph indicated that these works getting licensed by North America / Europe was a big deal to establish that she is notable beyond being some small author in Japan. This was all prior to the recent efforts by KurodaSho. Of course Oricon, Asahi, and D-Navi are reliable secondary sources. That's what the article needs. That, and the ANN references showing they are charting on Oricon and the news about the movie help justify keeping it. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 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. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Kieran Preston

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:41, 27 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fallen Agents Fund

Fallen Agents Fund (  | 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 does not comply with WP:N It does not list any reliable third party sources and I could not find any. Article creator has deleted tags and PROD without comment nor article improvement. DeVerm ( talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DeVerm ( talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DeVerm ( talk) 00:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see any coverage of this charity in independent reliable sources. That's kind of strange, but maybe it's too soon. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
NOTE: I found this online, which states; "The Fallen Agents Fund is a charitable organization with the goal of aiding and assisting the families of fallen Border Patrol Agents, weather they fell in the line of duty or off duty, weather they fell from injuries physical or mental. The Fallen Agents Fund has just obtained its 501(c)(3) status but has been working to improve the lives of the families of fallen agents for the past few years. With your help we can assist the families of those who have given the greatest sacrifice in service to our nation."
Notability, however, not determined just by that alone. Quis separabit? 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Deleting pages like these always feels weird because we of-course support the goals of such organizations, but that feeling is explicitly not reason to include it in WP. In this case, your quote comes from the website of this organization itself, which can be considered self promotion, rather than a reliable secondary source. We need notable newspapers, magazines etc. publishing interviews, yearly donations and such before the organization becomes "notable" enough for WP. DeVerm ( talk) 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

NOTE: Added a referance from bizpedia it gives founders names and some location information. Im not sure if thats the secondary source were looking for or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorleyhey ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete With regret. The 501c3 filing is available online, but I cannot find secondary sources to support notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it's rather newly founded and simply nothing actually for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things - the sources we'd need to make an article on a charitablie initiative like this won't be available for a long time yet.  Fosse    8► 16:45, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delilah Alvares

Delilah Alvares (  | 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 beauty pageant winner, occasional theatre actor and a writer without any substantive references to her work. The many refs fail to establish notability . Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   19:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – As per WP:GNG [1] says that it needs to have reliable sources to pass it, and it clearly have. Are you telling me GOA doesn't make her notable? Well we should also propose Aditi Vats, every girl in Category:2013_beauty_pageants_in_India (also 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016), Gail Nicole Da Silva and many other hundreds of "beauty pageant winners". The ocasionally part of your sentence, shows how wrong you are when researching the subject, will cite this part from Delilah Alvares:

Four wonders (2007) as the mental sister, Ms. Brown (2007) as the lead character, Drunkard (2005) as the lead character, Murder Mystery (2007) in a double role of a mentally challenged child and the psychopath, Schizophrenia (2008) as the schizophrenic, The prostitute from Baina (2006) as the prostitute, that was critically reviewed negatively as being too vulgar for theatre and Money makes the world go round (2006) as the supporting character.

Also: [2]

She was then offered short films Expect the Unexpected (2011)[12], Poonam (2011), Kismat (2012), supporting characters in feature movies and television shows like Diary of a Gypsy (2012-2013) and others, special appearance on Channel V – Dil, Dosti, Dance, TV commercials like Rubicon fruit juice, Fastrack, CMYK, Canon Power shot – what makes us click (2012) with Anushka Sharma and music videos, among which were Khabir Moraes's "Gopan Io" by Milroy Goes (2010) and "Vote Tit for Tat" by Remo Fernandes (2012)

Model for:

L'Oreal-Bridal look, SummerTime 2011, Music festival-2011, Mr. Goa 2010, North-Ease Breeze show, Monty Sally, Wendell Rodricks, Verma d'mello, Jyostsna Bhat, Philu Martins, Yana Nagoba, Gitanjali Jewellery,[14] and worked with many photographers around the world like Frimson's Chicago, Walk through magazine-Dubai, Marlboro-United Kingdom, Prasad Pankar, Fabian Rodrigues, Seema Amonkar, Jayavanti Loundo, Henry Nazareth, Datta Gawade, Siddhesh Naik, Brijesh Kakodkar, Krupa Tamhankar, Chetana Bhat, Mubarak Khan, Ryan D'souza, Ashok Pol, Gautam Pai, Pooja Lawande Karmali, Nidhi Tar, Gautam Karkal, Pratik Chari, Manohar Chari, Hemant Parab, Ashley D'souza, Ashu Dhond, Ashwin Shukla, Sheldon Rodrigues, Sharad Khot Photography, Au Point photography, 'Out of the Box' Photography, Crispino Dourado and many more.

And the "Writer" without any notable work will refer this:

Alvares has authored a fiction novel series, The Maze published by Christoph, Matthews Publishing, New York

To start; The Maze is a very popular series worldwide, make sure to do some research [3] AND Christopher Matthews Publishing is notable in the indie area of the books. [4]

IMO, this actually meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. But since your attacks directly to the subject as "many ref fails", I am happy to call WP:ARS. -- OGfromtheGut ( talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://pretty-hot.com/delilah-alvares/
  2. ^ http://awesomegang.com/delilah-alvares/
  3. ^ http://christophermatthewspub.com/the-maze/
  4. ^ http://www.bookbuzzr.com/MontanaYank
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Anthropocene and Kazakhstan

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

We already have an article for Anthropocene. The rest of the article appears to be about a "Green Bridge" initiative in Kazakstahn. However the whole is much more an essay rather than a Wikipedia article and I see no notability here for the Green Bridge initiative of Kazakhstan. This appears to be a dog's dinner of an article that needs to be completely restructured and thought through and should probably be titled Green Bridge Partnership Programme, although on present showing, I would doubt whether that would meet WP:GNG. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and has a distinct promotional feel to it.   Velella   Velella Talk   19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Reads like an essay but could potentially be a future article if the project is notable. Cursory searches show a lot of similar phrasing to sources from UNDP and UN ESCAP, but not enough to qualify it for G12. RA0808 talk contribs 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this is apparently for the that subject specifically and there's simply nothing else to actually suggest this has achieved any solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 3 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. J04n( talk page) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Walmart greeter

Walmart greeter (  | 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 see no reason to have an article specifically about Walmart greeters, as nothing distinguishes them from greeters in general, whether at Home Depot, at Costco, at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or at the local stores we patronized in my town in the 1970s (demonstrating that Walmart doesn't even have the distinction of having introduced the concept). Largoplazo ( talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If this article gets deleted, we should still probably cover the subject of greeters at any business at a new article that doesn't currently exist, because Greeter is about people who welcome tourists. Everymorning (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Quite right, I saw that article and was thinking as well that it would also make sense to have a generic one about greeters at businesses. Largoplazo ( talk) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep BUT PROVIDED as per above rename and generalise. For example: KMart in Australia has greeters. Bunnings in Australia has them. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to greeting per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If someone feels ambitious enough to create an article about greeters, go right ahead, but until then we should make a sub-section at greeting about professional "greeters." -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Walmart greeter, unlike generic greeters in Home Depot or whatever, is a big meme in America and a big cultural stereotype. It's not a coincidence that Forbes or the Wall Street Journal announce the come back of the iconic greeters in Wal-Mart, when there's no any similar article about greeters in Home Depot or Costco. I did create this article precisely because of a piece of comedy on TV (it was maybe Bill Maher, not sure) related to Walmart greeter that my wife had to explain to me because I was unaware of the thing. I think it would have been interesting to know this on Wikipedia ; In fact, even on Wikipedia, there was several occurence of Walmart greeter in several article (often related to comedy). -- Deansfa ( talk) 13:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what's iconic about Walmart greeters in particular. If retailer X happened to have instituted some policy change regarding, say, its checkout clerks, and then changed things back to the way they were, and this happened to be reported in the press, that wouldn't mean that checkout clerks of X have any particular notability. In either case, what articles are about isn't the staff, it's about the policy change, and I would apply WP:NEVENT as well as WP:NOTNEWS to that. Largoplazo ( talk) 15:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "There's lots of articles of major newspapers over the years": Yet all the links you provided here are about the same inextricably associated pair of events. As for "iconic": If a newspaper article reports that a person about whom Wikipedia has an article is "irrepressible", does Wikipedia also report that the person is "irrepressible"? Let's not confuse a writer's casual, abstract characterization conveying his own subjective impression with objective, concrete information obtained by the source through careful research. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Between you who explains that you have greeters in your local store, and a financial prominent newspaper that characterized Wal-Mart greeters as iconic, I prefer believing the reliable source over your local life. It's how we write article on Wikipedia. Letterman didn't label John McCain as a local store greeter during his presidential campaign in 2008, he labelled him as a Wal-Mart greeter. What I'm trying to explain is that beyond the position itself, "Wal-Mart greeter" is used as a stereotype in America, is a subject of memes, and a topic used in several pieces of comedy (like for example this piece of comedy by Jeff Dunham about becoming a Wal-Mart greeter). -- Deansfa ( talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You continue to confuse information in which one has confidence when it comes from a reliable source, with a casual, non-informative, subjective epithet like "iconic" tossed out there by the person writing the text, reflecting no more than a personal impression.
A number of sources returned from a Google Books search on store greeters] restricted to books published before 1980 confirm my recollection that Walmart didn't originate the concept. These include a 1957 work mentioning the position at Hechinger home improvement stores and a 1960 work explaining the role of greeters at Selfridge's. So any source that claims that Walmart did create the position has undermined its own reliability.
If you want to write about the Walmart greeter as a meme, then you'll need to find reliable sources discussing that meme or else you are engaging in original research/synthesis. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It's an article about Wal-Mart greeter here, not about the concept of greeters. I never pretended that Wal-Mart invented the concept, which you implied that I did. Also I provided diversity of sources, duration of coverage as asked in the WP recommendation you provided. I never based my opinion on my local bodega having a greeter when I was young. I even went further and showed that "Wal-Mart greeter" was a stereotype or an archetype used in several pieces of comedy in America, citing Bill Maher and also sharing a link to a Jeff Dunham piece about Wal-Mart greeters. You never stopped talking about your personal experience as rationale for why this article should be deleted. I prefer diversity of sources and duration of coverage.-- Deansfa ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I mentioned my personal experience exactly one time, but, sure go ahead and say that I "never stopped talking about [my] personal experiences". If you happen to have found a number of places where people mentioned Walmart greeters, and you're concluding from that that Walmart greeters in particular are a meme, a stereotype, an archetype, that's your own synthesis. In the second sentence of the article you implied that Walmart created the role when you wrote that "The role was created by Sam Walton in the 1980s." "Greeter" is a role; it isn't as though being a Walmart greeter is a different role from being a greeter, any more than being a Walmart cashier is a different role from being a cashier. So your wording implies that Walton created the greeter concept. If you mean to say that "Sam Walton introduced the greeter role to his stories in 1980" that would be clearer if that's what you meant. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • To expand on my point about synthesis: Mention in comedy pieces by David Letterman and Jeff Dunham doesn't qualify as substantial coverage in reliable sources. If you are drawing conclusions about the prominence of the Walmart greeter concept from those, that's your synthesis from your individual observations. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • How would you feel about the argument that because the "Attention, Kmart shoppers" announcement has become a well-known meme, it follows that Kmart shoppers are genuinely notable beyond the trivial intersection of the respective notabilities of "shoppers" and "Kmart", and a Kmart shopper article is sustainable? There's even plenty of coverage of Kmart shoppers in reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Largoplazo ( talk) 18:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There's no bibliographical source about Kmart shopper or Costco greeters. No article in major newspaper around the world. For Wal-Mart greeters, there is. There's an entire chapter about the history of Wal-Mart greeters in the book The Wal-Mart Way by Don Soderquist, there's dozens of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the HuffPo. It's called duration of coverage (2005-2016), diversity of sources (books, articles of several major newspaper around the world), reliability of published sources. We can even extend the topic and write about its usage in popular culture and comedy. I respect and understand your point of view, but I really believe that this one topic is eligible to have its own article. Have a nice Memorial Day. -- Deansfa ( talk) 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What is a bibliographical source, as opposed to, say, the five sources I gave you (one of which was from a book, if that's what you intended by the use of "bibliographical")? (You say no major newspaper has written about them. Really? Did you look?) If a book about Walmart talks about Walmart greeters—well, what other greeters is a book about Walmart going to discuss? It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion that Walmart greeters have any notability independent of the notability of Walmart. There is also duration of coverage, diversity of sources, etc., with respect to Kmart shoppers. "Attention, Kmart shoppers" became a meme in popular culture and comedy. Here's a book (yes, yet another book) all about Kmart with an entire chapter on Kmart's failure to focus properly on its shoppers. I'm not seeing anything that distinguishes the status of Kmart shoppers from the status of Walmart greeters for purposes of assessing individual notability.
In that Soderquist book I do not see a chapter that's all about greeters, and I see only half a dozen pages or so that even have the word "greeter" on them. On the other hand, it does have a chapter all about Walmart supplier relationships. Do Walmart suppliers therefore have their own notability as a class meriting treatment in a freestanding article?
Oh, it just came to my attention: Soderquist was the vice chairman and COO of Walmart. Not exactly an independent source. Largoplazo ( talk) 19:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
If you think you can write an article about Kmart shoppers, good for you! I'm absolutely not interested by this topic. By the way, I did read the articles you shared and they're not centered about Kmart shoppers: To make people believe that Wall Street Journal/Forbes/Bloomberg articles centered on Wall Mart greeter are the same than local radio station reports about the closing of a Kmart store in Florida is a good try. -- Deansfa ( talk) 19:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Wallis, Jay. "Longview Kmart shoppers not surprised to see it closing down". www.cbs19.tv. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  2. ^ Turner, Marcia Layton (2003-08-08). Kmart's Ten Deadly Sins: How Incompetence Tainted an American Icon. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN  9780471481188.
  3. ^ FOX. "Hayward Kmart shoppers treated to 'Pay Away The Layaway'". KTVU. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  4. ^ "Kmart shoppers saddened by news of Duluth closure". Duluth News Tribune. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  5. ^ "Kmart layaway customers get bad news for Christmas". ABC7 San Francisco. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  • You missed a trick. Several sources such as Ortega 1999, p. 202 credit the Crowley origin tale to "company folklore". Others trace it to a 1990s biography of Walton, some even quoting it directly. In the meantime, McClurg 2014, pp. 145–146 tells a quite different origin, at length. Dunnett & Arnold 2006 is yet more detailed coverage of the subject as a whole, incidentally, cited as primary source material by a few secondary sources such as Scharoun 2012, pp. 125–126.

    Uncle G ( talk) 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

    • Ortega, Bob (1999). In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and how Wal-Mart is Devouring the World. Kogan Page Publishers. ISBN  9780749431778.
    • McClurg, Bob (2014). The Tasca Ford Legacy: Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday!. CarTech Inc. ISBN  9781613251287.
    • Dunnett, Jane; Arnold, Stephen J. (2006). "Falling Prices, Happy Faces: Organizational Culture at Wal-Mart". In Brunn, Stanley D. (ed.). Wal-Mart World: the World's Biggest Corporation in the Global Economy. New York: Routledge. ISBN  9781135929138.
    • Scharoun, Lisa (2012). "The Rise of the Big Box". America at the Mall: The Cultural Role of a Retail Utopia. McFarland. ISBN  9780786490509.
  • Merge - to greeter. This has been an interesting discussion and it proves that there is a debated history of this position covered in the literature. I propose that a redirect be left standing and that the material be generalized and merged to the extant piece on greeter, with a redirect established for store greeter. Walmart does not seem to have invented the position, so attributing something special to that chain via a freestanding article seems inappropriate, but there is definitely GNG oompf to support a piece on the generalized position — in which article extensive study of the Walmart case would be fully appropriate. Carrite ( talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The greeter article is entirely about social tourism and volunteers who welcome tourists in their city or region. This article doesn't really fit in there, in my opinion, because the topics are vaguely similar in their general nature, but are not particularly related in nature. Apples and oranges. North America 1000 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG, thus qualifying for a standalone article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America 1000 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  • That's better than before, since at least there's a diversity of topics rather than being focused on the one pair of events where Walmart dismissed its greeters, then reinstituted them (which is really about Walmart, not about its greeters). I'm still skeptical, because it looks like cherry-picking, not making it clear why Walmart greeters are notable independent of greeters in general. Walmart has a huge number of stores so, yes, many greeters are Walmart greeters, but I'm still not sure I see that they have special significance beyond that to this particular intersection of two categories, "Walmart" and "greeter".
I arbitrarily ran a web search on "united flight attendant". I found such diverse articles as these: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. I'm not sure that on the strength of these that United Airlines flight attendants have notability distinct from that of every other airline's flight attendants who, among them, engage in labor disputes and, individually, get involved in all sorts of newsworthy occurrences. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Deansfa. I would generally find myself leaning to merge here, but the greeters at Walmart specifically are clearly notable as they've been covered by numerous reliable sources, and are considered a meme in America, thus meeting the standards for WP:GNG and qualifying to have their own, independent article. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:05, 6 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Shigeru Shibuya

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

Gene Starwind in Outlaw Star is a lead role, but I'm not sure how notable Iketeru Futari is or any of his other roles. Is that enough to keep him around? GPH VADB shows 89 roles. ANN has no news articles on him though. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the Japanese wiki has only one primary source. Since we cant find coverage in third party sources, the person fails WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing overall suggesting he can be confirmed for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tamotsu Nishiwaki

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

No lead roles in any major productions. Cell games announcer is low on the supporting cast for Dragon Ball Kai. Unclear what else is there. 85 roles on VADB though. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any meaningful content that needs to be kept, the article can always be re-created down the line with bio info added if the person proves to be notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I also concur there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tamao Hayashi

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

Her most notable role is Nene-chan in Shin-chan, but other than that she has a lead role in Dororonpa (not a notable title for EN Wikipedia) and um, what else? That doesn't seem like enough to pass notability. 56 roles in VADB though. [32] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 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 Speedied as a hoax, and creator blocked indef. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Desmond James O'Donnell

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

De-prodded so bringing it here. Appears to be a made up person. I can find no evidence that anyone by this name ever competed for Ireland at the Olympics. Edits by the creator elsewhere seem to confirm that this may be the case. Even if he is real then this is an unsourced BLP. Basement12 (T. C) 18:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The Sports Reference site shows no such Irish athlete at the 1976 Olympics, nor any other. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above; also my own search similarly uncovered nothing. SR also indicates that the youngest Irish athlete was 20 years old; the subject would have been 16, which is extraordinarily young for an Olympian in men's track events. Presumably this would have been likely to draw comment from reliable sources at the time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Yūji Fujishiro

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

I can't figure out what lead roles he is notable for in anime. ANN highlights only one role in Voltron. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The Japanese page lists a much wider range of credits as you might expect. Of the titles I recognised i'm not sure they are much more than mostly minor roles, but there might be some buried in there. Prolific yes, notable not so sure. SephyTheThird ( talk) 04:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless anything else better such as archives can be found and examined, because the current works are nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see this person as being notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:26, 3 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.  Sandstein  11:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program

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

Fails WP:ORG. Programs at institutions generally do not get Wikipedia articles. Any useful content can be reintegrated into California Institute of Integral Studies. jps ( talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing particularly convincing solid independent notability has been achieved yet, nothing convincing for its own article thus Delete. Notifying DGG for schools analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. , essentially an advertisement for a non-notable program. In practice, individual programs within a department are almost always much too minute for separate articles. Not even the School of Consciousness and Transformation which offers this as one of its 10 programs would normally get an article of its own. DGG ( talk ) 13:06, 3 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.  Sandstein  11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Combat Hopak

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

Non-notable martial art - recent creation (2000s) based on national dance. Only reference is to its home page - no indication of notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG and also appears to fail WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing to suggest the depth of solid independent notability, would be best mentioned as part of something else, not as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Chudi Ejekam

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

Following sock puppets of another undisclosed paid editor, I have discovered this article as another promotional piece. Creator is blocked as a sockpuppet and SPI says all edits by all accounts of this editor were for COI promotion of clients without disclosing them as paid edits which is a violation of Wikipedia Terms of Service.

This article is a similar promo BLP about a non notable individual who does not make the cut to be on wikipedia. The content is also clearly promotional with statements such as "played a vital role in the formal retail revolution" and is most likely aimed at acquiring rankings in google search which is another abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a SEO tool. Other proponents and edits possibly include BLP violations that accuse involvement in scam but they do not match up to WP:CRIME criteria as well so this individual is non notable on both basis.

I have done some google searching and all websites that come up are bare mentions of the individual, drive by quotes by him in news sources again with bare mentions, PR sources and results that are other individuals by the same or similar name.

  • Hereby, I nominate this article for deletion and !vote delete on the basis of WP:GNG, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI and not to mention undisclosed paid editing by a proven sock puppet. Drewziii ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Any article created by a sock of a banned user qualifies for immediate Speedy Delete per WP:G5, and I have tagged it as such. No need for the full AfD process on this one. - SanAnMan ( talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I declined the G5. The master was blocked on May 1, and the puppet created the article on April 30. To qualify for G5, a puppet must create the article after either the master or another puppet was blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing at all actually suggesting any solid independent notability by far, there's nothing minimally acceptable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 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. G11, promotional DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Rogue Initiative

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

Does not seem to be a notable company by our standards. The coverage isn't there, and it's hard to tell what they actually accomplished. Drmies ( talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • From this video games reliable sources search, I might suggest there is indeed reliably sourced coverage of this company (and thus notability). Especially, this USA Today article introduces in-depth coverage, which is presently the 3rd citation in the article. Keep. -- Izno ( talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, but it "introduces" coverage? I'm not sure what that means. This USA Today article has six paragraphs, three of which aren't about the subject, and the other three (it explicitly says) simply rehash a press release--even the quote from the "veteran filmmaker" comes straight out of the PR clipping. So it's not in-depth anything (and it's lousy "journalism" too). Drmies ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources are a mixture of pages barely mentioning Rogue Initiative, PR and other promotional and publicity sites, etc. Written as a promotional article on a non-notable subject, toned down by later editors, but still without the sourcing required to show notability by Wikipedia's standards. Also, in a Google search, almost all the first couple of pages of hits are PR sites, non-independent and/or non-reliable sources such as the company's own web site, LinkedIn, FaceBook, Wikipedia, pressreleasejet.com, etc. Really no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still a year-within newly started company with nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability as its own article. Delete and we can wait for better perhaps some years from now. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 27 May 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Andy Brandt

Andy Brandt (  | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 14:55, 27 May 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 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Said Daftari

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

PROD previously removed. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Never played in a FPL so fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 ( talk) 15:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 07:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Comment Hasn't the subject of this article played for the national team? It does not say so in national football teams.com but is mentioned in the French and German Wikipedia versions. Inter&anthro ( talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Inter&anthro: - and where are the reliable sources in those articles supporting those claims (ie that he actually played)? Giant Snowman 15:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
There a fare share of sources and websites that mention him as an international footballer, but none show any proof of what games he actually played. In all likely hood it was probably an unofficial friendly or something of the sort. The player probably fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:51, 30 May 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 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cosmetic Solutions

Cosmetic Solutions (  | 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 page fails the general notability guideline. I am not sure, why it was created. Zunailmeredia ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: The nominating user has been reported to the " Orangemoody" team via email as a suspected sock. The other article nominated for deletion by this user on the same day is a BLP and the subject of that article has reported receiving a blackmail email. The case is OTRS ticket:2016042810015351. -- Krelnik ( talk) 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. References are either non-independent or are mere autogenerated directory listings. Deli nk ( talk) 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. I won't offer an official !vote at this time, but the references currently in the article appear to be run of the mill business directory listings which do not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. -- Finngall talk 14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only sources are listings, and the current content would need to be TNT'd to be encyclopedic. czar 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: This is not the yellow pages. --  dsprc  [talk] 19:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still nothing at all for any actual notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jenna Rose Simon

Jenna Rose Simon (  | 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 minor actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:40, 1 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 redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ashton Fletcher Irwin

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

Unreffed BLP Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete< Unreferenced; character is not notable independently of 5 seconds of summer. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Change to redirect as below. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer for now (unless and until he becomes separately noteworthy) seems the obvious solution - David Gerard ( talk) 12:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: to band article 5 Seconds of Summer. The only notability lies within the band. Fylbecatulous talk 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer as a plausible redirect from band member. -- Michig ( talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect because there's nothing to suggest these current contents can be acceptable for notability anytime soon, nothing to suggest there's a near future of his own article happening. I nearly closed this myself but delete would be best before redirect. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 3 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Conor O' Grady

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NARTIST. All references in the article are to social media and blogs. I did not find any significant coverage of this subject when I PRODed it six months ago nor do I find any now. Jbh Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources. O'Grady had his first solo show and no other notable achievements that have received significant attention. Mduvekot ( talk) 14:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's loads of contents but nothing actually convincing for solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 3 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.  Sandstein  21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Robert Buntine

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

Might not meet notability standards as per WP:BIO.  TOW  05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I created this article in the belief that a major obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald suggested notability. Within minutes of posting the bio it has been nominated for deletion. I was surprised anyone had been able to read it let alone read the references provided to gain an insight into Buntine's importance to education in Australia. It was my intention to create bios for his mother, father and grandfather given their notability as well. I would then create a "Buntine Family" article. At this stage I won't create any links to other pages that are relevant but will leave the article as an orphan until others comment. I trust that those who do comment know something about the subject of independent schools in Australia and in particular the sport of rowing ... I have noticed this is often not the case in these discussions. In regards to rowing the importance of Buntine's coaching of future Olympians needs to be considered but I'm loathe to waste my time adding this topic when the article is under threat. Castlemate ( talk) 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I have now added links to the many international rowers who were influenced by Buntine as a coach. I hope someone with knowledge of King's old boys from this category will add their names to the list. Castlemate ( talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
As a confirmed non-deletionist of anything, I must, however, strongly defer to the superior comments made regarding this articles subject, and as it pertains to WP policy, by @ Mendaliv: and therefore change my opinion from keep to neutral. Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I can't bring myself to believe, nor can I find any evidence, that SMH changes its editorial policy when it comes to publishing obituaries, no matter who has written them. Therefore, and when considering this source as valid, this articles subject meets the basic criteria, in my opinion. Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 10:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Since he is dead the bar for providing actual citations is lower. I am confident that more citations are in the wings and that this article should therefore not be deleted. Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 22:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 04:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reality check (UPDATE: Delete) - I don't doubt that Buntine was an outstanding coach and a great mentor to many young rowers, but he does not fit into WP:TEACHER, and I don't see much by way of a more general assertion of notability. Aside from the SMH obituary, the sources are either primary (published by various schools), or don't mention him at all (bio pages for Olympic and other rowers, SMH article about his brother in law). The only independent, pre-death source is a report that mentions him in one line as a coach of a victorious school crew, which I would argue does not meet "significant coverage". I am not familiar with the weight newspaper obituaries carry as evidence toward GNG, so I'll refrain from !voting for now, but there is certainly no "lower bar" for providing citations merely because he is no longer alive. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 06:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Yeti Hunter: I would think instead of teacher this articles subject falls more within Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Olympic and Paralympic Games (Why isn't rowing included on this list?) as his notability in the Rowing (sport) is quite accomplished. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Cheers @ Picomtn:, after posting I did think that WP:NSPORT would be more applicable. Having reviewed that policy, I am less convinced of Buntine's claim to notability. See e.g. WP:NTRACK, which has a notability guideline for track-and-field coaches, saying they are presumed notable if they coached olympic or world championship athletes during their period of accomplishment. Although Buntine coached numerous rowers who went on to become olympians, he only coached them during their school years, not as olympians or world champions. Even this claim is not supported by the references given in the article (the Geelong College obituary does not mention any olympic rowers by name, and none of the citations for the olympians mention Buntine); it thus appears to be original research. Suggest this entry would be more appropriate for a geaneology and family history wiki such as Familypedia. – Yeti Hunter ( talk) 09:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
With regard to the comparison to Steve Gladstone, coaching for many years at a top US university (particularly one renowned for rowing prowess) is a big step above a high-school coach in assumed notability, even if college-level rowing is not "the highest level" of the sport. Gladstone has top-level sources (eg NYT) with non-trivial coverage of his coaching various Ivy-league crews, so he is on very solid ground with the GNG. I'm not so sure about Buntine where the only GNG sources are obituaries; I would like to get an experienced editor or two to comment on how obituaries are generally treated w.r.t. notability.- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 10:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Hi @ Yeti Hunter: Thank you so much for your very constructive comments, however, using the guideline for track-and-field coaches, I believe, is not appropriate for this articles subject and, instead, WP:NCOLLATH should be used and that says: coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. So then the question becomes has this coach been the subject of non-trivial media coverage? And the answer to that is yes as evidenced by his obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald [1] that says: He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College. Next, and as evidenced by the facts, during his years at Newington College, where he was the rowing coach, 7 of their rowers became Olympic medal winners. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/bob-buntine-beloved-teacher-coached-rowers-to-historic-victories-20140530-zrsyh.html
@ Picomtn: Buntine was not a college-level coach. I have dropped a note at WP:EAR to ask about using obituaries as a basis for notability; will weigh back in after getting advice there. Cheers, Yeti Hunter ( talk) 10:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Question Hi @ Yeti Hunter: Now I’m really confused. With Geelong College saying Bob Buntine is best known as a teacher and talented rowing coach at Newington College, Sydney where he was Deputy Headmaster for over 20 years until his retirement in 1996. [1] and The Sydney Morning Herald [2] saying He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College, how can it be stated that he was not a college-level coach?

References

  1. ^ http://gnet.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au:8080/wiki/BUNTINE-Robert-Walter-1929-2014.ashx
  2. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/bob-buntine-beloved-teacher-coached-rowers-to-historic-victories-20140530-zrsyh.html
@ Picomtn: WP:NCOLLATH refers to "college" in the American sense, ie tertiary education institutions. While some of Buntine's schools might have "college" in their name, they are actually high schools - not directly comparable. – Yeti Hunter ( talk) 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I am advised that obituaries are generally considered ok only if published in the main body of the paper, by employed journalists. This is not the case, and in any case the content of the obituary does not point to any assumed notability under WP:TEACHER or WP:NHSPHSATH. Therefore, delete (I'll repeat my suggestion to migrate to a genealogy wiki like Familypedia, for which this content seems perfect with multiple family connections mentioned.). -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG having a substantial body of non-trivial coverage in mainstream sources. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NHSPHSATH. We've got an obit in the Sydney Morning Herald that's clearly not a reliable source. When the SMH prints a news article about a recently deceased person, rather than an obit placed by a third party, they appear to carry the article in the mix with their other main articles. The dedicated obituaries page where this appears is within the SMH's "Comment, Opinion, Writers" section, which consists of opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and obituaries. This indicates that obits published in that section are reader-submitted, presumably paid for, and not subject to editorial oversight or journalistic writing in the same way that a main article would be, and therefore it's inappropriate to consider it a reliable source. WP:NHSPHSATH applies, rather than WP:NCOLLATH, because, while Buntine was a coach at Newington College, that school is a boarding school for boys, and not a post-secondary institution, which is the level of athletics NCOLLATH was designed to address. If we consider this either within the scope of GNG or NHSPHSATH, we have a case of a gentleman who does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This comment is ill informed. The SMH does not publish paid obituaries. Obituaries and death notices are quite different things. The Herald published an obituary of Robert Buntine. If you go to the Herald website to "Comment" and drop down the box "Obituaries" you will see where the Buntine obituary was published. It has the most recent obits and this statement: "Obituaries are written by Herald staff or contributors, but we welcome information from relatives and friends. Contact the obituaries editor on (02) 9282 2742 or timelines@smh.com.au. Click here for information on death notices, finding archived obituaries and buying reproductions of published Fairfax content." That was where and how the obituary was published. You may not agree with its decision to print certain obituaries but please don't make up theories about editorial oversight at the SMH that have no basis in fact. As for rowing there are many ways to proceed to Olympic selection post secondary school but wether Newington is one type of school or otherwise is irrelevant. One fact remains and that is no fewer than seven rowers coached by Buntine won international honours in that sport. Castlemate ( talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
"Herald staff or contributors" - the Buntine obituary was apparently written by David Roberts, Jon Wickham and Michael Smee. All three are colleagues of Buntine's and not staff of the SMH; Roberts is head of the Newington secondary campus, Wickham was headmaster at Kings and Smee was headmaster at Newington; Wickham and Smee gave eulogies at his funeral (see Newington newsletter). The eulogy was not staff-written, and thus is on thin ground for GNG and independence from the subject. WP:NHSPHSATH requires coverage to "clearly" go beyond routine, and this does not do so. Neither does the fact that a number of his school rowers later went on to have successful sporting careers confer notability. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The Herald, Sydney's major daily paper, were happy with the qualifications of the contributors and it was not a paid obituary. An obituary does not come out of thin air and who better to write it than an archivist (you have the wrong David Roberts) and the headmasters of two of the most distinguished schools in the country both honoured by the Order of Australia. All I ask is that contributors to this discussion get their facts right ... this was not a paid obituary. This was a substantial obituary written in a substantial newspaper about a substantial teacher/coach who played a substatial role in the sporting lives of seven substantial international/Olympic medalist. This is not a trivial life nor is it a trivial obituary that supports it. Castlemate ( talk) 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nobody is saying it was a paid obituary, and certainly nobody is saying Buntine's life was trivial. I think of my own high-school rowing coach and what a remarkable impact he had on my life. But is he notable for Wikipedia? The obituary did not appear in the main section of the paper, and was not written by SMH journalists. That makes it at best borderline WP:ROUTINE, and for a high-school coach we need better than borderline. The seven olympic medalists may be notable, but Buntine does not WP:INHERIT that notability - he has to be independently notable. I'm afraid it does not look like he is. - Yeti Hunter ( talk) 00:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

It appeared in Timelines which is the main obituary section of the paper. Please desist from saying otherwise as it is wrong. The vast majority of obituaries in the Herald are not written by SMH staff but by other contributors. The compararison to your teacher is trivial as you do not assert that he had an obituary printed in a major city based daily paper and he did not coach those that went on to Olympic careers. Throw all the Wikipedia conventions at this topic that you can find but stop incorrectly asserting that this is somehow a less than normal published obituary in the SMH. It is what it is ... an SMH Obituary. Castlemate ( talk) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

So it's in the main obits section of the paper's website, and not written by a journalist with the paper. That's not a reliable source. The question of whether it's paid or unpaid is only one factor in the analysis of whether an obituary is a reliable source. Coverage in unreliable sources like this sort of obituary will not be seen as contributing to the significant coverage prong of WP:GNG. Furthermore, as has been noted, this gentleman was a rowing coach at a primary or secondary school, which means that WP:NCOLLATH does not apply. WP:PROF hasn't been shown to apply either. From the guideline: School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. Rather, they are evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession. There is no sport-specific guideline for rowing, though this doesn't really matter, considering the sport-specific notability guidelines only refer to professional athletes; school athletics are, by definition, at the amateur level. As far as Olympic-level participation, my understanding here is that Buntine was never an Olympic rowing team's coach or trainer, but had people he coached or trained go on to participate in the Olympics later in life. That does not confer notability either. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Here's a source-by-source breakdown from what's in the article, and why I would advise the closing admin to discount the !votes that merely say he has significant coverage:
  1. "Bob Buntine: Beloved teacher coached rowers to historic victories": Unreliable obituary. Moreover, indicates that Buntine never coached or participated in the Olympics himself.
  2. "Buntine, Walter Murray (1866–1953)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his paternal grandfather. Does not mention the article subject at all.
  3. "Buntine, Gladys Selby (Jim) (1901–1992)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his mother. Does not mention the article subject at all.
  4. "BUNTINE, Robert Walter (1929-2014)", Heritage Guide to The Geelong College: Short memorial article hosted by a former employer. It does rely on the SMH obit, which harms its independence, but it's a secondary source, so it would probably contribute to the coverage under GNG.
  5. "Inspirational high-flier": SMH book review. Does not mention Buntine whatsoever.
  6. "King's wins rowing after 47 years": Coverage of the King's School (secondary school) rowing team, not of Buntine himself. Buntine gets mentioned in one sentence. Does not contribute to GNG, does not contribute to WP:NHSPHSATH.
  7. The King's Herald for 21 March 2014: Unreliable school newsletter. These are essentially marketing materials for donors and parents. Probably not independent coverage.
  8. Google.com.au: Google's landing page has nothing to do with this article.
  9. Australian honours for Michael Harvey Smee: Doesn't mention Buntine whatsoever.
  10. "Great Master, Educator and Coach brought victory across GPS Rowing": Unreliable school blog post. Not independent coverage. Does not appear to provide significant coverage either, and certainly nothing that other sources don't also provide.
  11. Rowing Australia profile for James Chapman: Does not mention Buntine.
  12. Olympic record for Robert Jahrling: Does not mention Buntine.
  13. Olympic record for Matthew Long: Does not mention Buntine.
  14. Olympic record for Geoff Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  15. Olympic record for James Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  16. Olympic record for Steve Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  17. Australian Olympic Committee profile for Richard Wearne: Does not mention Buntine.
  18. Broughton House history page: Does not mention Buntine.
At best we have one source we might call reliable, secondary, and independent, but which I doubt the coverage could be called significant. This high school-level rowing coach simply does not meet GNG. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since nobody else has added to the discussion, I will just comment for the closing admin that every "keep" argument has boiled down to two main themes:
  • He coached now-notable rowers when they were schoolboys, therefore he is notable (a violation of WP:INHERIT)
  • His obituary was published in a major newspaper, therefore he passes GNG (not true as the obit was written by Buntine's colleagues, failing WP:INDEPENDENT and thus WP:RS; also, non-staffwritten obits are usually considered WP:ROUTINE).
In any any case, the article fails to make an assertion of notability - all Buntine's achievements as a high-school teacher, headmaster, deputy-head and sporting coach, whilst noble, are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.-- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The continuing misinformation of contributors in this discussion is growing very tiring. Others have added to this discussion since the last contributor commented and have indeed added and reconsidered Keeps. Yeti Hunter clearly knows nothing about the obituaries in the SMH as they are often written by non-staff ... they are often written by people who knew the subject. The Buntine obituary was written by David Roberts, former Director of NSW State Records (1998-2008), Michael Smee OAM a retired headmaster, Dr Timothy Hawkes OAM a current headmaster. Yes they knew Buntine but unlike this discussion knowing something about what you are writing is usually considered a bonus in the wider community. The obituary used is in no way second rate. The SMH is still the paper of record for the city of Sydney ... it is still a lot more reliable than Wikipedia. Others may quote any Wikipedia policy they like but the number of Keeps on this page say it all. A schoolmaster who has coached the number of international champions that Buntine coached is notable. He was not an Olympian nor an Olympic coach. He coached schoolboys at the highest level of schoolboy rowing. If you need to justify it then develop a policy to do so but there are more people in this community who want this bio in than there are those that want it out. I only ask whoever closes this discussion to do so with a great deal of care as much of what you read on this page is Nonsense. Castlemate ( talk) 12:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I would appreciate it if you could refrain from insulting my (and others') good-faith contributions to this discussion. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been shown to be notable enough. Bearian ( talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although a consensus to keep is present, the arguments against keeping the article are stronger and mention relevant policies and guidelines. — Music1201 talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There is no consensus to keep, just a reluctance on my part to engage with naked contradiction. Most keep !voters have merely asserted that it passes GNG with no discussion. One commenter above even suggest that the article has good potential for expansion (per WP:HEY) - how exactly? No matter how much detail about Buntine's high-school teaching and coaching career is added, he will remain fundamentally non-notable. WP:NHSPHSATH requires high-school athletes (and presumably, coaches) to have coverage that "clearly" goes beyond routine, and is independent. The SMH obituary on which the argument for notability rests is neither. All the other sources are irrelevant for GNG, and the fact that it is well written and wikified has no bearing on notability - WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK come to mind. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Buntine appears to have been an important person, but I don't think notable. As per above, the obit in SMH was written by collegues and is the main source of info. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable EllsworthSchmittendorf ( talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think I should go into a bit more detail. I think that all of the keep arguments have no grounds. The arguments towards keep consist of:
1) He coached rowers who went on to become olympians (this is also true of my netball and swim coaches).
2) The obit in the SMH makes him notable. (as per Yeti Hunter - violation of WP:INHERIT). I also know people who have made it to the Age/SMH. I don't think they are notable. If this makes a person have significant coverage then I and many people I know would be eligible for a Wikipedia page.
3) Furthermore, there seems to be a slant in the article towards subject's genealogy, which does not make him any more notable. Refs include fam history sites and author wanted to make article on family (see WP:BIOFAMILY). Article starts off with "third generation Australian" mentioned. He may have notable relatives, but this does not make present subject notable.
Finally I would like to stress that if this person is notable, then most people would be. For example, one of my relatives has taught many famous and influential people, one good example is actor Cate Blanchett, but also the sons and daughters of European, American and Chinese diplomats and politicians. He has written text books that sold very well and also has been in the newspaper many times. He's also worked as a journalist and co-ordinating unit lecturer at a major Australian university. He is from a very wealthy and influential family in a region and who were also some of the earliest settlers and were crucial to the development of that region. He is also related to the Murdoch family. He also lived on the same street as Julian Assange and John Safran. I could go on. He will never get a Wikipedia page. This person is not notable but he is still important to many people, just as Buntine was important to his colleagues and students. As per Yeti Hunter, maybe Castlemate could move this page to another place on the internet. EllsworthSchmittendorf ( talk) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Maybe it makes me a ghastly inclusionist (not an accusation often thrown my way), but I've got to say your relative sounds at least potentially notable there. Also, I have been reading the Herald (and the obits) for years and I've never seen someone get a published obit who was not at least marginally notable. Can you provide one for a person who is unquestionably non-notable? I doubt it. Frickeg ( talk) 04:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply Frickeg, and I completely see your point! However, I believe that the best arguments on delete discussion pages are backed up by Wikipedia's notability guidelines ( Wikipedia:N). Sorry if I caused any undue injury. EllsworthSchmittendorf ( talk) 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No undue injury at all! My point does go to WP:GNG since I believe in some cases a single, very reliable source is sufficient (especially for subjects where other sources are not likely to be online), but I understand others see things differently. Frickeg ( talk) 23:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There's a lot of discussion about whether the Sydney Morning Herald obituary is to be regarded as a totally reliable source. However, still, that doesn't change the fact that said piece appears to be literally it as far as justifiable sources go. The rest of the numerous citations made in this article, as above users point out, are not appropriate. The Canberra Times report mentions Buntine in passing, in only one sentence no less, without giving details. The King's Herald newsletter may discuss his career in depth, yes, but its not at all your standard reliable source. Multiple citations such as the reference to the Australian Olympic Committee don't even mention Buntime's name. Beyond mere legalistic applications of Wiki rules, it's the spirit of the rules that's most important: What can one build a good article on if its subject doesn't have significant source coverage? CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 21:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per TNT. This is hopelessly promotional and full of unsourced content, and would need to be completely rewritten to comply with policy. Zoiks. A loving tribute but very very far from anything that should exist in Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show that this person passes Wikipedia notability guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 00:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comments: 1. WP:HEY is not merely about future prospects for an article; the essay is more about how it has been improved despite efforts to delete it. 2. Being the headmaster of not one but two prestigious prep schools (or as they call them independent schools in Australia) ought to mean something for notability. 3. Closing admin, this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I plead guilty to having boring reasons to keep! 4. An obituary in a paper of record, if it provides significant coverage can be sufficient, along with three or more other ("multiple") sources, to prove a dead person's notability ( WP:BLP requires higher standards, in effect). Some of the sources didn't mention him, so I'd seek better sources. 5. If he had coached a single Olympian, I'd say, "meh", run of the mill coach. However, he coached several future Olympians, which is notable in itself. Bearian ( talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reality Check: Before an administrator tears down this "well written and wikified" bio please consider the inconsistency of notability in Wikipedia. I have just wiki linked Jim Buntine as Bob Buntine's mother and have discovered that Arnold Buntine, his father, has a bio as well. I wrote his mother's bio based on the assumption that her entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography gave her notability. Before you scream WP:INHERIT please stay with me as I'm not talking about inheriting notability although Wikipedia is riddled with. I didn't write a bio for his father because I knew that the deletionists would call for its removal within minutes, even though he is a notable headmaster. I then realised I didn't have to write the bio because it already exists due to the fact that Arnold played four (yes just four) games as an Australian rules footballer with St Kilda in the Victorian Football League in 1918. Now that is truly non-notable but nobody is calling for its deletion. Sadly given the poor standard of contributions and editing on Wikipedia nobody has realised that Arnold is in fact Dr Martyn Arnold Buntine [1] Headmaster of Geelong College. I'm sure that when I add the excellent reference that I have used here you will want the pre-existing bio deleted. It will be derided as secondary and not independent. For consistancy you will have to call for its deletion. I won't bother pointing out all the erroneous comments that have made recently but I will suggest that before you vote maybe you could read the article to see the improvements that have been made and the references that have been improved. But please no more anecdotes about all your friends/relatives who have had SMH/Age Obituaries written about them but aren't notable. Although I'm very keen to read about the netball and swim coaches who have not been notable but have coached Olympians. Who were the Olympians and how many of them were there. I'd like to write their bios just in case. Share this with us so we can debate their notability out in the open. Tell us who these strange hybrids are ... important but not notable. Most importantly could someone please tell the Sydney Morning Herald not to use "beloved" in the title of an obituary. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable. Semantics at Olympic levels. Thank you all for your good faith comments its been great fun sparring. Castlemate ( talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 2nd week attracted a lot of "keep" comments and the 3rd week attracted a lot of "delete" comments. Relisting again to see where we're heading.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 11:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Move to draftspace (see below). Firstly I am a little taken aback at all the invective being hurled around here, and at aspersions being cast on the SMH obits. The Herald is one of the major newspapers in the country, and full, published obituaries (no matter who they are written by) are clear evidence of notability, even if people want to quibble about the reliability of the (in this case rather distinguished) authors. The SMH does not publish obituaries of people it does not consider sufficiently significant (there are plenty of very notable people who never get them). Bearian above makes excellent points. I would also point out that there are likely to be a lot of print sources for this kind of thing that have not been consulted above. Frickeg ( talk) 04:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ [gnet.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au:8080/wiki/BUNTINE,%20Dr%20Martyn%20Arnold%20(1898-1975).ashx?HL=buntine BUNTINE, Martyn Arnold (1898-1975)]
With respect to Bearian and Frickeg, I have to disagree:
  • Buntine was a headmaster only once (at Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange, NSW) and only deputy head at one of the two prestigious Sydney schools he taught at.
  • A review of the SMH obit section] suggests that it does frequently include people who, while having led interesting and noble lives, do not establish a clear assertion of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. See e.g. Mother of seven had to venture so often into the unknown, an eloquently written farewell from a son to a mother.
  • Coaching schoolboy rowers who went on to become Olympians years later does not confer a presumption of notability. At any rate, this fact is unverified OR. The sources only say that Buntine coached un-named future Olympians, or that such-and-such Olympians were alumni of Kings or Newington. Neither the SMH or school newsletter obituaries make any mention of coaching future Olympians.
If print sources are available that indicate a notabilty not evident in the online sources, I would gladly change my !vote. But the notability guidelines at WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:TEACHER do not suggest that such a presumption is justified. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Ack, I stand corrected. I hadn't seen that obit, and a closer look through the obit page does suggest these things are not uncommon (though by no means the norm). This throws me a bit - I've been using SMH obits as a good yardstick for notability for years now. My suspicion is that this is a recent development (cuts to journalists, perhaps?), but I may be wrong on that too. I'll have to consider this, so for the moment consider my !vote above less emphatic than it was. Frickeg ( talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I went into this wanting to vote keep, but I can't justify it. I searched through Australian newspapers on NewsBank and the only hit that was more than a passing mention was the SMH obit that has already been noted in this discussion. After reading through the analysis of that obit here, I don't think we can consider it independent, which is what the GNG requires. And without that obit, I don't think it can be said that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft space. There seem to be a number of factors. First, there is no assumed notability in the coach of a school team; it has to be proven by reliable sources. It's only college level coaches of important teams who can generally be assumed to be notable. Second, the SMH obit is not a reliable source. Reliable obituaries do not use the sort of extravagant language used here. There are only a few papers whose obits can be unquestionably used: for the 20th century, I know of only the NYTimes and The Times of London, though there probably are some non-English language ones also. Third, the notability of some members of a family does not make others in the family notable, nor does it make the family as a whole notable unless the family has been written about as a family. Fourth, there is no consistent practice here about the notability of headmasters of major schools, but we have been relatively reluctant to accept such articles except for the most famous. From the articles on them, I doubt that Wollaroi College is that famous, but it is possible that Newington College is--unfortunately, he was just a temporary headmaster. I'm making a guess here that his career as a coach may jsut possibly be important enough that other sources can be found, but probably at present the best course is to move to Draft space DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I think this is a compromise I can support. Frickeg ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy (moved from keep) as per DGG. The SMH source, as well as being unreliable, is pretty much the only coverage Robert has received. Fails GNG, but I think we could try moving this to draftspace. Omni Flames let's talk about it 03:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the article and the information referenced above, WP:EVENTUAL would seem likely for WP:ANYBIO point 2 ? Aoziwe ( talk) 14:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No consensus: Not sure there can be another result at this time. Just stopped to check out the oldest open AFD and perused.-- Milowent • has spoken 04:15, 9 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Rolf Prima

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

Failed CSD candidate; article does not read as an advert and makes some claims of significance. However seems to fail WP:GNG - references and search results all seem to be advertising, press releases or passing mentions. Waggers TALK 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. The first ref is to their homepage, and the other two references do not establish notability. The first indicates that 17 years ago an athlete used a bike with their wheels, and the second is a routine story about transfer of ownership as would be found in any local paper about any local business under the same circumstances.. I originally tagged this article as spam, because in general it looks like it could have been plucked from their home page, and because of the name-dropping yet completely unsourced section on "Athletes". ubiquity ( talk) 14:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG but meets WP:PROMO. Quis separabit? 14:57, 29 May 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America 1000 17:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Korean Air Flight 2708

Korean Air Flight 2708 (  | 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 aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, no suggestion of any "enduring historical significance" for this aborted flight. If it turns out to be a significant engine fault in the Boeing 777-300 series, this belongs in Boeing 777#777-300, not in an article about one day when that fault happened. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep British Airways Flight 2276 was kept. This is identical. Engine failure and fire on take off on a 777. Don't understand why this needs to be deleted. ( talk) 11:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC) contribs) 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now Let's see how the story develops and how the airframe does Leondz ( talk) 14:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as fires affecting modern airliners are rather rare and as mentioned above, the BA flight that caught fire in LA article ( BA2276) was kept and has had many views (28,367 in the last 90 days according to wmflabs tools). Furthermore, the accident has achieved significant coverage and so I would say it is notable. LoudLizard ( 📞 | contribs | ✉)
  • Delete Not notable per WP:EVENTCRITERIA nor WP:AIRCRASH. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was leaning twords delete but other users have rightfully pointed out that a very similar incident ( British Airways Flight 2276) has it's own page. I'd say to wait a day or two and see if it gets more media coverage, but since the aviation and world communities attention are currently focused on EgyptAir Flight 804 that's probably unlikely to happen. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, as there is not sufficient evidence to determine the incident's "enduring historical significance" yet, and an aviation accident involving 12 injuries and damage to a widely used commercial airliner could very well be notable. Shelbystripes ( talk) 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mundane engine failure - no consequences, fails WP:GNG etc. etc..-- Petebutt ( talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Petebutt, I don't see how this is "mundane". An engine failure resulting in injury on a Boeing 777 is an extremely rare event. Shelbystripes ( talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 3 reasons: (1) I think the notability might be harder to see because it's being compared to the much "bigger" and "also recent" EgyptAir Flight 804 event. Comparing it that way does not seem balanced to me because some people might just not notice they are different stories in such a short time frame. So, comparing other recent news only makes it "look" smaller. (2) It also might have fewer news stories in English since it was only operating in Asia, but there already seems to be enough news in some other languages/places to already have its own article on both Chinese (at 大韓航空2708號班機事故) and Japanese (at 大韓航空エンジン出火事故) Wikipedia. So, more sources may be available if we consider non-English news. (3) Batik Air Flight 7703 also has its own page, but it had no injuries (except "3 (from shock)"), fewer than either of Korean Air Flight 2708 or British Airways Flight 2276. Zeniff ( talk) 05:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • 1. The Chinese article has even less information than the English one, discounting irrelevant information such as the exact time when each runway was reopened;
    • 2. The Batik article appears more notable even despite lack of injuries because it is 1) hull loss 2) a high-speed collision which is generally more notable, and 3) because it was caused by a blatant human error rather than trivial equipment failure. -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now As per WP:AIRCRASH, we should wait until there's further information released on the aircraft, specifically the cause of the engine fire and/or if the aircraft will be returning to use later. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant aircraft accident, with numerous injuries. Meets Notability guidelines. Not every disaster requires loss of life. Juneau Mike ( talk) 16:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 1) Minor accident 2) Occurred on ground 3) No serious injuries 4) No importance for the aviation in general, e.g. not the first incident with the type/airline and not caused by a widely discussed defect in 777 5) Appears to be a trivial incident judging by this photo: [33]. -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now per exoplanetaryscience. Until we have a report on what this crash means to the industry it seems reasonable to assume that the coverage of the event at the time passes WP:GNG. Intensity has been focused on the 777 after several (perhaps unrelated) events, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 1)It's been almost a week with no real follow-up. 2)The injuries were caused be the evacuation of the aircraft, not the engine fire. Sario528 ( talk) 12:21, 3 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Anders Gullberg

Anders Gullberg (  | 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 fails to establish notability, the only source is a blog and I can't find anything in a Google search that would allow it to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Judging by the article creator's username and editing history it may be a WP:Vanity page. Basement12 (T. C) 09:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

It's likely this is a vanity page, as is the Swedish wikipedia page with two appropriately named SPAs at different times. However I'm not sure he's not notable. He is quoted as an expert in textbooks and in the national daily Svenska Dagbladet, has written numerous articles for the Swedish national daily Dagens Nyheter, and Pressen.se claims to have found 100 sources discussing Gullberg, though not all are about this particular sociologist. He's also discussed in NyTeknik concerning traffic problems. I'd say he was probably notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Basement12 (T. C) 13:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per mentions in sources. BabbaQ ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Subject is covered in multiple reliable sources and his publications are also noteworthy. Meatsgains ( talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain for now so I'm asking subject expert DGG for his analysis for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A Swedish academic author of several books, with a straight descriptive non-promotional article in the Swedish WP. I have enough experience with the fr and de WPs that if a person from those language areas were covered there in an unchallenged article, I would almost unquestionably accept it. (There are some WPs where I am considerably more dubious, such as es and ru). I'm unfamiliar with the sv. It's clear he or someone close to him wrote the article in the svWP, but I accept Chiswick Chap's analysis. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 4 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 redirect to Oheka Castle. !voters and the nom agree redirect is the best option so closing as such (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Oheka

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

Dab failing WP:TWODABS . We have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Oheka Castle which before this dab existed was the redirect target. The Oheka II is a WP:PTM. All entries in the dab are described at the primary topic. Widefox; talk 09:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

An alternative is to convert to an WP:SIA, where they are a list of Otto Hermann Kahn's assets of similar name (or possibly a WP:DABCONCEPT), but the reader can get that all from the primary topic. This is somewhat of a dictdef. Widefox; talk 10:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to castle, add "redirect" hatnote pointing to Oheak II. It's the kind of PTM which merits a link. Pam D 13:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Hatnote done, link to Oheka II in lede done. (and if it wasn't clear, I favour redirect rather than delete, but have no faith in RfD being a good venue for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirect + dab cleanup discussion). Widefox; talk 22:05, 29 May 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ghalia Benali

Advanced search for: 
"Ghalia Benali"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Ghalia Benali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still questionable for the applicable notability as this contains only one source, from the New York Times, and although my searches found other links at Books and News, there has not been anything particularly convincing this can be a solidly notably improved article. My attempts at any available English Tunisian sources have not been successful, so unless native sources that are sufficient can be found, there's still questionability. I should also note the original author is G5 material since this was August 2013, and the user was first kicked in May 2013, however, since a user added a few changes afterwards, it's unlikely therefore solid G5 material. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America 1000 08:42, 27 May 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. Sufficient consensus after relisting. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Satish Mohan

Satish Mohan (  | 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 suggesting better for WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, he was only the Town Supervisor of Amherst, New York (population about 122,000) for 3 years and my searches have only found expected mentions at Books, News and Highbeam. There's nothing else convincing and he's certainly not notable for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 19 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) 04:41, 27 May 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Mann (journalist)

Jonathan Mann (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
Advanced search for: 
"Jonathan Mann"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Advanced search for: 
"Jonathan Mann (journalist)"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability and my searches have simply found nothing better. I nearly PRODed too but, in case it was removed because of the CNN International connection. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This looks and reads very much like the kind of thinly veiled rewrite of his own staff profile on his own employer's website that we all too frequently see for journalists, and its only reference is a deadlinked article in a university alumni magazine, for which he was the bylined writer of the piece. This is not how a journalist gets a Wikipedia article, however — he has to be the subject of the references, not the author of them, to get over WP:GNG. Delete, unless somebody can salvage it with much better sourcing, and rewrite it more encyclopedically, than this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A quick search yields close to three dozen articles about him in major newspapers in the 1980s. There's also plenty about him in recent years (examples a, b, c, d). The article needs to be improved, but he meets WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 00:35, 20 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) 04:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Journalists are notoriously hard to "source out" in a deletion debate, but TCHaliburton is on the right track. THIS piece from the Montreal Gazette lends credence to the fact that this veteran journalist doesn't just report the news but is in fact sometimes part of it. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion, in my estimation. Carrite ( talk) 16:02, 2 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Christina Bach

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

Particularly clear cut deletion material as her IMDb basically says it all, background characters and nothing longterm or otherwise noticeable to suggest the needed notability at WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG and searches unsurprisingly found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fasha Farshad Mahjoor

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

Developer with no real notability -- referenmces are either unreliable listings or reports of publicity students. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing convincing at all of the needed solid independent notability, quite a load of information but nothing actually acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The two main sources covering the subject are press releases ( [35], [36]). Fails WP:GNG as there are literally no reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The key argument that the list is too broad to be useful is a matter of judgment, and there seems no agreement about it. Perhaps the best course would be to organize the list and improve its usefulness. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

List of computer hardwares

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

Wikipedia is not a list; the purpose of this page would be best served as categories, or edits to the relevant articles. #!/bin/ DokReggar -talk 06:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I disagree, WP:DOAL explicitly mentions that (quoting) "Some topics […] are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable)". A list of all possible hardware elements one may include in a computer is bound to reach this status at some point. Why would the use of categories, such as Category:Computer storage devices, not be adequate to achieve this, since they are already implemented in the target articles? #!/bin/ DokReggar -talk 07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:CLN lists advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories and there is no clear preference. The key point there is WP:NOTDUPE which says quite explicitly: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew D. ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think this topic is too broad, nor do I think it will become unmanageable because this article itself indicates there are a limited number of hardware items. And, it appears this list article is staying true to its topic by listing only hardware items and not going off in other directions. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete effectively useless, as evidenced by the pageview graph, per DokReggar this is an unbounded list which is without use to our readers. If someone wants to know what's inside a computer, I suggest the information is hosted in Computer, not a "List of computer hardwares (sic)". The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The list is quite new and it's quite surprising that we don't seem to have anything of this sort already. But the list of computer components and peripherals is quite fundamental and familiar and so easily passes WP:LISTN -- see PC Hardware in a Nutshell for a source covering the common PC type of computer. It would be easy to improve per our editing policy. We just need to get this silly deletion discussion out of the way first. Andrew D. ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It's far from silly. Please try talking in English rather than in wikilinks in future, people will take you more seriously Colonel. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that this article would be easy to improve per our editing policy, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Also, I actually take people seriously when they use links to policies and guidelines or name policies and guideline. For me it takes the guesswork out of determining merit or inclusion disambiguation needed for an article on Wikipedia.--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is what categories are for... and navigation templates; both of which already exist for this "topic". We don't need a third thing to get out of sync with the other three. List articles in general are an unfortunate fact of life on WP, as they add no encyclopedic information other than a list of names or terms. Jeh ( talk) 23:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Sources and additional encyclopedic content, such as a lead section and images, have been added to the article. North America 1000 01:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"Encyclopedic content" does not mean sources and images. Jeh ( talk) 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I may expand the article with descriptions if it's retained. I don't want to waste my time doing so at this time only to see the article deleted, though. What came first, the chicken or the egg? North America 1000 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Then it would just be a list of dictionary entries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedic content would describe not just each term but when and who developed the items in question, the relationships of the various types of hardware to each other, the interlocking histories of their development (e.g. the progression of mass storage from magnetic tape through magnetic drums and disks to solid state drives, with the migration of mag tape from "live" mass storage to backup uses; the near-extinction of punched card input and the tremendous reduction in reliance on printed output brought about by display screens and keyboards; etc.). And then it would not have to be called "List of..." anything; it would be an actual article. Of course, that's a lot more work then just typing everything you find in the "Computer hardware" categories into yet another big damn list article. Jeh ( talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename List of computer hardware (or another name). At first I thought this would be a list of all products ever offered to sale to attach to a computer, but a list of the types of hardware is fine. I doubt this list will ever reach 100 entries as there are not a million computer architectures out there. It meets WP:CSC #1 (list with all elements standalone-notable).
The pageviews are irrelevant - I bet Viișoara, Glodeni (thank you, "random article" link) does not get many hits either, but it meets the guidelines so we should keep it. And "duplicate from category" is (see above) explicitly noted as an irrelevant argument.
Finally, while I disapprove throwing around wikispeak (and I am guily of doing it occasionally), Andrew D. made his point in plain English. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that page views are irrelevant for determining whether or not an article is acceptable on Wikipedia, whether the article is new or so many years old. Rather, the most important factor is WP:N notability, of which page views is not a part. Hence, as User:Andrew D has mentioned, this appears to pass muster with list article guidelines. And, not meaning to offend - this does matter - because we editors cannot accept, willy nilly, any kind of posted content. Otherwise, our discussions might be about liking or not liking this or that article, which would not be helpful. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Sources and additional content have been added to the article. North America 1000 03:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the current contents are not convincing of keeping as anything of an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Computer hardware. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. An easily expandable and improvable article. I have performed some additions and copy edits to the article, including the addition of some references, something that cannot be done with categories. I have renamed the article to List of computer hardware. North America 1000 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I do not really see a use for this, since you can find the same content in the computer hardware article. Why not contribute to this article and the ones linked instead? #!/bin/ DokReggar -talk 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Computer hardware is a article with content, List of computer hardware is an index. Both serve different purposes and it is fine. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sandstein: Well, it's not now. I just removed the peripherals from the list. The list now only includes hardware. I'm not seeing how the list is indiscriminate as per WP:IINFO at this time. It has a well-defined scope and only has relevant entries now. North America 1000 01:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although I can see grounds for a list if the parts that make a computer system, this list doesn't cut it. For example, it has a "punched card" next to "solid state drive" and "Free and open-source graphics device driver" next to "graphics card (GPU)", "graphics hardware" and "graphics processing unit" which is just random grabs from 50 years of computer history. GPU means Graphics Processing Unit, creating double entries. My impression of this article in total is that it is written in chaos and not fixable other than starting with a clean slate. DeVerm ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No, a Punched card is not computer hardware but just a piece of paper from a time that character recognition by a computer was science fiction and they needed punch holes in specific locations which could then be detected by a punch card reader. This reader is the computer hardware; you can find it in musea. The punch card was equal to a computer print-out now, which is also about to become obsolete. DeVerm ( talk) 15:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ DeVerm: That makes sense. I have changed the entry in the article to read "Punched card reader" ( diff). North America 1000 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That does not help; if editing at all, you should remove it because the card reader is already on the list as the first item. The article linked explicitly includes punch card reader. Creating pages is not a matter of throwing edits at it until it, by chance, is a hit. It requires much more in-depth study of the scope as well as each item listed. I still recommend to start over because the list is hardly improving, if at all. DeVerm ( talk) 15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
All right, I removed punch card reader. That was easy. As I stated above, I wouldn't mind adding descriptions, but if this is to be deleted, that would be a waste of time. Hopefully the article will be retained, so the work I have already performed to improve it can continue. At this point, I guess I'll wait until the AfD discussion is closed before potentially proceeding with any more edits to the article. Of course, the time you spent here discussing the matter is far greater than it would have taken to simply perform the edits you suggested to improve the article. However, you want it deleted, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America 1000 16:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article appears to be a definite benefit for the general reader, in particular as a useful index. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates" are not perceived as duplication on Wikipedia. Furthermore, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Hence, saying that we have categories that cover such lists seems to be a weak argument. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Dhanda, Naresh (2010). CLEP Information Systems and Computer Applications. Piscataway, New Jersey: Research & Education Association. p. 27. ISBN  073860836X. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The article notes:

      As defined earlier, computer hardware includes all the physical components of a computer system that can be seen and touched, including the keyboard and mouse (input devices), the CPU and memory (processing devices), display monitors and printers (output devices), the hard disk and RAM (storage device), as well as DVDs, CDs, flash memory cards, etc. (storage media).

      Printer and USB cables, modems, and network interface cards (NIC) are other examples of computer hardware. Some hardware, such as a keyboard or a mouse, can be seen on the outside of a computer. Other hardware, such as RAM, an internal hard disk, and the NIC, can be seen only after opening the system unit. Peripheral devices are attached to the computer system in order to perform a variety of tasks. All the hardware devices listed above are also peripheral devices.

      The book gives further example of computer hardware.
    2. Ravichandran, D. (2001). Introduction To Computers And Communication. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. p. 2. ISBN  0070435650. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The book notes:

      The physical parts of a computer are called the hardware. In other words, the units that are visible and units which one can touch and feel are known as the computer hardware. Some examples for hardware units or system devices are following:

      • Processor
      • Display Screen
      • Keyboard
      • Disk Drive
      • Printer, etc.

      The main parts of a computer hardware are the storage devices, the input devices, the output devices and the Central Processing Unit (CPU).

    3. Pride, William M.; Hughes, Robert J.; Kapoor, Jack R. (2012). Foundations of Business (3 ed.). Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. p. 420. ISBN  1111580154. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The book notes:

      Computer hardware is the physical components of a computer. Examples include the hard disk drive, keyboard, mouse, and monitor.

    4. Dlabay, Les; Burrow, James L.; Kleindl, Brad (2008). Intro to Business. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. p. 267. ISBN  0538445610. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The book notes:

      Examples of computer hardware include keyboards, cameras, microphones, speakers, monitors (or screens), chips, and printers.

      Hardware is constantly changing and expanding. For example, today most computers can handle sound, graphics, animation, and video. In the past, these features were only offered on large computers. Multimedia computer systems are now common in small businesses and homes.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • The subject also passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This seems a useful hub or index for a diverse but not over-large topic. Quite functional.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia has lots of lists, and all this needs is a little bit of improvement. Peter Sam Fan 13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a hopelessly broad compendium disguised as a list - one that can never approach encyclopedic quality. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The point of the creation of this article appears to be providing a user-friendly guideline of items that a computer is likely to have and how it all functions together. And it isn't that helpful since, first, it doesn't explain in layman's terms what each thing does and, second, we already have pages like the main article ' Computer' and the related ' Computer hardware'. What's the difference between this and, say, having: ' Guideline of the Systems in Your Car', ' Guideline of the Organs that are in Your Body', ' Guideline of the Branches in Your U.S. Federal Government', ' Guideline to the Planets in Your Solar System', etc? All of those can indeed be sourced easily, as this article here is, but why have them all? I would expect each of those things in downloadable pamphlets on college websites related to Astronomy 101 classes and so on instead. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia isn't quite the same thing as a friendly 'how to get this' exploratory text.
And, if we have to have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part, then... let's have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part. Add huge sections of prose to this list coupled with step-by-step illustrated instructions, maybe with a fellow taking pictures of him using a screwdriver and pointing out the specific connections here and there. Put in a bunch more links. Add a bunch more citations. And give this page a much better name, maybe ' Explanation of computer hardware functioning' say. But I'd rather this just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Huh, no, that list is not a mistitle for "Hardware interaction in the computer". It is just like a table of contents; its only point for readers is to click on the blue links. If your point is that a navigational-only page is useless and should be deleted just for this reason, that is pretty much against any of the list guidelines. And for the record, there is List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, and, more to the point since this one is a list of bluelinks with no content, List of organs of the human body. Both of which are fine lists. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not require its own article. A category is sufficient enough ( Ajf773 ( talk) 09:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)) reply
For the n-th time, WP:NOTDUP. While it may be that the topic is not suitable for an article, "a category is enough" is not a valid argument. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
NOTDUP is from a page (read the box at the top) that's id'd as an "editing guideline", not policy. And I happen to think that a category and a navbox are enough. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it. Jeh ( talk) 12:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a major problem for some editors who can't actually think independently and who simply attempt to render argument by reference to some essay or guideline. Arguments such as "a category is enough" are indeed perfectly valid arguments. That someone believes we need this information in three distinct formats is beyond me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Because the mainspace article format is the most beneficial for the general reader - our customer. Most people (our customers) come to Wikipedia only to read the articles, not to derive or discern information from categories. Also, the general reader (or lay reader) does not peruse categories, they seek out information from mainspace articles. Categories are a function of our editing, and are used for our editing. Hence, these are two different activities; one for the benefit of the lay reader and one for the benefit of editors (like us). --- Steve Quinn ( talk)
Accepted, but a dumb list like this (which is basically a navigation aid) is no different at all to a category or a navbox. It's actually pretty hopeless. If it approached something like Glossary of association football terms then I could understand its utility, right now it's utterly pointless. And you make an interesting (and unfounded, or at least unverifiable) claim that categories are not used by the reader. Can you prove that or are you just making it up? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
[37] says the category is hit a lot less though the factor is "only" of ten. It can reasonably be assumed to show that the cat page is hit less by readers (though it could be that WP editors hammered the list page even when readers prefer to use the category). I took "cats" because that is one of the default examples for the pageview tools page, could be different for other lists though. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
It is an editing guideline "best treated with common sense and exceptions may apply", so what? Everything is subject to WP:IAR, too, but it does not mean everything is an exception to all guidelines. I have seen plenty of cases where a guideline was not followed for the greater good of WP, but if you are going to say an editing guideline such as NOTDUP should be ignored in a particular case, you better had to say why that one case warrants it ("it is beyond me" is not enough), and Ajf773 did not do that above. If you want the guideline to be ignored all the time, go ask for it to be removed at WP:VPP or wherever. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
It seems you can't see the wood for the trees. That's fine, and you've made your point, just as many others have adequately refuted it. This list provides nothing, absolutely nothing. It might as well be "Words beginning with A". The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
At the risk of being redundant, the article can easily be expanded with descriptions and other additional content. I considered doing so, but it would be pointless if the article is to then later be deleted. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America 1000 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Well a referenced glossary of terms would have been unlikely to have been nominated. Just saying. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I added the sources, etc. after this was nominated. In addition to qualifying for an article per WP:NOTDUP, the topic also passes WP:LISTN, having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. North America 1000 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as it passes WP:STAND, but expand to include basic information about each listed item, which would make it much more useful to anyone who comes across it (see List of vegetable oils, a featured list, for a good example of this being done in an acceptable manner). I would also suggest (if consensus dictates that this list fails the inclusion criteria) merging into computer hardware, with each item on the list becoming a section of the article, which already includes most of the items on the list as is. My only major concern is that this list is WP:REDUNDANT to computer hardware, though this is unlikely, since "categories, lists, and navboxes that contain the same elements are typically allowed". Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 21:25, 27 May 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. Tone 07:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jernej Karničar

Jernej Karničar (  | 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 mountaineer. Does not pass the notability threshold; no significant coverage in third-party sources. Eleassar my talk 06:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have reopened this discussion per a request on my user talk page ( diff). It was previously closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR, per having received no input. North America 1000 05:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I think the reason this is getting so little response is because this does cover a non-English subject, which means that we want to avoid systemic bias, which is so difficult when you can't read the language that secondary sources would generally be in. That said, I would expect to find a notable foreign athlete from recent times to at least have SOME google hits, even if I can't read what those hits say. Given this, I'll go ahead and say delete. I'm willing to change my mind if anyone can pop in with a news reference. Fieari ( talk) 05:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing here at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Shrine of the Irish Oak Inc

Shrine of the Irish Oak 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)

A church. It belongs to Universal Life Church, which is the "diploma mill" of churches. No inclination of nobility as refs about the church all come from Facebook, YouTube or church controlled sites. Creating editor is a member of the church and has removed Prods stating, "updated info and provided more verification links and resource". Bgwhite ( talk) 05:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The church has been in legal existence since 2004, still in good standing with the state of Arkansas, and only chartered under the ULC in 2013,though it is still it own church and is in no way "controlled" by the ULC here are two non church sourced links showing that its legal http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/corps/search_corps.php?DETAIL=245505&corp_type_id=&corp_name=shrine+of+the+irish+oak&agent_search=&agent_city=&agent_state=&filing_number=&cmd= existence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf Paradox ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia has pretty specific requirements for notability, both in general and with regards to organizations such as churches. That it exists as a legal entity does not, by itself, establish notability. Why should this article exist? TechBear | Talk | Contributions

I am now of the opinion that this article should not have ever been written,and all info on the Irish Oak denomination of modern Paganism should have staid on witchvox, and other religious Neo pagan sites only, It was my mistake for writing/posting it here, But I would like to point out that: the issues of the article only popped up/became an issue when the info was added that we associate with the ULC, it then became a target there were no issues with it before that. but trying to make it right and get what is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf Paradox ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 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) 05:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete though if someone can come up with a merge target I might be OK with that. The only directly germane and reliable source is the state charter link, which confers no notability. Everything else seems to be a primary source with one (irrelevant) exception. Mangoe ( talk) 13:50, 27 May 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, technically expired PROD as it is unsourced BLP-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Juliet The Orange

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

Originally I had this as a BLP prod-but not sure if that fits for this. Anyway a band with very questionable notability. Having a tough time finding anything also. Wgolf ( talk) 03:38, 20 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) 04:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches have found a few links at Books particularly but nothing actually solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:48, 27 May 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America 1000 06:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tiyamiyu

Tiyamiyu (  | 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 name is notable. A deletion proposal (PROD) was removed by the creator of the article, without giving any reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I did put the etymology and concept of this surname up for other people that bear the name to have an indepth knowledge of this word only to have it deleted and someone elsewhere taking credit whom doesnt even understand the language in question i.e yoruba/kwa dialect and also see Tiyamiyu: meaning, definition, origin - WordSense.eu, where the article was republished with credits given to a non african (i seem confused how it was approved by the moderator at wordsense.eu).
Secondly, It has a web popularity of approximately 4,300 pages see Tiyamiyu - http://www.name-list.net/nigeria/surname/Tiyamiyu
Thirdly, it is confused with Tiamiyu the name of a town in arabia to a point that its spelt wrongly, see http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/weekly/index.php/philosofaith/9252-re-names-and-naming-among-muslims.
Fourthly, i am not putting it up because its my Forename or Surname but because the name is unique and the meaning seemed lost until i researched within the african community history of Iperu and leaders.
Finally, i ask is it wrong to enlighten people on this error and have editors whom have no knowledge of a lexicon to determine the fate of a word than to ask and seek clarifications. We all learn and i expect knowledge dosnt lie in a single individual. As a graduate of Philosophy i understand the need for emperical evidence in science but in logic its analytical, this has been a challenge in african history or tradition documentation. Even there exist no clear definition between oral tradition and oral history in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular [1]. Thanks Tiyamiyu ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ http://m.ohr.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/77.extract
  • Comment I have found that african oral tradition and values are mostly deleted from or not published on the view that it lacks verifiable evidence, secondly within wikipeadia editors whom is african and is on ground to verify sources. Tiyamiyu ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looks just like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ireyomi, with both articles having been created by editors with the same name as the article and both apparently being Nigerian. At least this one has sources, so I'm not sure about this one. I cleaned up the article just a bit and added the sources given above. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 02:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The name has been a source of concern to the bearers as different versions are given to the meaning of the name by various people. The name was used by an African prince whom accepted islam but didnt want to be seen as abadoning cultural values and tradition. I have added additional reference and links. This is clearly different from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ireyomi. Tiyamiyu ( talk) 15:15, 15 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 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this one. Fighting systemic bias is an important goal of Wikipedia. We currently have some references, which is a start, and the page creator has made a good faith statement that the subject is notable enough to have engendered some controversy within the native language in question. Assuming this is true, there should be additional references in existence. I do not have the lingual skill to go finding these additional references, but let's allow some time for native bilingual speakers to come in and improve the article. Fieari ( talk) 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks 'Fieari', i would look into more properly referenced links to similar controversy on this surname similar to the earlier reference.

Tiyamiyu ( talk)Tiyamiyu

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks spirit of eagle Tiyamiyu ( talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 06:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jozi (musical group)

Jozi (musical group) (  | 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 fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. One of the sources is an unreliable self published wordpress source. The other source talks about one of the artists in the group and not the group itself. A Google search of the duo doesn't show significant coverage.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 04:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 04:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 18 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 01:50, 20 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) 04:45, 27 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Khristian Mizzi

Khristian Mizzi (  | 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 have been unable to find sources that would make subject meet WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC, and none of the sources found indicate he qualifies under any criterion in WP:MUSBIO. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As leader of KM & the Sirens, he has issued two albums, they have toured Canada. Refs have been added. He is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 09:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shaidar cuebiyar: Thank you for adding sources, I will have a look at them. Which part of WP:MUSICBIO did you say sources verify him meeting? Sam Sailor Talk! 14:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment regarding the 3 added citations:
Comment: Not a reliable, secondary source, but a band announcement at the St Kilda Festival. Does not count towards establishing notability.
Comment: Not a reliable, secondary source, the pages are Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. Does not count towards establishing notability.
Comment: Not a reliable, secondary source: "Australian musicians, record labels and artist representatives can apply here to get music distributed through Amrap's AirIt." Does not count towards establishing notability.
None of this brings us closer to subject meeting WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC or WP:MUSBIO, sorry. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now and Draft instead as this is simply questionable overall, I'm not confident keeping for now until there's better for a solid independent article. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ SwisterTwister: Why do you suggest incubation without a rationale? This is IMHO not a WP:TOOSOON case, and if we consider subject has been active but non-notable for 10+ years there is little or no WP:AI? to support incubation. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN ( talk) 00:54, 20 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) 04:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Rotation on the national ABC would be meet NMUSIC requirements, however coverage here and here, appears short-term and state-based only. Nothing useful found in the Age or Herald Sun. He's won some festival awards, but to a level satisfying WP:ANYBIO. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 11:34, 27 May 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. North America 1000 16:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

May 2016 Afghanistan road crash

May 2016 Afghanistan road crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears WP:NOTNEWS applies. reddogsix ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • This article contains a very notable event, and many like it have articles about them. When 73 people die in a single event, it is extremely notable. This is an example of an article of a road accident with less deaths: /info/en/?search=2011_M5_motorway_crash
Accidents involving a bus are also notable, and there are many other articles on them too with less deaths. /info/en/?search=Bluffton_University_bus_crash The article can be improved upon so that it looks less like "news", instead of outright deleting it. I believe that it would be better to argue on how the article could be improved upon, since it covers a notable event that deserves an article. Beejsterb ( talk) 04:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There has been significant coverage of this article. It is however not yet known if this horrible event will have lasting effects ( WP:EFFECT) or if it will have more significant coverage as time goes on ( WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). DeviantAttitude ( talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, significant coverage, definitely meets WP:GNG. Extremly high number of victims.-- Gerry1214 ( talk) 20:23, 23 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) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe in a year or two people will still write/post about what was definitely a very bad accident, but at the moment we have no sourcing other than ephemeral, routine news coverage. Mangoe ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. BBC link shows it happened. Death toll is notable. That should be enough. -- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 10:45, 1 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, default to keep. The main dispute revolves around the question of how much value these lists add to Wikipedia on top of the categories. The "keep" side argued that the lists do provide sufficient additional value; the "delete" side argued that the additional value is insignificant or that it doesn't make sense to classify software based on the nationality of their developers. Opinions are clearly divided without any sign of heading towards consensus. Since most of these articles have been around for several years, I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 13:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of video games developed in Belgium

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

An incomplete list that will probably never be finished. This list has only had 3 edits in it's entire lifespan. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Also nominating, for the same reason:
List of video games developed in Slovakia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games developed in Hong Kong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games developed in France (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games developed in Portugal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the majority of the listings in this are redlinks)
List of video games developed in the Czech Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the majority of the listings in this are redlinks)
There is one other lists like this ( Netherlands) which isn't listed because it contain a large amount of entries. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all I don't see any valid deletion rationales here. Only having 3 edits isn't a reason for deletion, neither is that it'll "probably never be finished". These lists go hand-in-hand with the categories they are in (for example Category:Video games developed in Belgium), and as they're a list of notable articles, per WP:CLN, they should be kept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Lugnuts: Under the link you referenced ( WP:CLN, under the disadvantages of a list, it says "Every article links to its categories in a consistent way, but lists may be more difficult to discover because not every article listed links to it, and each may choose to link to it in a different way. Attempting to enforce crosslinks from articles in the category is error-prone, makes editing the list taxing, and counteracts the ease-of-editing benefits lists otherwise enjoy". That's exactly what these lists are, taxing and pointless when the categories exist. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Read WP:AOAC. Basically WP:NOTDUP applies and no list is ever deleted simply because it exists as a category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No list is ever kept simply because a duplicate category exists for it either. NOTDUP is an anti-deletion rationale, not a keep rationale, and there's also other factors at play here. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 16:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Because categories merely categorize articles, but lists have to actually talk about them? No reliable sources actually discuss all the video games developed in Belgium. They might talk about video gaming in Belgium, but we already have that article at Video gaming in Belgium. This, meanwhile, is blatantly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"...lists have to actually talk about them..." No, they don't. The list doesn't need to double as a prose topical article, or to have any more justification than having the same information as the category, just in a different presentation format, along with the added benefit of being able to have direct sources, annotations, and sortability. If you prefer to use categories in this context, keep doing that, and just ignore the lists. That's the whole point of WP:NOTDUP. postdlf ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Except lists do need more justification for their existence than categories. Unlike categories, which exist primarily for the purpose of categorizing articles and thus regular Wikipedia guidelines do not apply to them, lists are articles and thus need to demonstrate notability, verifiability, and all that to meet WP:42. So unless you can prove the existence of sources that talk about "lists of video games developed in Belgium" specifically (as opposed to video gaming in Belgium) this list falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LISTPURP basically says that lists can be valuable sources of information. This is not a valuable source of information, and saying "we should keep this list because a duplicate category exists for it" is not enough for keeping. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 00:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
You seem to be implying WP:LISTN must be satisfied here, but of course that guideline itself says it is only one way of addressing notability. More generally, you seem just unfamiliar with list and category practice and standards. Your assertions aren't reflected in guidelines nor demonstrated AFD consensus, no matter how many times you repeat them. And that's all we're doing at this point, so good day, sir. postdlf ( talk) 00:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't want to go on about this either, but since your closing statement accused me of being unfamiliar with/violating guidelines, I reckon it's only fair that I get to respond to these accusations. Yes, LISTN isn't perfect, but it is the best and most relevant guideline here, seeing as this isn't a cross-categorization list and neither does it fill a "recognized" purpose when many countries, such as the United States, doesn't even have a corresponding list, and when Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources explicitly talks about citing sources. Additionally, when the opposing argument is that lists and categories are one and the same and an anti-deletion rationale like WP:NOTDUP is being used as a keep rationale, I daresay LISTN is as valid as any. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 01:26, 29 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) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All - This is a useful type of subcategory, and there is enough information to expand. Video games by country is actually a very useful thing to look up, especially from an academic perspective. It has been noted numerous times by critics and academics that video games from different countries are vastly different from each other, and that games from the same country tend to have unifying features or outlooks. The list of games can certainly be completed, as there are a finite number of games from any given country, although some countries will have a VERY long list... those might be sub-dividable further. Each list article can ALSO contain relevant and properly sourced information about what academics/critics/reviewers believe are defining features of games from that country. For example, games from Russia tend to be very bleak, games from japan have a different view of weapons than other countries, and so forth (just off the top of my head). Fieari ( talk) 06:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
None of your points are actually relevant to this discussion though. Firstly, no-one is suggesting that we delete the categories, we're only proposing to delete these redundant listicles that go along with it. Secondly, the stuff about Russian games being bleak or Japanese game weapons are better discussed on articles such as Video gaming in Russia or Video gaming in Japan, as well as what academics say about them. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Fieari:, what academic perspective are you talking about? This seems WP:OR to me, why would you think Japanese video game developers have a different view on weapons? I think Shinji Mikami and Suda51 might feel very differently. If there is such research, that would somehow show that games from a certain country are similar in a way, that would allow for its own article, or at least a mention in the articles on "video gaming in [x]". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge - The category "list of games developed in X" ties the game to a country via a developer. What makes sense is to have one or more lists of developers/designers/publishers in the country, and then a separate least for the games each of those developers/designers/publishers have released (likely built into the article about those entities). That's the underlying meaning here. WP:NOTDUP means it doesn't duplicate a category and shouldn't be deleted for that reason; it doesn't mean that we should have a list for every category (i.e. that it's not a deletion rationale doesn't make it a keep rationale). I say delete or merge because there may be developer lists it would make sense to move the content to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Question - I find it odd that the nom suggests keeping the Netherlands article simply because it has a large number of entries. If the number of entries and edits to the articles (along with the idea that they won't be improved) are the justification for deleting them, why not keep them and apply some WP:FIXIT? I'm sure there are enough games out there for the small lists to match or exceed the Netherlands list. ZettaComposer ( talk) 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Agreed. The Netherlands article shouldn't be exempt from this just because it has more entries. The problem is the article format, not the number of entries. We don't delete based on the current state of an article except in extreme circumstances, if there's a way to fix it. We delete when the list itself is problematic. And in this case, I think it is problematic. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closer: While the nominator excluded List of video games developed in the Netherlands, the basis for exclusion wasn't sound, and it looks like all of the participants who have supported deletion wish to include the Netherlands article in that decision. Since the article wasn't tagged, however, and as it seems too late now, it would probably be inappropriate to delete. So perhaps it's better left for a separate discussion, or perhaps if this is closed as delete then that could be taken as precedent for a bold redirect of that article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – These articles qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to the following categories:
They also qualify as functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. Also, these articles can be expanded with descriptions, sources, images, etc., which cannot be done with categories. Inre the nomination rationale, see also WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTBUILT. North America 1000 16:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Northamerica1000: (and others) WP:NOTDUP is an antidote to a particular delete argument, but it's not a keep argument apart from that (i.e. the only time it should be a keep argument is when the only deletion argument is ~"this duplicates the category"). The existence of a category isn't justification for a list; it's merely not justification for deletion. There are topics/purposes for which either a list or category might be more appropriate than the other simply because the systems have different purposes (which, after all, is the basis of WP:NOTDUP).
Similarly, navigational aids aren't exempted from the rest of the guidelines for lists -- they're just one of several purposes embedded or stand-alone lists can have. The list is still subject to e.g. WP:LISTN/ WP:SAL, or else this same rationale about navigation could be applied to literally any conceivable list that linked to Wikipedia articles (e.g. List of European bands with albums named after animals featured in George Orwell's Animal Farm could be argued a navigational aid if it linked to bands with Wikipedia articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Your slippery slope fear is not based on experience or based on a consensus-supported view (see, e.g., WP:LISTOUTCOMES). You're also artificially compartmentalizing the issues by insisting both that the existence of the category structure has no bearing on whether corresponding lists should exist, and that you think navigational function is no basis for keeping lists (which is contra WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTPURP). Given how strict we are with categories, if a category is not unverifiable, indiscriminate, or trivial than a corresponding list obviously isn't either (a point that has already been made). Regardless, the response to your claim that the list needs some special justification beyond what justifies the corresponding category has already been provided above multiple times, in describing what these lists already do that the categories cannot. postdlf ( talk) 18:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It's not a slippery slope fear. The question of why this should be kept is somewhere in the question of "why would we keep list of video games developed in Belgium but not my list of European bands with... example?" If the arguments you're giving would result in both being kept, then clearly something is wrong. If the argument relies on "because one seems useful to me and the other does not", then something is wrong. If the argument relies on abandoning all responsibility for judgment by saying "well we have a category for one of them", then something is wrong. In other words, it's not "this is a slippery slope"; it's "there needs to be a better reason for keeping".
Navigation is a purpose of a list, yes. But do you think that just saying "it's a navigational aid" grants a free pass to have any list you can think of as long as it links to Wikipedia articles? If not, then it's obviously not enough to simply say that. I'm trying to determine what the basis for keeping is beyond that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
We have plenty of general policies and guidelines such as WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, or WP:IINFO that prevent us from realizing your straw man. And again, if the category passes those bottom-level thresholds and WP:OCAT, then the list also does and is necessarily also useful for navigation because it's the same information just in a different format. If you also think the category structure should be deleted, that argument of course would not satisfy you, but you'd also be the only commenter here expressing that view or questioning whether country of origin was a significant enough fact to merit indexing by list or category. postdlf ( talk) 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're using negative rhetorical terms like "straw man" but still haven't offered an argument for why these articles should be kept [and the example I gave should not]. If those policies and guidelines "prevent us from realizing [that example]", what is the basis for distinction?
Perhaps it just comes down to what seems to be a central point of disagreement: The existence of a category (regardless of its validity) does not, as far as I'm concerned, automatically validate a corresponding list article (because they are different processes with different purposes and different requirements). Obviously I've not argued anything like "the category [structure] should be deleted" (speaking of straw men), because whether a category exists should be irrelevant to the question of whether to delete a list (not a reason to delete, and not a reason to keep). It had not occurred to me that anyone would hold a position otherwise. I suppose that's a matter for a project talk page rather than here, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I feel these lists just duplicate the corresponding categories while adding little extra value. Lists can be very valuable as navigation aids; for example, a list corresponding to a higher-level category can make the structure of the lower-level categories clearer (compare List of operating systems to Category:Operating systems). They are also useful for e.g. officeholders, in that they make clear the temporal aspects of it in ways that a category can't. But these lists don't seem to do any of that; while it does provide the info in chronological order, the members of the list aren't necessarily temporally related to each other (unlike e.g. a political office which only one person can hold at a time.) SJK ( talk) 22:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all We normally do have such lists, unless the categories are very small. They have the potential of adding context, and helping people find the article they are looking for. And not just the potential--they give the platform, the year, and the developer--I don't see this as "adding little extra value" -- these are 3 basic and very helpful factors. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ DGG: The context is "video gaming in [x]", not "list of video games developed in [x]". And what article would the reader be looking for exactly? We've already established that there's a category on the subject. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Video games have no "nationality", the geographical boundaries in which they were developed is not of importance and does not provide the reader with any additional knowledge. Seeing a list of "video games developed in [x]" does not somehow lead to a greater understanding of those games or the video game industry of that country. Is a game created in [x] typical for [x]? Is Scottish developer Rockstar North's take on American pop culture with the Grand Theft Auto series typical for Scotland? Writer-producers Dan Houser and Sam Houser, both English, live in New York City. That leads to my following point:
  • The reason for inclusion is unnecessarily strict, some games are developed by teams around the world. And what exactly are we going to consider "developed"? Video game music is very much a part of a game and its development. Jesper Kyd apparently recorded the soundtrack to Assassin's Creed II in Los Angeles, with the game developed in Montreal; while BioShock 2's main campaign was developed by 2K Marin, from the U.S., the multiplayer part was developed by Digital Extremes, from Canada. List of video games developed in the United States and Canada? List of video games developed in Canada and the United States? What about Far Cry 4, mainly developed by Ubisoft Montreal with additional work by Ubisoft Toronto, Red Storm Entertainment (from North Carolina), Ubisoft Shanghai, and Ubisoft Kiev. What about ports? BioShock was originally developed by 2K Boston and 2K Australia, it was ported to the PlayStation 3 by Digital Extremes and to iOS by 2K China. List of video game ports developed in China?
  • I also like to point out the fact that the city of Hong Kong is a " Special Administrative Region" of China. So we've already got List of video games developed in Belgium, are we going to have List of video games developed in Flanders or List of video games developed in Ghent? And again, Rockstar North, List of video games developed in the United Kingdom, List of video games developed in Scotland, List of video games developed in Great Britain? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Generally agree with the above. It makes sense to have "Games by developer X", "Games by publisher X", "Developers in country X", "Publishers in country X", "Designers in country X" and many other possible combinations, but not games developed by companies or people in country X. If, on the off chance, there are examples of a game's development being important to the country (or the reverse), it's covered in "video gaming in country X". The connection is too indiscriminate for a separate list and it's made redundant by the other more specific lists (if there's content to merge to developer/designer/company articles/lists, I'd support that, of course). Speaking of indiscriminate, yes, it would also be possible to have a "list of games developed in city/state/province/region/continent X", which would be kept using the same keep arguments, it seems. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all This is why there are categories, I thought. The redundancy seems unnecessary and work-making (in the form of manual list additions, which may not even be made by article creators who don't realize there's this list their article must be added to in addition to adding the category, so that this list isn't even going to be as inclusive as clicking on the cat link) for no good reason. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-blocked nominator. North America 1000 16:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cyfuture

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

Reason: The article Cyfuture falls under Conflict of interest. B.P. ( talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • People have conflicts of interest. Articles are inanimate, and do not. Please state, with reference to deletion policy, a reason for deleting this (lopsidedly sourced) article. Uncle G ( talk) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't look like the nominator will be replying, since they've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Since that's the case, I've had a quick look around myself for in-depth reliable and independent sources that actually discuss this subject, rather than discuss another company and only tangentially mention this one. I didn't find any. Uncle G ( talk) 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:17, 23 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) 04:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because the nominator has failed to explain the conflict of interest that motivated this nomination. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and speedy tag as I have now, there's nothing at all actually convincing and there's no need to clarify from the nominator as the current article says it all. FWIW, my searches have also found several links now but nothing comparably better convincing so delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 27 May 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 06:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fatal Blast Whip

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

Does not appear to be a notable music act. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:53, 27 May 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. Clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Bayu Indrawan

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

Non-notable academic. Page created by a temp banned user, banned for socking. It was prod'd by another editor but the prod was removed by the article author - who appears to be the person in the article. Related article created by the same person is [ for deletion]. Article text describes a non-notable academic. The claims of notability are of being an expert on waste management, having delivered keynote speeches, and being on international leadership programs. None of these are a sufficient claim of notability. The article references are largely either self-drafted works or are descriptions of participation in events. This is not third party coverage describing a notable academic as every academic gets invited to speak at events and conferences. MLA ( talk) 02:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Notability of this person is OK. Recently this person appears many times in local Indonesia television. Pedulilingkungan ( talk)— Pedulilingkungan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - as per nomination. I PRODed it and there has been no improvement in establishing notability since the PROD was removed. There appears to be a cabal of meat or sock puppets working to maintain a couple of article here, including this one. Such activities do not have any impact on the ability to determine notability or lack of it.   Velella   Velella Talk   08:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It would take something pretty exceptional for an academic below the level of professor to pass WP:PROF, and I see no evidence of such exceptionality here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 10:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Delete as this is loaded with information and sources but examining it shows nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, there's simply nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike Sullivan (ice hockey, born 1973)

Mike Sullivan (ice hockey, born 1973) (  | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 22:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:35, 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 09:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Another in Dolovis' multi-hundred player stable of NN hockey article creations, this one is even shakier than most; he had a single starring season in the mid-minors, but not enough to win any league accolades. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, a search for news sources turned up zip that would qualify for the GNG. Ravenswing 15:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • 270 appearances at professional level, or is "professional" supposed to be (or the equivalent of) semi-professional for at least some of these teams and leagues? In association football one appearance at fully professional level is enough for notability. Peter James ( talk) 22:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Not quite; as does the footy WikiProject, the hockey WikiProject maintains a list of leagues ( WP:NHOCKEY/LA) detailing which leagues satisfy the various criteria of NHOCKEY, and playing in the ECHL no more certifies notability than does playing in the English National League, however much a number of its teams are indeed professional. A player at the subject's level needs to have "[a]chieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star)" to gain presumptive notability. In any event, the "fully professional" nomenclature is an unfortunate artifact of NSPORTS criteria going back to WP:NATHLETE, serving well neither the many areas of amateur sport where practitioners routinely meet the GNG, or the many levels where athletes do get paid but come no nearer the GNG than the "fully professional" auto mechanic on the corner. Ravenswing 01:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and I found little coverage; admittedly I may have missed some coverage that is buried among the more famous hockey Mike Sullivan but if there is any the creator should have included some in the article. Rlendog ( talk) 23:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 3 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 speedily deleted as a copyright violation ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Dr. napoleon imarhiagbe

Dr. napoleon imarhiagbe (  | 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 is unreference Akhilonair ( talk) 01:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Hi. There's no need to start a deletion discussion for a lack of references. For anything other than a biography of a living person, that isn't grounds for deletion at all. For a biography of a living person like this one, see WP:BLPPROD for proposed deletion of such an article, no discussion required. I didn't bother with that because I submitted the article for speedy deletion. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Klariz Magboo

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

Non-notable person; lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. Most of the references cited in the article have no mention of her and are not reliable. Sixth o f March 01:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Complex, but clear, case of a vanity article. BlueSalix ( talk) 03:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this article is detailed and apparently sourced but examining this shows nothing actually convincing for an easily comprehensible notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 28 May 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. Discussion about a potential renaming of the article, splitting it, etc. as suggested herein can continue on the article's talk page if desired. North America 1000 06:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Said Al Nasr

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

Currently still questionable for any applicable notability such as WP:EVENT, WP:CRIME, WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG, my searches are finding several news sources at Books, News and browsers. At best, this could be restarted as an article for the event itself perhaps but, as that may also be questionable, this may be best also moved to an article circling the series of such events itself. There are two inbound links, Silco incident and List of terrorist incidents, 1980, and although this could've been redirected to the latter, I nominated because this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 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 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Very Weak Delete Keep - as per note to me (below) from E.M.Gregory, seems to meet our GNG. There seem to be some sources in books I can't access. I'm hesitant to see articles of this type deleted, however. BlueSalix ( talk) 03:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • User:BlueSalix, I suspect that you ran into the problem of transliteration, I have added two alternate transliterations of perp's name, plus a number of reliable sources. Sources are myriad but mostly in archives since while this was a major international news story, the murder - and hence the coverage - occurred in 1980 and the murderer was released (swapped) in 1981. Interested in your opinion on moving to a page about the incident. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see any substantial coverage. Keep. I agree that after rework the article is worth keeping. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 11:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
User:Arthistorian1977, please revisit, new sourcing and rename proposal. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep and rename: 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, or something to that effect, but rename for incident, not perpetrator. The attack on Jewish children and families waiting for a summer camp bus, 1 child killed, several adults and children seriously injured, was notable. I am now sourcing, rewriting article to make it a page on a terrorist attack on a group of children and their families who were visibly Jewish and waiting in formt of a large, Jewish institution by an identified member of a terrorist group who targeted them because of their identity. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note also that this incident (not the attacker, the incident) is notable because 1.) it was Abu Nidal; 2.) it was one of a series of notable anti-Semitic attacks in the early 1980s such as the 1981 Vienna synagogue attack, 3.) the attacker was swapped in exchange for the hostages taken in the Silco incident. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • See, for example, this [41] google books search on "Abu Nidal" + Antwerp + 1980. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a strong case to have an article on the incident, due to the wide coverage and the connection with the later Silco prisoner/hostage exchange. There is also a case to have an article on the attacker as well, for the same reason. While WP:ONEEVENT might apply if the coverage was limited to the original attack, the Silco trade is an additional reason to have an article on the attacker. Mattflaschen - Talk 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    There are sufficient reliable sources, though you may need to search under multiple transliterations, or phrasing that does not include the attacker's name. E.g. I found Belgian hostages freed from Middle East by searching on Silco and Libya (originally in a paywalled source, but it turns out to be available for free too). Mattflaschen - Talk 17:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Happy to undertake to split/write as 2 articles, on on the terrorist, the second on the attack, if that is the consensus here. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:06, 30 May 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. Weak arguments but uncontested after three weeks. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Udupi Jilla Alpasankhyatara Vedike

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

No real content Rathfelder ( talk) 21:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 00:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 00:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 13:55, 20 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 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as could not find anything other than wikipedia mirror sites. Seems to be an org with no notability as such. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete altogether and I nearly speedied this too, nothing at all to suggest the stability of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 3 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. Not much discussion, calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

RuPaul's Drag Race Battle of the Seasons: 2016 Extravaganza Tour

RuPaul's Drag Race Battle of the Seasons: 2016 Extravaganza Tour (  | 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:NTOUR. Azealia911 talk 21:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 13:56, 20 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 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it was only a few months-tour, nothing at all to suggest there was the depth to suggest an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 3 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. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 16:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Duryog Nivaran

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

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Unclear to me whether it was notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 13:57, 20 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 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, this is an RS describing the activity of the organization in some detail.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:03, 3 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. Based on the discussion I would have closed as merge but will not without an appropriate target. If anyone wants to create a new article to merge this information into I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n( talk page) 15:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chicago

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chicago (  | 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. consuls are not top tier diplomats. Secondly there is no inherent notability of these lists as a similar list was recently deleted. Let's see if the usual suspect turn up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. LibStar ( talk) 11:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 18:40, 20 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 00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my arguments at several other diplomat-related AfDs. This is just another formulaic microstub about a non-notable topic. Reyk YO! 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the scope of this role is international and it has received significant independent coverage, including in The Age (2004 Koutsoukis article) and announcement of appointments in The Canberra Times. Clare. ( talk) 08:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The Canberra Times articles are merely routine announcements and contain no discussion of the consul role like what he does. LibStar ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm waiting for someone to vote keep per "Clare's rationale ". LibStar ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a notable posting, given the notability of recent appointees who are blue-linked, but I believe there is scope for building this page a little more to make it more compliant with what is expected of these list pages. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 05:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
in what way does it meet a notability guideline? the 3 blue links are notable for other reasons. e.g. 2 were members of parliament. LibStar ( talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect (or redirect only for now if needed) to Lists of heads of diplomatic missions of Australia as there's nothing to suggest all of these are actually acceptable for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (keep) by continent or similar, for example, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, should all be one article. Not particualry notable or encyclopedic as standalone articles but combined could be a useful reference/resource for readers. Aoziwe ( talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Consul-General of Chicago is a relatively minor posting, it has no great diplomatic importance in its own right. However, of the last 5 appointees, 3 of them were independently notable enough to have their own article. I think part of the reason for this, is that the appointees are a bit of a mix – some of them career diplomats, others former politicians. Members of the later category will almost always be notable independently; most of the former aren't independently notable, but some of them are. Given all of this, my preference is to keep the list but merge it into another article . (I'm not sure which merge target is best though.) SJK ( talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment none of the merge !voters have suggested an appropriate target. LibStar ( talk) 07:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I was suggesting above that they be merged into fewer articles, for example List of Consuls-General of Australia in North America, noting also independent notability as per above too. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:05, 5 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 redirect to List of Beast Wars Neo characters#Predacons.  Sandstein  11:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Guiledart

Guiledart (  | 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, no third-party sources cited. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:20, 21 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 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Can't see any reason why this is worth an article...I'de say delete (non-notable, fancruft) unless there's a suitable redirect. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That suitable redirect would obviously be to the character page for the animated series this guy comes from. List_of_Beast_Wars_Neo_characters#Predacons Mathewignash ( talk) 01:21, 29 May 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 01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

SAE 310S stainless Steel

SAE 310S stainless Steel (  | 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 L1A1 FAL ( talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Would the nominator care to expand further on his reasons? Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC). reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
If merge is the outcome, the best target might be SAE steel grades#Stainless steel. -- Mark viking ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - almost self evidentially notable. If there isn't enough information about the subject, I wouldn't OBJECT to a merge, but I suspect that there is enough information to warrant a full article. History of the material, uses, physical properties... this can be expanded. No need to delete. Fieari ( talk) 06:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This has been a steel standard for almost 70 years, and given that, there is a lot of information out there about this class of materials. Property sheets like [42], [43], [44], and [45] give the basic facts about the materials. This US standard also has international counterparts [46], [47]. Applications are found in sources like [48] and [49]. There seem plenty of in depth reliable sources on which to base an article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 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_May_27&oldid=1142621365"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 26 May 28 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Safwan Ahmedmia

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

Just having a lot of webviews does not mean one meets the WP:GNG. Sources on page seem to only mention him incidentally or just duplicate his content. Not significant coverage at all. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The Draft of this was declined multiple times for the same reason and then just copy pasted over. Peter Rehse ( talk) 08:36, 28 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jed Ismael

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

Main claim to fame seems to the Instagram porn thing which was discovered by the subject. Coverage of this event don't seem to push him over WP:GNG and neither do any sources found by a Google search. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 23:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 02:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

trusted references such as the daily star are mentioned, with over 55 news website from around the globe mentioning the same issue and the same blogger. it has enough references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.204.90.183 ( talk) 18:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Besides the Daily Star being a tabloid, if Ismael is only known for this one thing, the article should just redirect to Instagram#Hidden pornography. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That section of the Instagram page was added by the same user who created the disputed page in question. i.e. Special:Contributions/Lily9980 — Christopher.akiki ( talk) 14:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

He's also known for hacking major Lebanese companies and banks live on tv, which were references by the corresponding articles written in arabic 178.135.242.154 ( talk) 05:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E, and there are further BLP concerns. Better he be mentioned in the Instagram article per Patar knight above. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤ 10:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for solid independent notability, nothing convincing this can be acceptable aside from the apparent event. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, certainly a case of WP:BLP1E as mentioned by Fosse8. Not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:44, 4 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 to keep here. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Terry Poison

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

Sources in article do not establish that this passes WP:BAND nor do sources from a quick Google search. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 22:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:12, 28 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Padraic Cunningham

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the highest level of Irish football, which is confirmed as not fully pro per WP:FPL, meaning that this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Players at the highest level in Ireland have faced deletion going back to 2010 see here where consensus was that they do meet notability at present Galway are in contention for a Europa League spot. Mo ainm ~Talk 22:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The "consensus" that Mo ainm cites above merely shows that GNG trumps NFOOTBALL, which is not an area of contention, especially when this player fails both. Giant Snowman 09:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Here is some reliable sources to show he doesn't fail GNG Irish Examiner RTE Extra time.ie goal.com midwest radio Connacht Tribune Do we intend to delete every single player who plays in the top flight of Irish football? Mo ainm ~Talk 10:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. There is no consensus that playing in the League of Ireland makes players are notable ( this AfD from April resulted in a unanimous decision to delete). Number 5 7 15:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Is coverage in multiple sources not enough to satisfy GNG? Mo ainm ~Talk 10:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
All the examples you put forward are just reports (or previews) on matches that he played in, so no – I would expect to see articles solely focussed on him as a player. But going further than that, due to the nature of sports coverage, you can write a well-referenced article on players playing well down the semi-pro leagues – during a similar debate a few months ago I created a well-referenced article in my userspace on a player playing for the club I support at level eight in England that included four news articles actually focussing on him (not simply match reports) as an example. Even though he plays for my club, I don't think he's a notable footballer, and I don't want Wikipedia filling up with tens of thousands of articles on semi-pro footballers who fall into the same category. Number 5 7 12:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the reply, maybe a change is needed in policy in regard to players who are playing at the highest level in their country, at present Galway are having a very good season and it is not an impossibility that they could qualify for the Europa Cup. Mo ainm ~Talk 12:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That's been suggested and rejected many times in the past; playing at the top level does not make someone notable. The reason we have the fully pro rule is that these are leagues where there is genuinely enough interest to deem the players notable (i.e. in terms of attendances, sponsorship, tv income etc). Number 5 7 13:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above. The "highest level" thing is a bit of a red herring in a way; while the Irish league isn't fully professional, that only means the subject doesn't *automatically* qualify for an article. It's entirely possible for a semi-pro or amateur player to still be notable and well-sourced; this guy appears to be neither, and there's literally nothing substantive in the article. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤ 10:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as others have said, no fully pro appearances made and clear failure of GNG Spiderone 11:40, 4 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. A clear consensus for delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Lincoln Isham

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

Being a great-grandson of Abraham Lincoln isn't enough for an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, very few sources. Agree that being a great- grandson of Abraham Lincoln is not enough to gain him an article.

KoreanWon talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per above. Nothing notable in the article. MB ( talk) 16:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: notability not conferrable solely by being related to a notable individual. This is very clear, Wikipedia 101. Quis separabit? 14:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for actual notability as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as above, falls down on the GNG (being distantly related to someone famous isn't in itself notable, and there's no claim to notability being *made* otherwise, let alone sourced).  Fosse    8► 16:37, 3 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 is to delete. Kudos to CorporateM for being upfront about his COI disclosure. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sangamo BioSciences

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

The article gives the appearance of being well-sourced without actually being so. The sources are written by a Forbes "contributor" [1], only briefly mention the company [2] [3] or are just press releases [4] [5]. The article has content like "a major step toward immunological functional control of HIV" (a very WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim) cited to a press release. I have not found any sources to suggest the company is notable and promotional articles on anything marginally notable are typically still deleted. Please see the COI disclosure on my user page. CorporateM ( Talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: copy/pasted promo; clear COI. Quis separabit? 14:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or perhaps redirect to Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects. I was unable to find more than brief mentions of the company in reliable sources, so it seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Perhaps the most notable thing about the company is their SB-728-T clinical trial, which was discussed in reliable sources like a New York Times article and a Scientific American article. These independent RS suggest that a mention of the trial at WP is reasonable and indeed it is already at Zinc finger nuclease#Prospects in the last sentence. I'd be OK with a redirect to that section, but because it isn't a perfect target, delete is a reasonable option too. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nice work @ Mark viking:. Personally I don't think a redirect is sensible in this case, but incorporating those citations into the Zinc fingers page might be. Not enough source material for a dedicated page, but a few sentences maybe. Please note my COI disclosure. Cheers. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I added the NYT source to the zinc finger article. So noted on your disclosure--as always, thank you for being up front about your COI status. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing at all convincing for any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for lack of available sources confirming notability - the subject appears to fail WP:CORP - and for the overly promotional tone (only really a step away from blatant advertising), which given the notability issues doesn't seem like something that could be fixed by a rewrite. ✤ Fosse  8 ✤ 16:23, 3 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 keep. Appears to have been nominated in error. Josh Milburn ( talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Henry-Russell Hitchcock

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

(neelix) No sure on this one. His first name is Henry-Russell. We don't tend to do redirects from people's first names. We don't have Bert redirecting to Bertrand Russell for example. Does this make sense? Si Trew ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Alan Bennett has a lovely little anecdote he was in a cab and the driver said "you're that chap off the telly aren't you". Bennett said well yes I might be. The cab driver said "I had that Bertie Russell in the back of me cab the other day, so I asked him, well Lord Russell, what's it all about? And you know, the bugger couldn't tell me". Si Trew ( talk) 20:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. What does the existence of a bad redirect have to do with anything? A bare glance at the snippets found by a Google book search for his name reveals clear notability: "the book that established Henry-Russell Hitchcock as a pre-eminent American historian of modern architecture" ... "twenty-one original essays were written to honor a scholar who has transformed the study and teaching of architectural history in the United States". Google scholar finds more titles like "Henry-Russell Hitchcock: The Architectural Historian as Critic and Connoisseur" ( JSTOR  42620522) "Lewis Mumford, Henry-Russell Hitchcock and the Bay Region Style" (not online?), "Constructing Modernism, Berenice Abbott and Henry-Russell Hitchcock: A Re-creation of the 1934 Exhibition, the Urban Vernacular of the Thirties, Forties, …" [6], and "Curating history, exhibiting ideas: Henry-Russell Hitchcock and architectural exhibition practices at the MoMA" [7]. Clear pass of WP:GNG. If the nominator intended to delete the redirect Henry-Russell, leaving the article itself in place, this should be withdrawn and speedily closed; it is not the right forum for that. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep, as no valid rationale for deletion is given. As DE points out above, the notability of the subject is unquestionable here. In fact, the references present in the article are already sufficient to establish such notability. If there is a bad redirect somewhere else, then that redirect needs to be either modified or deleted. That's certainly no reason at all to delete this article. Nsk92 ( talk) 01:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Strong pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Just close it. No need to spend time on debating this. The wording indicates that SimonTrew ( talk · contribs) intended to nominate the redirect page Henry-Russell for deletion and accidentally nominated the article. The most likely explanation: an overreliance on semi-automated editing combined with far too little sleep. -- Hegvald ( talk) 07:11, 29 May 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.
Absolutely sometimes I miss and nominate the article by mistake I had no intention to do that but the redirect. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Usually I catch it but thanks User:Hegvald for catching it for me. I have no intention to delete any article but I do miss, I usually then revert myself but just missed this one, thanks for catching it. Si Trew ( talk) 20:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is to delete. Should the subject meet WP:GNG or plays in a fully pro league in future, do ask for a WP:REFUND or just recreate the article. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Baoringdao Bodo

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator on the grounds that he has played youth football, and will play pro football in future. Neither of these confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 08:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Delete - seems to be WP:TOOSOON but article should be recreated if subject meets notability requirements in the future. Inter&anthro ( talk) 14:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still nothing at all convincing of any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom Spiderone 16:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NFOOTY, WP:TOOSOON. Although the ISL is fully pro, this is a youth team player who's never actually played in it, and there's no indication of notability beyond those. We don't have articles on every youth/trainee squad footballer at far more notable clubs.  Fosse    8► 16:33, 3 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. If anyone wants to continue the discussion as to whether this should be renamed or merged elsewhere it can be brought up on its talk page. J04n( talk page) 16:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Timeline of senescence research

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

Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions about "breakthroughs" and such, supported by primary sources. Also containing inaccuracies (e.g., group selection is not a "theory of aging"). Randykitty ( talk) 12:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • I agree these sorts of lists shouldn't exist, as they inherently rely on a personal interpretation of events. A well-written article that follows coverage from reliable sources, on the other hand could potentially be of great value to the encyclopaedia. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Presuming the issue is with this being a timeline of research, rather than with the subject itself or with timelines themselves, it seems what would be needed are sources about the overarching subject which provide guidance about the sorts of things that should be included. There are indeed primary sources here, which is problematic, as yes, that would be original research to compile one's own selection of "greatest hits" but there are also citations like History of Research into Ageing/Senescence, A History of Life-Extensionism In The Twentieth Century, etc. which suggest it's not entirely reliant on primary sources. It also doesn't take more than a quick search to find plenty of other reliable sources with their own timelines on senescence/aging, which is a pretty typical standard for stand-alone lists on Wikipedia. I'll also add that this was created hours before the nomination (I deprodded it about an hour an a half after it was created), so I don't see why these aren't issues that couldn't possibly be addressed or even explained to the relatively new user who wrote the article before rushing to delete it. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nobody is rushing here. AFD (and PROD as well) provide a whole week to show a subject is notable. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Well yes, but having your first article greeted immediately with an AfD notice is certainly a bit WP:BITEy. A novice editor does not know the timescales of the various WP processes. Tigraan Click here to contact me
In my estimation, an editor who has this as their very first edit, is bound to be familiar with AfD, too. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • keep as the issues mentioned-Large amount of original research, idiosyncratic opinions ... supported by primary sources ...can be fixed...IMO-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 14:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hello. Here Wikisanchez. I created the page. I have no internet until tomorrow. Please be patient. I'll fix the problems as soon as possible. Greetings from Argentina. Wikisanchez ( talk) 02:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisanchez ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Ozzie plus some of the issues are already being fixed by Wikisanchez. DeVerm ( talk) 23:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Senescence or move to History of senescence and convert to prose. This isn't really a good subject for a list, but it would make either a good history section at the main article or possibly a split, depending on how long the prose turns out to be. ~ Rob Talk 02:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Please Randykitty at least point at the presumably unreliable sources. There are over fifty references on the page. Wikisanchez ( talk) 02:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Hmm no, that is not the way it works. You do not put tons of sources and then demand every editor to read in detail every of them before listening to them. A couple of good references is enough to keep, thousands of bad ones have no effect. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Only a few examples: uroworldindata.org, Naturalpedia, several press releases, etc. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
ourworldindata.org is supported by Oxford University. Why wouldn't it be reliable? Wikisanchez ( talk) 13:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"Supported" can mean many things (I guess here it means "is the web host"), it does not mean "exercizes editorial oversight". Here as Max Roser is the sole editor of the website, hence it is as self-published as you can get. Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I think what Wikisanchez is asking isn't "will you do the work of going through the article so I don't have to" but "give me something to go on". If someone doesn't have experience navigating primary vs. secondary sources or Wikipedia's policies on synthesis and reliable sources, a phrase like "idiosyncratic opinions about 'breakthroughs' and such, supported by primary sources" might sound like a desirable thing, so it can be challenging to actually make meaningful improvements (at least the targeted sort that would satisfy critics). He should get to know those policies and dig through the sources to try to figure it out, of course (nobody should get special treatment), but more examples would probably be helpful.
Of course, I may be ascribing a thought process to Wikisanchez that isn't actually applicable :)
@Wikisanchez: Just to summarize a point that may not itself be totally clear: with an article like a timeline, citing studies and other primary research is ok, but those sources do not themselves justify including something. There's always a question of "is this important enough to include in a timeline" -- and answering that without a source is original research. In other words, the sources have the science and the sources also tell us what science is important. If an item in the timeline doesn't have a source independent of the researchers themselves that effectively says "this is important", it shouldn't be in there (even if you know it's important). Another point is that stricter rules can apply to sourcing for anything related to biomedical content on Wikipedia. WP:MEDRS is the guideline for that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
For example, I removed the last two entries in the timeline. This discovery may be important, but we need a source saying it's important, and we should never be citing press releases. This organization may be important, but we need something saying it's sufficiently important within the timeline of senescence research, and again should not be citing a press release. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Could someone lay out the argument for why a timeline is better than a history section written in prose? I'm just not seeing the benefit. I mentioned this with my vote above, but I wanted to specifically encourage replies to this point, because I haven't seen any counter-argument. ~ Rob Talk 14:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I think that would be better, but I don't think that means we have to set other editors' priorities if they don't agree. Ultimately, if we had a perfect array of articles on the subject, I think there would be room for a timeline. We may think the article should take priority, but some people like the timeline format. You could write the history section and someone could use it to build a timeline or someone could build a timeline and you could use it to write the history section. I don't think there should be an absolute requirement that one come before the other, depending on what people are into and how they think. E.g. writing prose might be prohibitively difficult to someone who can still contribute by putting together a timeline, or someone's disability (or just different way of thinking) may make more sense out of a visually linear and table-based timeline than reading prose. I don't know, and I'm obviously not saying someone who prefers timelines must have a disability or something -- just saying I don't see a compelling reason to say "do prose instead". That said, if people don't think this timeline is appropriate on its own merits, merging may be a perfectly reasoanble route -- but I think it should be evaluated on its own, not in relation to the status of other articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I covered events with secondary sources and removed some unreliable sources. I left ouroworldindata.org as reference providing it's well covered by media. The article is not exhaustive, partly due to the large amount of theories on aging, but most of the popular theories (those with high frequency on the internet) are included on this timeline.01:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Wikisanchez ( talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The topic seems notable although some of the sources don't really fulfil WP:RS. The amount of general information shows that the topic is verifiable and encyclopaedic. As to the question of using pros, I much prefer pros myself but this timeline format is understandable and, for me, is well done. - Pmedema ( talk) 17:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and restructure as History of senescence. I have to say that the scattering of pre-20th century philosophical thoughts does not site well beside the account of the modern development of the subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Those philosophical thoughts were the science of that time. They were in charge when modern science didn't exist. Wikisanchez ( talk) 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/Redirect - We don't need this, and putting things into a highly subjective timeline form rather than using standard prose isn't helpful. We already have: Life_extension#History_of_the_life_extension_movement. That whole page needs work, and that particular section is a particularly notable example. Basically anything here in this present page that's notable should be uprooted and planted over there. The stuff in this present page that isn't notable, such as the puffy press releases being used as citations, should just be gotten rid of.
Also going to note that if someone objects that historical research into life extension isn't the same thing as historical research into aging, then they're making a distinction without a strong difference in history. Individuals studied how exactly aging happens because of their interest in improving human lives. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Some of this can also go to Life_extension#Current_strategies_and_issues and Life_extension#Proposed_strategies too. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Merging a page isn't the same thing as outright just deleting it, so I tweaked my comment above to be clear. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 23:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Sure, this page has issues, but WP:BEFORE really applies here. The unrealiable sources and the heavy reliance on primary sources can easily be fixed. What matters is the information is verified, and that the subject has beyond all doubt received enough coverage to meet the requirements at WP:GNG. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • BEFORE would apply if I had argued a lack of notability. That is not the case, I basically argue that WP:TNT applies. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:14, 6 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Giuseppe Zocco

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

Subject has a long list of mentions (both listed in the article and found during my BEFORE), but, on closer inspection, all appear to be passing mentions, not "significant," ROUTINE, not independent of the source, or unreliable, thus failing GNG.  Rebb ing  21:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing actually suggesting any solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Recommend keeping page intact, as "significant" direct, dedicated media coverage of subject has been added, including notable characterizations of subject. Additionally, added info backing up significance of firm he co-founded. Taken together, subject now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCOReilly ( talk • contribs) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and by himself, his achievements are not notable at all.

KoreanWon talk 04:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Retain Meets WP:GNG and subject's achievements are indeed notable: co-founded a leading VC firm which has backed some of the largest tech companies such as Facebook; he was called "one of the key VCs in Europe" by TechCrunch editor-at-large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpiven ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Please note that notability is not typically inherited: the fact that Mr. Zocco's firm may be notable does not make him notable. Rubbing elbows with notable companies and individuals and frequent mentions in the press fall far short of the significant and independent coverage described by GNG and BASIC. Rebb ing 18:48, 2 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

K: Secret Eye

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

Upcoming film which does not meet notability for films because there is no coverage in reliable sources. While the film may become notable after release, it is currently too soon. It should also be noted that the article creator's username is the same as the director's first name. Opencooper ( talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper ( talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Opencooper ( talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
in looking beyond the article:
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Secret Eye Abhirup Ghosh Rudranil Ghosh Rajatava Dutta Santanu Chakrobarty Chinmoy Pal
  • Delete and/or draftify per failing WP:NFF. Searches seem to indicate that the fillmaker is a film student, and even if ignoring the common-in-India first name "Abhirup" and a possible WP:COI, filming of this has not been confirmed, and the topic has not the wide coverage that we would prefer. We can wait and revisit the topic in a few months. It is not unsourcable, but THIS needs translation and while THIS does not confirm filming in text, its included movie stills are strongly indicative. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The film has an IMDB page and its Facebook and Twitter pages have shooting stills which establish that shooting has taken place. I think this complies with the terms of Wikipedia. This is the official facebook page [8]. This is the IMDB page [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Just existing isn't enough, articles in Wikipedia require coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Opencooper ( talk) 16:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Times of India is one of the biggest and most trusted newspapers in India. It has written about the film. This link has been shared [10]. I think this is a reliable enough source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Yes I saw the source. Unfortunately that's not enough. It's a short article while notability requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Two short news stories do not lend themselves to an encyclopedia article about the subject. Opencooper ( talk) 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Another source has been added. There are numerous film related wikis which have much lesser sources than K: Secret Eye yet they pass notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 ( talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

There will always be other articles that might not meet our notability criteria, but that doesn't mean they won't be deleted nor that those films meet our standards. This deletion discussion is talking about this film in particular, so arguments should focus on it specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, that article is from the same newspaper as the previous source, the Prabasher Khaber. Notability requires coverage in multiple sources, and even if we included this one, it would still not constitute significant in-depth coverage. Opencooper ( talk) 05:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 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 redirect to List of Decepticons.  Sandstein  11:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cyclonus

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

This character article fails to establish notability. Other than a trivial "Top 8" reference, all the references reinforce fictional details and trivial toy details. TTN ( talk) 11:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect and merge if there's anything that people want merging; I am, however, opposed to keeping as-is, as I do not see any evidence of real-world notability. While the article is very long, it seems to be mostly made up of trivial details. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge to List of Decepticons for the reasons stated above. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - A Google search indicates the character will appear in Transformers (film series)#Transformers: The Last Knight (2017). If so, there will be plenty of real-world coverage for the character.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Argento Surfer ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 23 May 2016
    • If and when that coverage is forthcoming, the page can be recreated. Appearing film does not automatically grant notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Decepticons or delete. There are more hits on Google Books for this character than most of the others that have been nominated lately, but the results are basically trivial mentions, price guides, or novels. There isn't enough independent sourcing about the real-world aspects to satisfy the GNG. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:33, 28 May 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 Product_recall#2016. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

CRF Frozen Foods recall

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

Just another news event. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"The company's products include 40 different brands names sold in all 50 states, as well as in Canada and Mexico. The recall continues to grow because other processed foods use CRF ingredients."
Also, per [12], "Products were both packaged for sale as individual products and repackaged by places like Piggly Wiggly, Kroger and ConAgra foods as ingredients in a host of other store-brand and private-label products for stores like Trader Joe's and Costco.
Also, retailers including Target and regional distributors such as Midwest grocery chain Hy-Vee Foods have recently recalled products made by Tokyo-based Ajinomoto Windsor due to the company recalling 70 of its Asian variety products that contain CRF vegetables — about 22 million kilograms worth — some of which were also sold in Canada and Mexico." -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's simply still nothing actually convincing for its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as above, seems an eminently sensible suggestion - this isn't really article material per WP:NOTNEWS but it's useful information to have *somewhere*.  Fosse    8► 16:42, 3 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 that the article meets NAUTHOR & GNG, (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Asumiko Nakamura

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

No notable works for EN Wikipedia. Is there enough to keep the author around? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep and suggesting withdrawn per WP:HEY, after the expansion it is clear that the subject passes GNG and NAUTHOR. Worth reminding the nominator her works being currently redlinked in en.wikipedia does not mean they are non-notable, and authors/works which are notable in Japan are perfectly suitable for having articles in en.wiki. Cavarrone 07:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please note that the notability tag was placed in 2012, so she was not notable prior to that. That her Doukyusei manga got a film adaptation in 2016 does help her notability as well as her other works charting on Oricon in 2015, probably because of the anime film. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What a crappy argument! A notability tag placed in 2012 does not automatically mean she was not notable prior to that, except you are stating that every notability tag means the relevant article is not notable. Also, wathever she was notable or not in 2012, does not mean you are supposed to ignore coverage about her works in 2016! And obviously a manga of her adapted into a film and her other works receiving reviews do not just help but demonstrate notability, both for WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. And as you yourself apparently noted, she had already charted on Oricon back in 2013. Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Look at the article at 2012 [13] and then right before the AFD. [14] There's nothing that showed she was that notable at that time. There is now. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Speedy keep Lack of sources in English does not mean she is not notable when sources in Japanese are available. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 12:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Then provide those sources. Make sure they are secondary ones that are independent of the publisher or her blog. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
If you are arguing Asahi Shimbun, Oricon or ダ・ヴィンチニュース are unreliable or have a conflict of interest with the subject you should provide evidences . Cavarrone 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm talking about the state of the article at the time of the AFD. It was supported only by primaries such as JManga (publisher), and DMP (publisher). Nothing in the lead paragraph indicated that these works getting licensed by North America / Europe was a big deal to establish that she is notable beyond being some small author in Japan. This was all prior to the recent efforts by KurodaSho. Of course Oricon, Asahi, and D-Navi are reliable secondary sources. That's what the article needs. That, and the ANN references showing they are charting on Oricon and the news about the movie help justify keeping it. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:02, 29 May 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. Clear consensus to delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Kieran Preston

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:41, 27 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fallen Agents Fund

Fallen Agents Fund (  | 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 does not comply with WP:N It does not list any reliable third party sources and I could not find any. Article creator has deleted tags and PROD without comment nor article improvement. DeVerm ( talk) 19:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. DeVerm ( talk) 00:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DeVerm ( talk) 00:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see any coverage of this charity in independent reliable sources. That's kind of strange, but maybe it's too soon. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
NOTE: I found this online, which states; "The Fallen Agents Fund is a charitable organization with the goal of aiding and assisting the families of fallen Border Patrol Agents, weather they fell in the line of duty or off duty, weather they fell from injuries physical or mental. The Fallen Agents Fund has just obtained its 501(c)(3) status but has been working to improve the lives of the families of fallen agents for the past few years. With your help we can assist the families of those who have given the greatest sacrifice in service to our nation."
Notability, however, not determined just by that alone. Quis separabit? 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Deleting pages like these always feels weird because we of-course support the goals of such organizations, but that feeling is explicitly not reason to include it in WP. In this case, your quote comes from the website of this organization itself, which can be considered self promotion, rather than a reliable secondary source. We need notable newspapers, magazines etc. publishing interviews, yearly donations and such before the organization becomes "notable" enough for WP. DeVerm ( talk) 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

NOTE: Added a referance from bizpedia it gives founders names and some location information. Im not sure if thats the secondary source were looking for or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorleyhey ( talk • contribs) 21:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete With regret. The 501c3 filing is available online, but I cannot find secondary sources to support notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it's rather newly founded and simply nothing actually for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things - the sources we'd need to make an article on a charitablie initiative like this won't be available for a long time yet.  Fosse    8► 16:45, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delilah Alvares

Delilah Alvares (  | 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 beauty pageant winner, occasional theatre actor and a writer without any substantive references to her work. The many refs fail to establish notability . Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   19:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – As per WP:GNG [1] says that it needs to have reliable sources to pass it, and it clearly have. Are you telling me GOA doesn't make her notable? Well we should also propose Aditi Vats, every girl in Category:2013_beauty_pageants_in_India (also 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016), Gail Nicole Da Silva and many other hundreds of "beauty pageant winners". The ocasionally part of your sentence, shows how wrong you are when researching the subject, will cite this part from Delilah Alvares:

Four wonders (2007) as the mental sister, Ms. Brown (2007) as the lead character, Drunkard (2005) as the lead character, Murder Mystery (2007) in a double role of a mentally challenged child and the psychopath, Schizophrenia (2008) as the schizophrenic, The prostitute from Baina (2006) as the prostitute, that was critically reviewed negatively as being too vulgar for theatre and Money makes the world go round (2006) as the supporting character.

Also: [2]

She was then offered short films Expect the Unexpected (2011)[12], Poonam (2011), Kismat (2012), supporting characters in feature movies and television shows like Diary of a Gypsy (2012-2013) and others, special appearance on Channel V – Dil, Dosti, Dance, TV commercials like Rubicon fruit juice, Fastrack, CMYK, Canon Power shot – what makes us click (2012) with Anushka Sharma and music videos, among which were Khabir Moraes's "Gopan Io" by Milroy Goes (2010) and "Vote Tit for Tat" by Remo Fernandes (2012)

Model for:

L'Oreal-Bridal look, SummerTime 2011, Music festival-2011, Mr. Goa 2010, North-Ease Breeze show, Monty Sally, Wendell Rodricks, Verma d'mello, Jyostsna Bhat, Philu Martins, Yana Nagoba, Gitanjali Jewellery,[14] and worked with many photographers around the world like Frimson's Chicago, Walk through magazine-Dubai, Marlboro-United Kingdom, Prasad Pankar, Fabian Rodrigues, Seema Amonkar, Jayavanti Loundo, Henry Nazareth, Datta Gawade, Siddhesh Naik, Brijesh Kakodkar, Krupa Tamhankar, Chetana Bhat, Mubarak Khan, Ryan D'souza, Ashok Pol, Gautam Pai, Pooja Lawande Karmali, Nidhi Tar, Gautam Karkal, Pratik Chari, Manohar Chari, Hemant Parab, Ashley D'souza, Ashu Dhond, Ashwin Shukla, Sheldon Rodrigues, Sharad Khot Photography, Au Point photography, 'Out of the Box' Photography, Crispino Dourado and many more.

And the "Writer" without any notable work will refer this:

Alvares has authored a fiction novel series, The Maze published by Christoph, Matthews Publishing, New York

To start; The Maze is a very popular series worldwide, make sure to do some research [3] AND Christopher Matthews Publishing is notable in the indie area of the books. [4]

IMO, this actually meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. But since your attacks directly to the subject as "many ref fails", I am happy to call WP:ARS. -- OGfromtheGut ( talk) 21:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://pretty-hot.com/delilah-alvares/
  2. ^ http://awesomegang.com/delilah-alvares/
  3. ^ http://christophermatthewspub.com/the-maze/
  4. ^ http://www.bookbuzzr.com/MontanaYank
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Anthropocene and Kazakhstan

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

We already have an article for Anthropocene. The rest of the article appears to be about a "Green Bridge" initiative in Kazakstahn. However the whole is much more an essay rather than a Wikipedia article and I see no notability here for the Green Bridge initiative of Kazakhstan. This appears to be a dog's dinner of an article that needs to be completely restructured and thought through and should probably be titled Green Bridge Partnership Programme, although on present showing, I would doubt whether that would meet WP:GNG. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and has a distinct promotional feel to it.   Velella   Velella Talk   19:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Reads like an essay but could potentially be a future article if the project is notable. Cursory searches show a lot of similar phrasing to sources from UNDP and UN ESCAP, but not enough to qualify it for G12. RA0808 talk contribs 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this is apparently for the that subject specifically and there's simply nothing else to actually suggest this has achieved any solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 3 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. J04n( talk page) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Walmart greeter

Walmart greeter (  | 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 see no reason to have an article specifically about Walmart greeters, as nothing distinguishes them from greeters in general, whether at Home Depot, at Costco, at the Department of Motor Vehicles, or at the local stores we patronized in my town in the 1970s (demonstrating that Walmart doesn't even have the distinction of having introduced the concept). Largoplazo ( talk) 19:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If this article gets deleted, we should still probably cover the subject of greeters at any business at a new article that doesn't currently exist, because Greeter is about people who welcome tourists. Everymorning (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Quite right, I saw that article and was thinking as well that it would also make sense to have a generic one about greeters at businesses. Largoplazo ( talk) 19:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep BUT PROVIDED as per above rename and generalise. For example: KMart in Australia has greeters. Bunnings in Australia has them. Aoziwe ( talk) 14:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to greeting per WP:PAGEDECIDE. If someone feels ambitious enough to create an article about greeters, go right ahead, but until then we should make a sub-section at greeting about professional "greeters." -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 23:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Walmart greeter, unlike generic greeters in Home Depot or whatever, is a big meme in America and a big cultural stereotype. It's not a coincidence that Forbes or the Wall Street Journal announce the come back of the iconic greeters in Wal-Mart, when there's no any similar article about greeters in Home Depot or Costco. I did create this article precisely because of a piece of comedy on TV (it was maybe Bill Maher, not sure) related to Walmart greeter that my wife had to explain to me because I was unaware of the thing. I think it would have been interesting to know this on Wikipedia ; In fact, even on Wikipedia, there was several occurence of Walmart greeter in several article (often related to comedy). -- Deansfa ( talk) 13:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing what's iconic about Walmart greeters in particular. If retailer X happened to have instituted some policy change regarding, say, its checkout clerks, and then changed things back to the way they were, and this happened to be reported in the press, that wouldn't mean that checkout clerks of X have any particular notability. In either case, what articles are about isn't the staff, it's about the policy change, and I would apply WP:NEVENT as well as WP:NOTNEWS to that. Largoplazo ( talk) 15:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • "There's lots of articles of major newspapers over the years": Yet all the links you provided here are about the same inextricably associated pair of events. As for "iconic": If a newspaper article reports that a person about whom Wikipedia has an article is "irrepressible", does Wikipedia also report that the person is "irrepressible"? Let's not confuse a writer's casual, abstract characterization conveying his own subjective impression with objective, concrete information obtained by the source through careful research. Largoplazo ( talk) 13:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Between you who explains that you have greeters in your local store, and a financial prominent newspaper that characterized Wal-Mart greeters as iconic, I prefer believing the reliable source over your local life. It's how we write article on Wikipedia. Letterman didn't label John McCain as a local store greeter during his presidential campaign in 2008, he labelled him as a Wal-Mart greeter. What I'm trying to explain is that beyond the position itself, "Wal-Mart greeter" is used as a stereotype in America, is a subject of memes, and a topic used in several pieces of comedy (like for example this piece of comedy by Jeff Dunham about becoming a Wal-Mart greeter). -- Deansfa ( talk) 15:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You continue to confuse information in which one has confidence when it comes from a reliable source, with a casual, non-informative, subjective epithet like "iconic" tossed out there by the person writing the text, reflecting no more than a personal impression.
A number of sources returned from a Google Books search on store greeters] restricted to books published before 1980 confirm my recollection that Walmart didn't originate the concept. These include a 1957 work mentioning the position at Hechinger home improvement stores and a 1960 work explaining the role of greeters at Selfridge's. So any source that claims that Walmart did create the position has undermined its own reliability.
If you want to write about the Walmart greeter as a meme, then you'll need to find reliable sources discussing that meme or else you are engaging in original research/synthesis. Largoplazo ( talk) 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It's an article about Wal-Mart greeter here, not about the concept of greeters. I never pretended that Wal-Mart invented the concept, which you implied that I did. Also I provided diversity of sources, duration of coverage as asked in the WP recommendation you provided. I never based my opinion on my local bodega having a greeter when I was young. I even went further and showed that "Wal-Mart greeter" was a stereotype or an archetype used in several pieces of comedy in America, citing Bill Maher and also sharing a link to a Jeff Dunham piece about Wal-Mart greeters. You never stopped talking about your personal experience as rationale for why this article should be deleted. I prefer diversity of sources and duration of coverage.-- Deansfa ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I mentioned my personal experience exactly one time, but, sure go ahead and say that I "never stopped talking about [my] personal experiences". If you happen to have found a number of places where people mentioned Walmart greeters, and you're concluding from that that Walmart greeters in particular are a meme, a stereotype, an archetype, that's your own synthesis. In the second sentence of the article you implied that Walmart created the role when you wrote that "The role was created by Sam Walton in the 1980s." "Greeter" is a role; it isn't as though being a Walmart greeter is a different role from being a greeter, any more than being a Walmart cashier is a different role from being a cashier. So your wording implies that Walton created the greeter concept. If you mean to say that "Sam Walton introduced the greeter role to his stories in 1980" that would be clearer if that's what you meant. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • To expand on my point about synthesis: Mention in comedy pieces by David Letterman and Jeff Dunham doesn't qualify as substantial coverage in reliable sources. If you are drawing conclusions about the prominence of the Walmart greeter concept from those, that's your synthesis from your individual observations. Largoplazo ( talk) 18:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • How would you feel about the argument that because the "Attention, Kmart shoppers" announcement has become a well-known meme, it follows that Kmart shoppers are genuinely notable beyond the trivial intersection of the respective notabilities of "shoppers" and "Kmart", and a Kmart shopper article is sustainable? There's even plenty of coverage of Kmart shoppers in reliable sources. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Largoplazo ( talk) 18:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There's no bibliographical source about Kmart shopper or Costco greeters. No article in major newspaper around the world. For Wal-Mart greeters, there is. There's an entire chapter about the history of Wal-Mart greeters in the book The Wal-Mart Way by Don Soderquist, there's dozens of articles in the Wall Street Journal, the HuffPo. It's called duration of coverage (2005-2016), diversity of sources (books, articles of several major newspaper around the world), reliability of published sources. We can even extend the topic and write about its usage in popular culture and comedy. I respect and understand your point of view, but I really believe that this one topic is eligible to have its own article. Have a nice Memorial Day. -- Deansfa ( talk) 19:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • What is a bibliographical source, as opposed to, say, the five sources I gave you (one of which was from a book, if that's what you intended by the use of "bibliographical")? (You say no major newspaper has written about them. Really? Did you look?) If a book about Walmart talks about Walmart greeters—well, what other greeters is a book about Walmart going to discuss? It certainly doesn't lead to the conclusion that Walmart greeters have any notability independent of the notability of Walmart. There is also duration of coverage, diversity of sources, etc., with respect to Kmart shoppers. "Attention, Kmart shoppers" became a meme in popular culture and comedy. Here's a book (yes, yet another book) all about Kmart with an entire chapter on Kmart's failure to focus properly on its shoppers. I'm not seeing anything that distinguishes the status of Kmart shoppers from the status of Walmart greeters for purposes of assessing individual notability.
In that Soderquist book I do not see a chapter that's all about greeters, and I see only half a dozen pages or so that even have the word "greeter" on them. On the other hand, it does have a chapter all about Walmart supplier relationships. Do Walmart suppliers therefore have their own notability as a class meriting treatment in a freestanding article?
Oh, it just came to my attention: Soderquist was the vice chairman and COO of Walmart. Not exactly an independent source. Largoplazo ( talk) 19:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
If you think you can write an article about Kmart shoppers, good for you! I'm absolutely not interested by this topic. By the way, I did read the articles you shared and they're not centered about Kmart shoppers: To make people believe that Wall Street Journal/Forbes/Bloomberg articles centered on Wall Mart greeter are the same than local radio station reports about the closing of a Kmart store in Florida is a good try. -- Deansfa ( talk) 19:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Wallis, Jay. "Longview Kmart shoppers not surprised to see it closing down". www.cbs19.tv. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  2. ^ Turner, Marcia Layton (2003-08-08). Kmart's Ten Deadly Sins: How Incompetence Tainted an American Icon. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN  9780471481188.
  3. ^ FOX. "Hayward Kmart shoppers treated to 'Pay Away The Layaway'". KTVU. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  4. ^ "Kmart shoppers saddened by news of Duluth closure". Duluth News Tribune. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  5. ^ "Kmart layaway customers get bad news for Christmas". ABC7 San Francisco. Retrieved 2016-05-29.
  • You missed a trick. Several sources such as Ortega 1999, p. 202 credit the Crowley origin tale to "company folklore". Others trace it to a 1990s biography of Walton, some even quoting it directly. In the meantime, McClurg 2014, pp. 145–146 tells a quite different origin, at length. Dunnett & Arnold 2006 is yet more detailed coverage of the subject as a whole, incidentally, cited as primary source material by a few secondary sources such as Scharoun 2012, pp. 125–126.

    Uncle G ( talk) 12:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

    • Ortega, Bob (1999). In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and how Wal-Mart is Devouring the World. Kogan Page Publishers. ISBN  9780749431778.
    • McClurg, Bob (2014). The Tasca Ford Legacy: Win on Sunday, Sell on Monday!. CarTech Inc. ISBN  9781613251287.
    • Dunnett, Jane; Arnold, Stephen J. (2006). "Falling Prices, Happy Faces: Organizational Culture at Wal-Mart". In Brunn, Stanley D. (ed.). Wal-Mart World: the World's Biggest Corporation in the Global Economy. New York: Routledge. ISBN  9781135929138.
    • Scharoun, Lisa (2012). "The Rise of the Big Box". America at the Mall: The Cultural Role of a Retail Utopia. McFarland. ISBN  9780786490509.
  • Merge - to greeter. This has been an interesting discussion and it proves that there is a debated history of this position covered in the literature. I propose that a redirect be left standing and that the material be generalized and merged to the extant piece on greeter, with a redirect established for store greeter. Walmart does not seem to have invented the position, so attributing something special to that chain via a freestanding article seems inappropriate, but there is definitely GNG oompf to support a piece on the generalized position — in which article extensive study of the Walmart case would be fully appropriate. Carrite ( talk) 15:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The greeter article is entirely about social tourism and volunteers who welcome tourists in their city or region. This article doesn't really fit in there, in my opinion, because the topics are vaguely similar in their general nature, but are not particularly related in nature. Apples and oranges. North America 1000 16:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG, thus qualifying for a standalone article. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America 1000 17:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  • That's better than before, since at least there's a diversity of topics rather than being focused on the one pair of events where Walmart dismissed its greeters, then reinstituted them (which is really about Walmart, not about its greeters). I'm still skeptical, because it looks like cherry-picking, not making it clear why Walmart greeters are notable independent of greeters in general. Walmart has a huge number of stores so, yes, many greeters are Walmart greeters, but I'm still not sure I see that they have special significance beyond that to this particular intersection of two categories, "Walmart" and "greeter".
I arbitrarily ran a web search on "united flight attendant". I found such diverse articles as these: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. I'm not sure that on the strength of these that United Airlines flight attendants have notability distinct from that of every other airline's flight attendants who, among them, engage in labor disputes and, individually, get involved in all sorts of newsworthy occurrences. Largoplazo ( talk) 10:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per Deansfa. I would generally find myself leaning to merge here, but the greeters at Walmart specifically are clearly notable as they've been covered by numerous reliable sources, and are considered a meme in America, thus meeting the standards for WP:GNG and qualifying to have their own, independent article. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:05, 6 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Shigeru Shibuya

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

Gene Starwind in Outlaw Star is a lead role, but I'm not sure how notable Iketeru Futari is or any of his other roles. Is that enough to keep him around? GPH VADB shows 89 roles. ANN has no news articles on him though. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the Japanese wiki has only one primary source. Since we cant find coverage in third party sources, the person fails WP:N. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing overall suggesting he can be confirmed for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tamotsu Nishiwaki

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

No lead roles in any major productions. Cell games announcer is low on the supporting cast for Dragon Ball Kai. Unclear what else is there. 85 roles on VADB though. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see any meaningful content that needs to be kept, the article can always be re-created down the line with bio info added if the person proves to be notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I also concur there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:39, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tamao Hayashi

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

Her most notable role is Nene-chan in Shin-chan, but other than that she has a lead role in Dororonpa (not a notable title for EN Wikipedia) and um, what else? That doesn't seem like enough to pass notability. 56 roles in VADB though. [32] AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:37, 27 May 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 Speedied as a hoax, and creator blocked indef. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Desmond James O'Donnell

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

De-prodded so bringing it here. Appears to be a made up person. I can find no evidence that anyone by this name ever competed for Ireland at the Olympics. Edits by the creator elsewhere seem to confirm that this may be the case. Even if he is real then this is an unsourced BLP. Basement12 (T. C) 18:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The Sports Reference site shows no such Irish athlete at the 1976 Olympics, nor any other. Tassedethe ( talk) 16:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per above; also my own search similarly uncovered nothing. SR also indicates that the youngest Irish athlete was 20 years old; the subject would have been 16, which is extraordinarily young for an Olympian in men's track events. Presumably this would have been likely to draw comment from reliable sources at the time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Yūji Fujishiro

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

I can't figure out what lead roles he is notable for in anime. ANN highlights only one role in Voltron. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The Japanese page lists a much wider range of credits as you might expect. Of the titles I recognised i'm not sure they are much more than mostly minor roles, but there might be some buried in there. Prolific yes, notable not so sure. SephyTheThird ( talk) 04:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless anything else better such as archives can be found and examined, because the current works are nothing to suggest solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't see this person as being notable. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:26, 3 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.  Sandstein  11:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness program

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

Fails WP:ORG. Programs at institutions generally do not get Wikipedia articles. Any useful content can be reintegrated into California Institute of Integral Studies. jps ( talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing particularly convincing solid independent notability has been achieved yet, nothing convincing for its own article thus Delete. Notifying DGG for schools analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. , essentially an advertisement for a non-notable program. In practice, individual programs within a department are almost always much too minute for separate articles. Not even the School of Consciousness and Transformation which offers this as one of its 10 programs would normally get an article of its own. DGG ( talk ) 13:06, 3 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.  Sandstein  11:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Combat Hopak

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

Non-notable martial art - recent creation (2000s) based on national dance. Only reference is to its home page - no indication of notability. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Article lacks the significant independent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG and also appears to fail WP:MANOTE. Papaursa ( talk) 15:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing to suggest the depth of solid independent notability, would be best mentioned as part of something else, not as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Chudi Ejekam

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

Following sock puppets of another undisclosed paid editor, I have discovered this article as another promotional piece. Creator is blocked as a sockpuppet and SPI says all edits by all accounts of this editor were for COI promotion of clients without disclosing them as paid edits which is a violation of Wikipedia Terms of Service.

This article is a similar promo BLP about a non notable individual who does not make the cut to be on wikipedia. The content is also clearly promotional with statements such as "played a vital role in the formal retail revolution" and is most likely aimed at acquiring rankings in google search which is another abuse of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a SEO tool. Other proponents and edits possibly include BLP violations that accuse involvement in scam but they do not match up to WP:CRIME criteria as well so this individual is non notable on both basis.

I have done some google searching and all websites that come up are bare mentions of the individual, drive by quotes by him in news sources again with bare mentions, PR sources and results that are other individuals by the same or similar name.

  • Hereby, I nominate this article for deletion and !vote delete on the basis of WP:GNG, WP:CRIME, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COI and not to mention undisclosed paid editing by a proven sock puppet. Drewziii ( talk) 16:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Any article created by a sock of a banned user qualifies for immediate Speedy Delete per WP:G5, and I have tagged it as such. No need for the full AfD process on this one. - SanAnMan ( talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I declined the G5. The master was blocked on May 1, and the puppet created the article on April 30. To qualify for G5, a puppet must create the article after either the master or another puppet was blocked.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing at all actually suggesting any solid independent notability by far, there's nothing minimally acceptable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 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. G11, promotional DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Rogue Initiative

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

Does not seem to be a notable company by our standards. The coverage isn't there, and it's hard to tell what they actually accomplished. Drmies ( talk) 16:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • From this video games reliable sources search, I might suggest there is indeed reliably sourced coverage of this company (and thus notability). Especially, this USA Today article introduces in-depth coverage, which is presently the 3rd citation in the article. Keep. -- Izno ( talk) 17:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, but it "introduces" coverage? I'm not sure what that means. This USA Today article has six paragraphs, three of which aren't about the subject, and the other three (it explicitly says) simply rehash a press release--even the quote from the "veteran filmmaker" comes straight out of the PR clipping. So it's not in-depth anything (and it's lousy "journalism" too). Drmies ( talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sources are a mixture of pages barely mentioning Rogue Initiative, PR and other promotional and publicity sites, etc. Written as a promotional article on a non-notable subject, toned down by later editors, but still without the sourcing required to show notability by Wikipedia's standards. Also, in a Google search, almost all the first couple of pages of hits are PR sites, non-independent and/or non-reliable sources such as the company's own web site, LinkedIn, FaceBook, Wikipedia, pressreleasejet.com, etc. Really no evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still a year-within newly started company with nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability as its own article. Delete and we can wait for better perhaps some years from now. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 27 May 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Andy Brandt

Andy Brandt (  | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 14:55, 27 May 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 17:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Said Daftari

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

PROD previously removed. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Never played in a FPL so fails WP:NFOOTY Seasider91 ( talk) 15:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 07:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Comment Hasn't the subject of this article played for the national team? It does not say so in national football teams.com but is mentioned in the French and German Wikipedia versions. Inter&anthro ( talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Inter&anthro: - and where are the reliable sources in those articles supporting those claims (ie that he actually played)? Giant Snowman 15:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
There a fare share of sources and websites that mention him as an international footballer, but none show any proof of what games he actually played. In all likely hood it was probably an unofficial friendly or something of the sort. The player probably fails WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:51, 30 May 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 17:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cosmetic Solutions

Cosmetic Solutions (  | 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 page fails the general notability guideline. I am not sure, why it was created. Zunailmeredia ( talk) 20:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: The nominating user has been reported to the " Orangemoody" team via email as a suspected sock. The other article nominated for deletion by this user on the same day is a BLP and the subject of that article has reported receiving a blackmail email. The case is OTRS ticket:2016042810015351. -- Krelnik ( talk) 20:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. References are either non-independent or are mere autogenerated directory listings. Deli nk ( talk) 13:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. I won't offer an official !vote at this time, but the references currently in the article appear to be run of the mill business directory listings which do not satisfy WP:CORP or WP:GNG. -- Finngall talk 14:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Only sources are listings, and the current content would need to be TNT'd to be encyclopedic. czar 16:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete: This is not the yellow pages. --  dsprc  [talk] 19:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as still nothing at all for any actual notability, nothing at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jenna Rose Simon

Jenna Rose Simon (  | 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 minor actor lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix ( talk) 13:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:40, 1 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 redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 23:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ashton Fletcher Irwin

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

Unreffed BLP Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete< Unreferenced; character is not notable independently of 5 seconds of summer. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Change to redirect as below. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer for now (unless and until he becomes separately noteworthy) seems the obvious solution - David Gerard ( talk) 12:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: to band article 5 Seconds of Summer. The only notability lies within the band. Fylbecatulous talk 12:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 5 Seconds of Summer as a plausible redirect from band member. -- Michig ( talk) 13:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect because there's nothing to suggest these current contents can be acceptable for notability anytime soon, nothing to suggest there's a near future of his own article happening. I nearly closed this myself but delete would be best before redirect. SwisterTwister talk 21:44, 3 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Conor O' Grady

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NARTIST. All references in the article are to social media and blogs. I did not find any significant coverage of this subject when I PRODed it six months ago nor do I find any now. Jbh Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 13:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources. O'Grady had his first solo show and no other notable achievements that have received significant attention. Mduvekot ( talk) 14:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, fails WP:ARTIST. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's loads of contents but nothing actually convincing for solid independent notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 3 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.  Sandstein  21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Robert Buntine

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

Might not meet notability standards as per WP:BIO.  TOW  05:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I created this article in the belief that a major obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald suggested notability. Within minutes of posting the bio it has been nominated for deletion. I was surprised anyone had been able to read it let alone read the references provided to gain an insight into Buntine's importance to education in Australia. It was my intention to create bios for his mother, father and grandfather given their notability as well. I would then create a "Buntine Family" article. At this stage I won't create any links to other pages that are relevant but will leave the article as an orphan until others comment. I trust that those who do comment know something about the subject of independent schools in Australia and in particular the sport of rowing ... I have noticed this is often not the case in these discussions. In regards to rowing the importance of Buntine's coaching of future Olympians needs to be considered but I'm loathe to waste my time adding this topic when the article is under threat. Castlemate ( talk) 06:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I have now added links to the many international rowers who were influenced by Buntine as a coach. I hope someone with knowledge of King's old boys from this category will add their names to the list. Castlemate ( talk) 09:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
As a confirmed non-deletionist of anything, I must, however, strongly defer to the superior comments made regarding this articles subject, and as it pertains to WP policy, by @ Mendaliv: and therefore change my opinion from keep to neutral. Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 13:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I can't bring myself to believe, nor can I find any evidence, that SMH changes its editorial policy when it comes to publishing obituaries, no matter who has written them. Therefore, and when considering this source as valid, this articles subject meets the basic criteria, in my opinion. Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 10:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Since he is dead the bar for providing actual citations is lower. I am confident that more citations are in the wings and that this article should therefore not be deleted. Cheers! {{u| Checkingfax}} { Talk} 22:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 04:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reality check (UPDATE: Delete) - I don't doubt that Buntine was an outstanding coach and a great mentor to many young rowers, but he does not fit into WP:TEACHER, and I don't see much by way of a more general assertion of notability. Aside from the SMH obituary, the sources are either primary (published by various schools), or don't mention him at all (bio pages for Olympic and other rowers, SMH article about his brother in law). The only independent, pre-death source is a report that mentions him in one line as a coach of a victorious school crew, which I would argue does not meet "significant coverage". I am not familiar with the weight newspaper obituaries carry as evidence toward GNG, so I'll refrain from !voting for now, but there is certainly no "lower bar" for providing citations merely because he is no longer alive. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 06:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Hi @ Yeti Hunter: I would think instead of teacher this articles subject falls more within Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Olympic and Paralympic Games (Why isn't rowing included on this list?) as his notability in the Rowing (sport) is quite accomplished. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Cheers @ Picomtn:, after posting I did think that WP:NSPORT would be more applicable. Having reviewed that policy, I am less convinced of Buntine's claim to notability. See e.g. WP:NTRACK, which has a notability guideline for track-and-field coaches, saying they are presumed notable if they coached olympic or world championship athletes during their period of accomplishment. Although Buntine coached numerous rowers who went on to become olympians, he only coached them during their school years, not as olympians or world champions. Even this claim is not supported by the references given in the article (the Geelong College obituary does not mention any olympic rowers by name, and none of the citations for the olympians mention Buntine); it thus appears to be original research. Suggest this entry would be more appropriate for a geaneology and family history wiki such as Familypedia. – Yeti Hunter ( talk) 09:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
With regard to the comparison to Steve Gladstone, coaching for many years at a top US university (particularly one renowned for rowing prowess) is a big step above a high-school coach in assumed notability, even if college-level rowing is not "the highest level" of the sport. Gladstone has top-level sources (eg NYT) with non-trivial coverage of his coaching various Ivy-league crews, so he is on very solid ground with the GNG. I'm not so sure about Buntine where the only GNG sources are obituaries; I would like to get an experienced editor or two to comment on how obituaries are generally treated w.r.t. notability.- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 10:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Hi @ Yeti Hunter: Thank you so much for your very constructive comments, however, using the guideline for track-and-field coaches, I believe, is not appropriate for this articles subject and, instead, WP:NCOLLATH should be used and that says: coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics. So then the question becomes has this coach been the subject of non-trivial media coverage? And the answer to that is yes as evidenced by his obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald [1] that says: He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College. Next, and as evidenced by the facts, during his years at Newington College, where he was the rowing coach, 7 of their rowers became Olympic medal winners. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn ( talk) 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/bob-buntine-beloved-teacher-coached-rowers-to-historic-victories-20140530-zrsyh.html
@ Picomtn: Buntine was not a college-level coach. I have dropped a note at WP:EAR to ask about using obituaries as a basis for notability; will weigh back in after getting advice there. Cheers, Yeti Hunter ( talk) 10:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Question Hi @ Yeti Hunter: Now I’m really confused. With Geelong College saying Bob Buntine is best known as a teacher and talented rowing coach at Newington College, Sydney where he was Deputy Headmaster for over 20 years until his retirement in 1996. [1] and The Sydney Morning Herald [2] saying He was also one of the most successful rowing coaches in the history of two of Sydney’s leading boys schools, the King’s School and Newington College, how can it be stated that he was not a college-level coach?

References

  1. ^ http://gnet.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au:8080/wiki/BUNTINE-Robert-Walter-1929-2014.ashx
  2. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/comment/obituaries/bob-buntine-beloved-teacher-coached-rowers-to-historic-victories-20140530-zrsyh.html
@ Picomtn: WP:NCOLLATH refers to "college" in the American sense, ie tertiary education institutions. While some of Buntine's schools might have "college" in their name, they are actually high schools - not directly comparable. – Yeti Hunter ( talk) 23:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
I am advised that obituaries are generally considered ok only if published in the main body of the paper, by employed journalists. This is not the case, and in any case the content of the obituary does not point to any assumed notability under WP:TEACHER or WP:NHSPHSATH. Therefore, delete (I'll repeat my suggestion to migrate to a genealogy wiki like Familypedia, for which this content seems perfect with multiple family connections mentioned.). -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 01:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG having a substantial body of non-trivial coverage in mainstream sources. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NHSPHSATH. We've got an obit in the Sydney Morning Herald that's clearly not a reliable source. When the SMH prints a news article about a recently deceased person, rather than an obit placed by a third party, they appear to carry the article in the mix with their other main articles. The dedicated obituaries page where this appears is within the SMH's "Comment, Opinion, Writers" section, which consists of opinion pieces, letters to the editor, and obituaries. This indicates that obits published in that section are reader-submitted, presumably paid for, and not subject to editorial oversight or journalistic writing in the same way that a main article would be, and therefore it's inappropriate to consider it a reliable source. WP:NHSPHSATH applies, rather than WP:NCOLLATH, because, while Buntine was a coach at Newington College, that school is a boarding school for boys, and not a post-secondary institution, which is the level of athletics NCOLLATH was designed to address. If we consider this either within the scope of GNG or NHSPHSATH, we have a case of a gentleman who does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 17:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
This comment is ill informed. The SMH does not publish paid obituaries. Obituaries and death notices are quite different things. The Herald published an obituary of Robert Buntine. If you go to the Herald website to "Comment" and drop down the box "Obituaries" you will see where the Buntine obituary was published. It has the most recent obits and this statement: "Obituaries are written by Herald staff or contributors, but we welcome information from relatives and friends. Contact the obituaries editor on (02) 9282 2742 or timelines@smh.com.au. Click here for information on death notices, finding archived obituaries and buying reproductions of published Fairfax content." That was where and how the obituary was published. You may not agree with its decision to print certain obituaries but please don't make up theories about editorial oversight at the SMH that have no basis in fact. As for rowing there are many ways to proceed to Olympic selection post secondary school but wether Newington is one type of school or otherwise is irrelevant. One fact remains and that is no fewer than seven rowers coached by Buntine won international honours in that sport. Castlemate ( talk) 23:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
"Herald staff or contributors" - the Buntine obituary was apparently written by David Roberts, Jon Wickham and Michael Smee. All three are colleagues of Buntine's and not staff of the SMH; Roberts is head of the Newington secondary campus, Wickham was headmaster at Kings and Smee was headmaster at Newington; Wickham and Smee gave eulogies at his funeral (see Newington newsletter). The eulogy was not staff-written, and thus is on thin ground for GNG and independence from the subject. WP:NHSPHSATH requires coverage to "clearly" go beyond routine, and this does not do so. Neither does the fact that a number of his school rowers later went on to have successful sporting careers confer notability. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 23:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
The Herald, Sydney's major daily paper, were happy with the qualifications of the contributors and it was not a paid obituary. An obituary does not come out of thin air and who better to write it than an archivist (you have the wrong David Roberts) and the headmasters of two of the most distinguished schools in the country both honoured by the Order of Australia. All I ask is that contributors to this discussion get their facts right ... this was not a paid obituary. This was a substantial obituary written in a substantial newspaper about a substantial teacher/coach who played a substatial role in the sporting lives of seven substantial international/Olympic medalist. This is not a trivial life nor is it a trivial obituary that supports it. Castlemate ( talk) 00:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nobody is saying it was a paid obituary, and certainly nobody is saying Buntine's life was trivial. I think of my own high-school rowing coach and what a remarkable impact he had on my life. But is he notable for Wikipedia? The obituary did not appear in the main section of the paper, and was not written by SMH journalists. That makes it at best borderline WP:ROUTINE, and for a high-school coach we need better than borderline. The seven olympic medalists may be notable, but Buntine does not WP:INHERIT that notability - he has to be independently notable. I'm afraid it does not look like he is. - Yeti Hunter ( talk) 00:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

It appeared in Timelines which is the main obituary section of the paper. Please desist from saying otherwise as it is wrong. The vast majority of obituaries in the Herald are not written by SMH staff but by other contributors. The compararison to your teacher is trivial as you do not assert that he had an obituary printed in a major city based daily paper and he did not coach those that went on to Olympic careers. Throw all the Wikipedia conventions at this topic that you can find but stop incorrectly asserting that this is somehow a less than normal published obituary in the SMH. It is what it is ... an SMH Obituary. Castlemate ( talk) 06:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply

So it's in the main obits section of the paper's website, and not written by a journalist with the paper. That's not a reliable source. The question of whether it's paid or unpaid is only one factor in the analysis of whether an obituary is a reliable source. Coverage in unreliable sources like this sort of obituary will not be seen as contributing to the significant coverage prong of WP:GNG. Furthermore, as has been noted, this gentleman was a rowing coach at a primary or secondary school, which means that WP:NCOLLATH does not apply. WP:PROF hasn't been shown to apply either. From the guideline: School teachers at the secondary education level, sometimes also called professors, are not presumed to be academics and may only be considered academics for the purposes of this guideline if they are engaged in substantial scholarly research and are known for such research. Rather, they are evaluated by the usual rules for notability in their profession. There is no sport-specific guideline for rowing, though this doesn't really matter, considering the sport-specific notability guidelines only refer to professional athletes; school athletics are, by definition, at the amateur level. As far as Olympic-level participation, my understanding here is that Buntine was never an Olympic rowing team's coach or trainer, but had people he coached or trained go on to participate in the Olympics later in life. That does not confer notability either. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Here's a source-by-source breakdown from what's in the article, and why I would advise the closing admin to discount the !votes that merely say he has significant coverage:
  1. "Bob Buntine: Beloved teacher coached rowers to historic victories": Unreliable obituary. Moreover, indicates that Buntine never coached or participated in the Olympics himself.
  2. "Buntine, Walter Murray (1866–1953)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his paternal grandfather. Does not mention the article subject at all.
  3. "Buntine, Gladys Selby (Jim) (1901–1992)": Tertiary source, not about the article subject, but his mother. Does not mention the article subject at all.
  4. "BUNTINE, Robert Walter (1929-2014)", Heritage Guide to The Geelong College: Short memorial article hosted by a former employer. It does rely on the SMH obit, which harms its independence, but it's a secondary source, so it would probably contribute to the coverage under GNG.
  5. "Inspirational high-flier": SMH book review. Does not mention Buntine whatsoever.
  6. "King's wins rowing after 47 years": Coverage of the King's School (secondary school) rowing team, not of Buntine himself. Buntine gets mentioned in one sentence. Does not contribute to GNG, does not contribute to WP:NHSPHSATH.
  7. The King's Herald for 21 March 2014: Unreliable school newsletter. These are essentially marketing materials for donors and parents. Probably not independent coverage.
  8. Google.com.au: Google's landing page has nothing to do with this article.
  9. Australian honours for Michael Harvey Smee: Doesn't mention Buntine whatsoever.
  10. "Great Master, Educator and Coach brought victory across GPS Rowing": Unreliable school blog post. Not independent coverage. Does not appear to provide significant coverage either, and certainly nothing that other sources don't also provide.
  11. Rowing Australia profile for James Chapman: Does not mention Buntine.
  12. Olympic record for Robert Jahrling: Does not mention Buntine.
  13. Olympic record for Matthew Long: Does not mention Buntine.
  14. Olympic record for Geoff Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  15. Olympic record for James Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  16. Olympic record for Steve Stewart: Does not mention Buntine.
  17. Australian Olympic Committee profile for Richard Wearne: Does not mention Buntine.
  18. Broughton House history page: Does not mention Buntine.
At best we have one source we might call reliable, secondary, and independent, but which I doubt the coverage could be called significant. This high school-level rowing coach simply does not meet GNG. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Since nobody else has added to the discussion, I will just comment for the closing admin that every "keep" argument has boiled down to two main themes:
  • He coached now-notable rowers when they were schoolboys, therefore he is notable (a violation of WP:INHERIT)
  • His obituary was published in a major newspaper, therefore he passes GNG (not true as the obit was written by Buntine's colleagues, failing WP:INDEPENDENT and thus WP:RS; also, non-staffwritten obits are usually considered WP:ROUTINE).
In any any case, the article fails to make an assertion of notability - all Buntine's achievements as a high-school teacher, headmaster, deputy-head and sporting coach, whilst noble, are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia.-- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 05:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The continuing misinformation of contributors in this discussion is growing very tiring. Others have added to this discussion since the last contributor commented and have indeed added and reconsidered Keeps. Yeti Hunter clearly knows nothing about the obituaries in the SMH as they are often written by non-staff ... they are often written by people who knew the subject. The Buntine obituary was written by David Roberts, former Director of NSW State Records (1998-2008), Michael Smee OAM a retired headmaster, Dr Timothy Hawkes OAM a current headmaster. Yes they knew Buntine but unlike this discussion knowing something about what you are writing is usually considered a bonus in the wider community. The obituary used is in no way second rate. The SMH is still the paper of record for the city of Sydney ... it is still a lot more reliable than Wikipedia. Others may quote any Wikipedia policy they like but the number of Keeps on this page say it all. A schoolmaster who has coached the number of international champions that Buntine coached is notable. He was not an Olympian nor an Olympic coach. He coached schoolboys at the highest level of schoolboy rowing. If you need to justify it then develop a policy to do so but there are more people in this community who want this bio in than there are those that want it out. I only ask whoever closes this discussion to do so with a great deal of care as much of what you read on this page is Nonsense. Castlemate ( talk) 12:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I would appreciate it if you could refrain from insulting my (and others') good-faith contributions to this discussion. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This article has been shown to be notable enough. Bearian ( talk) 21:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although a consensus to keep is present, the arguments against keeping the article are stronger and mention relevant policies and guidelines. — Music1201 talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • There is no consensus to keep, just a reluctance on my part to engage with naked contradiction. Most keep !voters have merely asserted that it passes GNG with no discussion. One commenter above even suggest that the article has good potential for expansion (per WP:HEY) - how exactly? No matter how much detail about Buntine's high-school teaching and coaching career is added, he will remain fundamentally non-notable. WP:NHSPHSATH requires high-school athletes (and presumably, coaches) to have coverage that "clearly" goes beyond routine, and is independent. The SMH obituary on which the argument for notability rests is neither. All the other sources are irrelevant for GNG, and the fact that it is well written and wikified has no bearing on notability - WP:BOMBARD and WP:MASK come to mind. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Buntine appears to have been an important person, but I don't think notable. As per above, the obit in SMH was written by collegues and is the main source of info. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable EllsworthSchmittendorf ( talk) 14:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think I should go into a bit more detail. I think that all of the keep arguments have no grounds. The arguments towards keep consist of:
1) He coached rowers who went on to become olympians (this is also true of my netball and swim coaches).
2) The obit in the SMH makes him notable. (as per Yeti Hunter - violation of WP:INHERIT). I also know people who have made it to the Age/SMH. I don't think they are notable. If this makes a person have significant coverage then I and many people I know would be eligible for a Wikipedia page.
3) Furthermore, there seems to be a slant in the article towards subject's genealogy, which does not make him any more notable. Refs include fam history sites and author wanted to make article on family (see WP:BIOFAMILY). Article starts off with "third generation Australian" mentioned. He may have notable relatives, but this does not make present subject notable.
Finally I would like to stress that if this person is notable, then most people would be. For example, one of my relatives has taught many famous and influential people, one good example is actor Cate Blanchett, but also the sons and daughters of European, American and Chinese diplomats and politicians. He has written text books that sold very well and also has been in the newspaper many times. He's also worked as a journalist and co-ordinating unit lecturer at a major Australian university. He is from a very wealthy and influential family in a region and who were also some of the earliest settlers and were crucial to the development of that region. He is also related to the Murdoch family. He also lived on the same street as Julian Assange and John Safran. I could go on. He will never get a Wikipedia page. This person is not notable but he is still important to many people, just as Buntine was important to his colleagues and students. As per Yeti Hunter, maybe Castlemate could move this page to another place on the internet. EllsworthSchmittendorf ( talk) 15:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Maybe it makes me a ghastly inclusionist (not an accusation often thrown my way), but I've got to say your relative sounds at least potentially notable there. Also, I have been reading the Herald (and the obits) for years and I've never seen someone get a published obit who was not at least marginally notable. Can you provide one for a person who is unquestionably non-notable? I doubt it. Frickeg ( talk) 04:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply Frickeg, and I completely see your point! However, I believe that the best arguments on delete discussion pages are backed up by Wikipedia's notability guidelines ( Wikipedia:N). Sorry if I caused any undue injury. EllsworthSchmittendorf ( talk) 13:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No undue injury at all! My point does go to WP:GNG since I believe in some cases a single, very reliable source is sufficient (especially for subjects where other sources are not likely to be online), but I understand others see things differently. Frickeg ( talk) 23:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There's a lot of discussion about whether the Sydney Morning Herald obituary is to be regarded as a totally reliable source. However, still, that doesn't change the fact that said piece appears to be literally it as far as justifiable sources go. The rest of the numerous citations made in this article, as above users point out, are not appropriate. The Canberra Times report mentions Buntine in passing, in only one sentence no less, without giving details. The King's Herald newsletter may discuss his career in depth, yes, but its not at all your standard reliable source. Multiple citations such as the reference to the Australian Olympic Committee don't even mention Buntime's name. Beyond mere legalistic applications of Wiki rules, it's the spirit of the rules that's most important: What can one build a good article on if its subject doesn't have significant source coverage? CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 21:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per TNT. This is hopelessly promotional and full of unsourced content, and would need to be completely rewritten to comply with policy. Zoiks. A loving tribute but very very far from anything that should exist in Wikipedia. Jytdog ( talk) 23:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to show that this person passes Wikipedia notability guidelines. Onel5969 TT me 00:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comments: 1. WP:HEY is not merely about future prospects for an article; the essay is more about how it has been improved despite efforts to delete it. 2. Being the headmaster of not one but two prestigious prep schools (or as they call them independent schools in Australia) ought to mean something for notability. 3. Closing admin, this is not just a vote, but a discussion. I plead guilty to having boring reasons to keep! 4. An obituary in a paper of record, if it provides significant coverage can be sufficient, along with three or more other ("multiple") sources, to prove a dead person's notability ( WP:BLP requires higher standards, in effect). Some of the sources didn't mention him, so I'd seek better sources. 5. If he had coached a single Olympian, I'd say, "meh", run of the mill coach. However, he coached several future Olympians, which is notable in itself. Bearian ( talk) 19:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reality Check: Before an administrator tears down this "well written and wikified" bio please consider the inconsistency of notability in Wikipedia. I have just wiki linked Jim Buntine as Bob Buntine's mother and have discovered that Arnold Buntine, his father, has a bio as well. I wrote his mother's bio based on the assumption that her entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography gave her notability. Before you scream WP:INHERIT please stay with me as I'm not talking about inheriting notability although Wikipedia is riddled with. I didn't write a bio for his father because I knew that the deletionists would call for its removal within minutes, even though he is a notable headmaster. I then realised I didn't have to write the bio because it already exists due to the fact that Arnold played four (yes just four) games as an Australian rules footballer with St Kilda in the Victorian Football League in 1918. Now that is truly non-notable but nobody is calling for its deletion. Sadly given the poor standard of contributions and editing on Wikipedia nobody has realised that Arnold is in fact Dr Martyn Arnold Buntine [1] Headmaster of Geelong College. I'm sure that when I add the excellent reference that I have used here you will want the pre-existing bio deleted. It will be derided as secondary and not independent. For consistancy you will have to call for its deletion. I won't bother pointing out all the erroneous comments that have made recently but I will suggest that before you vote maybe you could read the article to see the improvements that have been made and the references that have been improved. But please no more anecdotes about all your friends/relatives who have had SMH/Age Obituaries written about them but aren't notable. Although I'm very keen to read about the netball and swim coaches who have not been notable but have coached Olympians. Who were the Olympians and how many of them were there. I'd like to write their bios just in case. Share this with us so we can debate their notability out in the open. Tell us who these strange hybrids are ... important but not notable. Most importantly could someone please tell the Sydney Morning Herald not to use "beloved" in the title of an obituary. I think the article title sums him up: "beloved teacher". Not notable. Semantics at Olympic levels. Thank you all for your good faith comments its been great fun sparring. Castlemate ( talk) 13:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 2nd week attracted a lot of "keep" comments and the 3rd week attracted a lot of "delete" comments. Relisting again to see where we're heading.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Der yck C. 11:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Move to draftspace (see below). Firstly I am a little taken aback at all the invective being hurled around here, and at aspersions being cast on the SMH obits. The Herald is one of the major newspapers in the country, and full, published obituaries (no matter who they are written by) are clear evidence of notability, even if people want to quibble about the reliability of the (in this case rather distinguished) authors. The SMH does not publish obituaries of people it does not consider sufficiently significant (there are plenty of very notable people who never get them). Bearian above makes excellent points. I would also point out that there are likely to be a lot of print sources for this kind of thing that have not been consulted above. Frickeg ( talk) 04:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ [gnet.geelongcollege.vic.edu.au:8080/wiki/BUNTINE,%20Dr%20Martyn%20Arnold%20(1898-1975).ashx?HL=buntine BUNTINE, Martyn Arnold (1898-1975)]
With respect to Bearian and Frickeg, I have to disagree:
  • Buntine was a headmaster only once (at Kinross Wolaroi School in Orange, NSW) and only deputy head at one of the two prestigious Sydney schools he taught at.
  • A review of the SMH obit section] suggests that it does frequently include people who, while having led interesting and noble lives, do not establish a clear assertion of notability for Wikipedia's purposes. See e.g. Mother of seven had to venture so often into the unknown, an eloquently written farewell from a son to a mother.
  • Coaching schoolboy rowers who went on to become Olympians years later does not confer a presumption of notability. At any rate, this fact is unverified OR. The sources only say that Buntine coached un-named future Olympians, or that such-and-such Olympians were alumni of Kings or Newington. Neither the SMH or school newsletter obituaries make any mention of coaching future Olympians.
If print sources are available that indicate a notabilty not evident in the online sources, I would gladly change my !vote. But the notability guidelines at WP:NHSPHSATH and WP:TEACHER do not suggest that such a presumption is justified. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 07:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Ack, I stand corrected. I hadn't seen that obit, and a closer look through the obit page does suggest these things are not uncommon (though by no means the norm). This throws me a bit - I've been using SMH obits as a good yardstick for notability for years now. My suspicion is that this is a recent development (cuts to journalists, perhaps?), but I may be wrong on that too. I'll have to consider this, so for the moment consider my !vote above less emphatic than it was. Frickeg ( talk) 08:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I went into this wanting to vote keep, but I can't justify it. I searched through Australian newspapers on NewsBank and the only hit that was more than a passing mention was the SMH obit that has already been noted in this discussion. After reading through the analysis of that obit here, I don't think we can consider it independent, which is what the GNG requires. And without that obit, I don't think it can be said that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft space. There seem to be a number of factors. First, there is no assumed notability in the coach of a school team; it has to be proven by reliable sources. It's only college level coaches of important teams who can generally be assumed to be notable. Second, the SMH obit is not a reliable source. Reliable obituaries do not use the sort of extravagant language used here. There are only a few papers whose obits can be unquestionably used: for the 20th century, I know of only the NYTimes and The Times of London, though there probably are some non-English language ones also. Third, the notability of some members of a family does not make others in the family notable, nor does it make the family as a whole notable unless the family has been written about as a family. Fourth, there is no consistent practice here about the notability of headmasters of major schools, but we have been relatively reluctant to accept such articles except for the most famous. From the articles on them, I doubt that Wollaroi College is that famous, but it is possible that Newington College is--unfortunately, he was just a temporary headmaster. I'm making a guess here that his career as a coach may jsut possibly be important enough that other sources can be found, but probably at present the best course is to move to Draft space DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I think this is a compromise I can support. Frickeg ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy (moved from keep) as per DGG. The SMH source, as well as being unreliable, is pretty much the only coverage Robert has received. Fails GNG, but I think we could try moving this to draftspace. Omni Flames let's talk about it 03:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Based on the article and the information referenced above, WP:EVENTUAL would seem likely for WP:ANYBIO point 2 ? Aoziwe ( talk) 14:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No consensus: Not sure there can be another result at this time. Just stopped to check out the oldest open AFD and perused.-- Milowent • has spoken 04:15, 9 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Rolf Prima

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

Failed CSD candidate; article does not read as an advert and makes some claims of significance. However seems to fail WP:GNG - references and search results all seem to be advertising, press releases or passing mentions. Waggers TALK 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. The first ref is to their homepage, and the other two references do not establish notability. The first indicates that 17 years ago an athlete used a bike with their wheels, and the second is a routine story about transfer of ownership as would be found in any local paper about any local business under the same circumstances.. I originally tagged this article as spam, because in general it looks like it could have been plucked from their home page, and because of the name-dropping yet completely unsourced section on "Athletes". ubiquity ( talk) 14:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG but meets WP:PROMO. Quis separabit? 14:57, 29 May 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged within this discussion. North America 1000 17:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Korean Air Flight 2708

Korean Air Flight 2708 (  | 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 aviation incident. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, no suggestion of any "enduring historical significance" for this aborted flight. If it turns out to be a significant engine fault in the Boeing 777-300 series, this belongs in Boeing 777#777-300, not in an article about one day when that fault happened. -- McGeddon ( talk) 11:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep British Airways Flight 2276 was kept. This is identical. Engine failure and fire on take off on a 777. Don't understand why this needs to be deleted. ( talk) 11:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC) contribs) 11:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now Let's see how the story develops and how the airframe does Leondz ( talk) 14:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as fires affecting modern airliners are rather rare and as mentioned above, the BA flight that caught fire in LA article ( BA2276) was kept and has had many views (28,367 in the last 90 days according to wmflabs tools). Furthermore, the accident has achieved significant coverage and so I would say it is notable. LoudLizard ( 📞 | contribs | ✉)
  • Delete Not notable per WP:EVENTCRITERIA nor WP:AIRCRASH. –  Finnusertop ( talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was leaning twords delete but other users have rightfully pointed out that a very similar incident ( British Airways Flight 2276) has it's own page. I'd say to wait a day or two and see if it gets more media coverage, but since the aviation and world communities attention are currently focused on EgyptAir Flight 804 that's probably unlikely to happen. Inter&anthro ( talk) 20:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, as there is not sufficient evidence to determine the incident's "enduring historical significance" yet, and an aviation accident involving 12 injuries and damage to a widely used commercial airliner could very well be notable. Shelbystripes ( talk) 21:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mundane engine failure - no consequences, fails WP:GNG etc. etc..-- Petebutt ( talk) 21:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Petebutt, I don't see how this is "mundane". An engine failure resulting in injury on a Boeing 777 is an extremely rare event. Shelbystripes ( talk) 21:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 3 reasons: (1) I think the notability might be harder to see because it's being compared to the much "bigger" and "also recent" EgyptAir Flight 804 event. Comparing it that way does not seem balanced to me because some people might just not notice they are different stories in such a short time frame. So, comparing other recent news only makes it "look" smaller. (2) It also might have fewer news stories in English since it was only operating in Asia, but there already seems to be enough news in some other languages/places to already have its own article on both Chinese (at 大韓航空2708號班機事故) and Japanese (at 大韓航空エンジン出火事故) Wikipedia. So, more sources may be available if we consider non-English news. (3) Batik Air Flight 7703 also has its own page, but it had no injuries (except "3 (from shock)"), fewer than either of Korean Air Flight 2708 or British Airways Flight 2276. Zeniff ( talk) 05:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • 1. The Chinese article has even less information than the English one, discounting irrelevant information such as the exact time when each runway was reopened;
    • 2. The Batik article appears more notable even despite lack of injuries because it is 1) hull loss 2) a high-speed collision which is generally more notable, and 3) because it was caused by a blatant human error rather than trivial equipment failure. -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now As per WP:AIRCRASH, we should wait until there's further information released on the aircraft, specifically the cause of the engine fire and/or if the aircraft will be returning to use later. exoplanetaryscience ( talk) 22:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Significant aircraft accident, with numerous injuries. Meets Notability guidelines. Not every disaster requires loss of life. Juneau Mike ( talk) 16:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 1) Minor accident 2) Occurred on ground 3) No serious injuries 4) No importance for the aviation in general, e.g. not the first incident with the type/airline and not caused by a widely discussed defect in 777 5) Appears to be a trivial incident judging by this photo: [33]. -- Anthony Ivanoff ( talk) 14:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now per exoplanetaryscience. Until we have a report on what this crash means to the industry it seems reasonable to assume that the coverage of the event at the time passes WP:GNG. Intensity has been focused on the 777 after several (perhaps unrelated) events, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete 1)It's been almost a week with no real follow-up. 2)The injuries were caused be the evacuation of the aircraft, not the engine fire. Sario528 ( talk) 12:21, 3 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Anders Gullberg

Anders Gullberg (  | 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 fails to establish notability, the only source is a blog and I can't find anything in a Google search that would allow it to pass WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Judging by the article creator's username and editing history it may be a WP:Vanity page. Basement12 (T. C) 09:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

It's likely this is a vanity page, as is the Swedish wikipedia page with two appropriately named SPAs at different times. However I'm not sure he's not notable. He is quoted as an expert in textbooks and in the national daily Svenska Dagbladet, has written numerous articles for the Swedish national daily Dagens Nyheter, and Pressen.se claims to have found 100 sources discussing Gullberg, though not all are about this particular sociologist. He's also discussed in NyTeknik concerning traffic problems. I'd say he was probably notable. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Basement12 (T. C) 13:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per mentions in sources. BabbaQ ( talk) 17:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Subject is covered in multiple reliable sources and his publications are also noteworthy. Meatsgains ( talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain for now so I'm asking subject expert DGG for his analysis for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A Swedish academic author of several books, with a straight descriptive non-promotional article in the Swedish WP. I have enough experience with the fr and de WPs that if a person from those language areas were covered there in an unchallenged article, I would almost unquestionably accept it. (There are some WPs where I am considerably more dubious, such as es and ru). I'm unfamiliar with the sv. It's clear he or someone close to him wrote the article in the svWP, but I accept Chiswick Chap's analysis. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 4 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 redirect to Oheka Castle. !voters and the nom agree redirect is the best option so closing as such (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Oheka

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

Dab failing WP:TWODABS . We have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Oheka Castle which before this dab existed was the redirect target. The Oheka II is a WP:PTM. All entries in the dab are described at the primary topic. Widefox; talk 09:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

An alternative is to convert to an WP:SIA, where they are a list of Otto Hermann Kahn's assets of similar name (or possibly a WP:DABCONCEPT), but the reader can get that all from the primary topic. This is somewhat of a dictdef. Widefox; talk 10:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to castle, add "redirect" hatnote pointing to Oheak II. It's the kind of PTM which merits a link. Pam D 13:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Hatnote done, link to Oheka II in lede done. (and if it wasn't clear, I favour redirect rather than delete, but have no faith in RfD being a good venue for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC redirect + dab cleanup discussion). Widefox; talk 22:05, 29 May 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ghalia Benali

Advanced search for: 
"Ghalia Benali"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Ghalia Benali (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still questionable for the applicable notability as this contains only one source, from the New York Times, and although my searches found other links at Books and News, there has not been anything particularly convincing this can be a solidly notably improved article. My attempts at any available English Tunisian sources have not been successful, so unless native sources that are sufficient can be found, there's still questionability. I should also note the original author is G5 material since this was August 2013, and the user was first kicked in May 2013, however, since a user added a few changes afterwards, it's unlikely therefore solid G5 material. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America 1000 08:42, 27 May 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. Sufficient consensus after relisting. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Satish Mohan

Satish Mohan (  | 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 suggesting better for WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, he was only the Town Supervisor of Amherst, New York (population about 122,000) for 3 years and my searches have only found expected mentions at Books, News and Highbeam. There's nothing else convincing and he's certainly not notable for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 06:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 19 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) 04:41, 27 May 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) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Mann (journalist)

Jonathan Mann (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
Advanced search for: 
"Jonathan Mann"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Advanced search for: 
"Jonathan Mann (journalist)"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all convincing for the applicable notability and my searches have simply found nothing better. I nearly PRODed too but, in case it was removed because of the CNN International connection. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This looks and reads very much like the kind of thinly veiled rewrite of his own staff profile on his own employer's website that we all too frequently see for journalists, and its only reference is a deadlinked article in a university alumni magazine, for which he was the bylined writer of the piece. This is not how a journalist gets a Wikipedia article, however — he has to be the subject of the references, not the author of them, to get over WP:GNG. Delete, unless somebody can salvage it with much better sourcing, and rewrite it more encyclopedically, than this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. A quick search yields close to three dozen articles about him in major newspapers in the 1980s. There's also plenty about him in recent years (examples a, b, c, d). The article needs to be improved, but he meets WP:GNG. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 00:35, 20 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) 04:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 08:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Journalists are notoriously hard to "source out" in a deletion debate, but TCHaliburton is on the right track. THIS piece from the Montreal Gazette lends credence to the fact that this veteran journalist doesn't just report the news but is in fact sometimes part of it. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion, in my estimation. Carrite ( talk) 16:02, 2 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Christina Bach

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

Particularly clear cut deletion material as her IMDb basically says it all, background characters and nothing longterm or otherwise noticeable to suggest the needed notability at WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG and searches unsurprisingly found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 27 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fasha Farshad Mahjoor

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

Developer with no real notability -- referenmces are either unreliable listings or reports of publicity students. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing convincing at all of the needed solid independent notability, quite a load of information but nothing actually acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 07:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The two main sources covering the subject are press releases ( [35], [36]). Fails WP:GNG as there are literally no reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The key argument that the list is too broad to be useful is a matter of judgment, and there seems no agreement about it. Perhaps the best course would be to organize the list and improve its usefulness. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

List of computer hardwares

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

Wikipedia is not a list; the purpose of this page would be best served as categories, or edits to the relevant articles. #!/bin/ DokReggar -talk 06:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I disagree, WP:DOAL explicitly mentions that (quoting) "Some topics […] are so broad that a list would be unmanageably long and effectively unmaintainable)". A list of all possible hardware elements one may include in a computer is bound to reach this status at some point. Why would the use of categories, such as Category:Computer storage devices, not be adequate to achieve this, since they are already implemented in the target articles? #!/bin/ DokReggar -talk 07:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • WP:CLN lists advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories and there is no clear preference. The key point there is WP:NOTDUPE which says quite explicitly: "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew D. ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think this topic is too broad, nor do I think it will become unmanageable because this article itself indicates there are a limited number of hardware items. And, it appears this list article is staying true to its topic by listing only hardware items and not going off in other directions. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 16:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete effectively useless, as evidenced by the pageview graph, per DokReggar this is an unbounded list which is without use to our readers. If someone wants to know what's inside a computer, I suggest the information is hosted in Computer, not a "List of computer hardwares (sic)". The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The list is quite new and it's quite surprising that we don't seem to have anything of this sort already. But the list of computer components and peripherals is quite fundamental and familiar and so easily passes WP:LISTN -- see PC Hardware in a Nutshell for a source covering the common PC type of computer. It would be easy to improve per our editing policy. We just need to get this silly deletion discussion out of the way first. Andrew D. ( talk) 19:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It's far from silly. Please try talking in English rather than in wikilinks in future, people will take you more seriously Colonel. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that this article would be easy to improve per our editing policy, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. Also, I actually take people seriously when they use links to policies and guidelines or name policies and guideline. For me it takes the guesswork out of determining merit or inclusion disambiguation needed for an article on Wikipedia.--- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is what categories are for... and navigation templates; both of which already exist for this "topic". We don't need a third thing to get out of sync with the other three. List articles in general are an unfortunate fact of life on WP, as they add no encyclopedic information other than a list of names or terms. Jeh ( talk) 23:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Sources and additional encyclopedic content, such as a lead section and images, have been added to the article. North America 1000 01:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"Encyclopedic content" does not mean sources and images. Jeh ( talk) 01:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I may expand the article with descriptions if it's retained. I don't want to waste my time doing so at this time only to see the article deleted, though. What came first, the chicken or the egg? North America 1000 14:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Then it would just be a list of dictionary entries. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedic content would describe not just each term but when and who developed the items in question, the relationships of the various types of hardware to each other, the interlocking histories of their development (e.g. the progression of mass storage from magnetic tape through magnetic drums and disks to solid state drives, with the migration of mag tape from "live" mass storage to backup uses; the near-extinction of punched card input and the tremendous reduction in reliance on printed output brought about by display screens and keyboards; etc.). And then it would not have to be called "List of..." anything; it would be an actual article. Of course, that's a lot more work then just typing everything you find in the "Computer hardware" categories into yet another big damn list article. Jeh ( talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename List of computer hardware (or another name). At first I thought this would be a list of all products ever offered to sale to attach to a computer, but a list of the types of hardware is fine. I doubt this list will ever reach 100 entries as there are not a million computer architectures out there. It meets WP:CSC #1 (list with all elements standalone-notable).
The pageviews are irrelevant - I bet Viișoara, Glodeni (thank you, "random article" link) does not get many hits either, but it meets the guidelines so we should keep it. And "duplicate from category" is (see above) explicitly noted as an irrelevant argument.
Finally, while I disapprove throwing around wikispeak (and I am guily of doing it occasionally), Andrew D. made his point in plain English. Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I agree that page views are irrelevant for determining whether or not an article is acceptable on Wikipedia, whether the article is new or so many years old. Rather, the most important factor is WP:N notability, of which page views is not a part. Hence, as User:Andrew D has mentioned, this appears to pass muster with list article guidelines. And, not meaning to offend - this does matter - because we editors cannot accept, willy nilly, any kind of posted content. Otherwise, our discussions might be about liking or not liking this or that article, which would not be helpful. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Sources and additional content have been added to the article. North America 1000 03:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the current contents are not convincing of keeping as anything of an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and improve – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Computer hardware. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. An easily expandable and improvable article. I have performed some additions and copy edits to the article, including the addition of some references, something that cannot be done with categories. I have renamed the article to List of computer hardware. North America 1000 02:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I do not really see a use for this, since you can find the same content in the computer hardware article. Why not contribute to this article and the ones linked instead? #!/bin/ DokReggar -talk 07:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Computer hardware is a article with content, List of computer hardware is an index. Both serve different purposes and it is fine. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sandstein: Well, it's not now. I just removed the peripherals from the list. The list now only includes hardware. I'm not seeing how the list is indiscriminate as per WP:IINFO at this time. It has a well-defined scope and only has relevant entries now. North America 1000 01:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Although I can see grounds for a list if the parts that make a computer system, this list doesn't cut it. For example, it has a "punched card" next to "solid state drive" and "Free and open-source graphics device driver" next to "graphics card (GPU)", "graphics hardware" and "graphics processing unit" which is just random grabs from 50 years of computer history. GPU means Graphics Processing Unit, creating double entries. My impression of this article in total is that it is written in chaos and not fixable other than starting with a clean slate. DeVerm ( talk) 01:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No, a Punched card is not computer hardware but just a piece of paper from a time that character recognition by a computer was science fiction and they needed punch holes in specific locations which could then be detected by a punch card reader. This reader is the computer hardware; you can find it in musea. The punch card was equal to a computer print-out now, which is also about to become obsolete. DeVerm ( talk) 15:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ DeVerm: That makes sense. I have changed the entry in the article to read "Punched card reader" ( diff). North America 1000 15:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That does not help; if editing at all, you should remove it because the card reader is already on the list as the first item. The article linked explicitly includes punch card reader. Creating pages is not a matter of throwing edits at it until it, by chance, is a hit. It requires much more in-depth study of the scope as well as each item listed. I still recommend to start over because the list is hardly improving, if at all. DeVerm ( talk) 15:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
All right, I removed punch card reader. That was easy. As I stated above, I wouldn't mind adding descriptions, but if this is to be deleted, that would be a waste of time. Hopefully the article will be retained, so the work I have already performed to improve it can continue. At this point, I guess I'll wait until the AfD discussion is closed before potentially proceeding with any more edits to the article. Of course, the time you spent here discussing the matter is far greater than it would have taken to simply perform the edits you suggested to improve the article. However, you want it deleted, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. North America 1000 16:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article appears to be a definite benefit for the general reader, in particular as a useful index. Also, per WP:NOTDUP, "Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates" are not perceived as duplication on Wikipedia. Furthermore, "it is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Hence, saying that we have categories that cover such lists seems to be a weak argument. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 02:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Dhanda, Naresh (2010). CLEP Information Systems and Computer Applications. Piscataway, New Jersey: Research & Education Association. p. 27. ISBN  073860836X. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The article notes:

      As defined earlier, computer hardware includes all the physical components of a computer system that can be seen and touched, including the keyboard and mouse (input devices), the CPU and memory (processing devices), display monitors and printers (output devices), the hard disk and RAM (storage device), as well as DVDs, CDs, flash memory cards, etc. (storage media).

      Printer and USB cables, modems, and network interface cards (NIC) are other examples of computer hardware. Some hardware, such as a keyboard or a mouse, can be seen on the outside of a computer. Other hardware, such as RAM, an internal hard disk, and the NIC, can be seen only after opening the system unit. Peripheral devices are attached to the computer system in order to perform a variety of tasks. All the hardware devices listed above are also peripheral devices.

      The book gives further example of computer hardware.
    2. Ravichandran, D. (2001). Introduction To Computers And Communication. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill. p. 2. ISBN  0070435650. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The book notes:

      The physical parts of a computer are called the hardware. In other words, the units that are visible and units which one can touch and feel are known as the computer hardware. Some examples for hardware units or system devices are following:

      • Processor
      • Display Screen
      • Keyboard
      • Disk Drive
      • Printer, etc.

      The main parts of a computer hardware are the storage devices, the input devices, the output devices and the Central Processing Unit (CPU).

    3. Pride, William M.; Hughes, Robert J.; Kapoor, Jack R. (2012). Foundations of Business (3 ed.). Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. p. 420. ISBN  1111580154. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The book notes:

      Computer hardware is the physical components of a computer. Examples include the hard disk drive, keyboard, mouse, and monitor.

    4. Dlabay, Les; Burrow, James L.; Kleindl, Brad (2008). Intro to Business. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. p. 267. ISBN  0538445610. Retrieved 2016-05-22.

      The book notes:

      Examples of computer hardware include keyboards, cameras, microphones, speakers, monitors (or screens), chips, and printers.

      Hardware is constantly changing and expanding. For example, today most computers can handle sound, graphics, animation, and video. In the past, these features were only offered on large computers. Multimedia computer systems are now common in small businesses and homes.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • The subject also passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Cunard ( talk) 04:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This seems a useful hub or index for a diverse but not over-large topic. Quite functional.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 01:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Wikipedia has lots of lists, and all this needs is a little bit of improvement. Peter Sam Fan 13:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a hopelessly broad compendium disguised as a list - one that can never approach encyclopedic quality. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The point of the creation of this article appears to be providing a user-friendly guideline of items that a computer is likely to have and how it all functions together. And it isn't that helpful since, first, it doesn't explain in layman's terms what each thing does and, second, we already have pages like the main article ' Computer' and the related ' Computer hardware'. What's the difference between this and, say, having: ' Guideline of the Systems in Your Car', ' Guideline of the Organs that are in Your Body', ' Guideline of the Branches in Your U.S. Federal Government', ' Guideline to the Planets in Your Solar System', etc? All of those can indeed be sourced easily, as this article here is, but why have them all? I would expect each of those things in downloadable pamphlets on college websites related to Astronomy 101 classes and so on instead. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia isn't quite the same thing as a friendly 'how to get this' exploratory text.
And, if we have to have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part, then... let's have a guideline to how a computer exactly works major part by major part. Add huge sections of prose to this list coupled with step-by-step illustrated instructions, maybe with a fellow taking pictures of him using a screwdriver and pointing out the specific connections here and there. Put in a bunch more links. Add a bunch more citations. And give this page a much better name, maybe ' Explanation of computer hardware functioning' say. But I'd rather this just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Huh, no, that list is not a mistitle for "Hardware interaction in the computer". It is just like a table of contents; its only point for readers is to click on the blue links. If your point is that a navigational-only page is useless and should be deleted just for this reason, that is pretty much against any of the list guidelines. And for the record, there is List of gravitationally rounded objects of the Solar System, and, more to the point since this one is a list of bluelinks with no content, List of organs of the human body. Both of which are fine lists. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - does not require its own article. A category is sufficient enough ( Ajf773 ( talk) 09:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)) reply
For the n-th time, WP:NOTDUP. While it may be that the topic is not suitable for an article, "a category is enough" is not a valid argument. Tigraan Click here to contact me 11:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
NOTDUP is from a page (read the box at the top) that's id'd as an "editing guideline", not policy. And I happen to think that a category and a navbox are enough. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it. Jeh ( talk) 12:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
This is a major problem for some editors who can't actually think independently and who simply attempt to render argument by reference to some essay or guideline. Arguments such as "a category is enough" are indeed perfectly valid arguments. That someone believes we need this information in three distinct formats is beyond me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Because the mainspace article format is the most beneficial for the general reader - our customer. Most people (our customers) come to Wikipedia only to read the articles, not to derive or discern information from categories. Also, the general reader (or lay reader) does not peruse categories, they seek out information from mainspace articles. Categories are a function of our editing, and are used for our editing. Hence, these are two different activities; one for the benefit of the lay reader and one for the benefit of editors (like us). --- Steve Quinn ( talk)
Accepted, but a dumb list like this (which is basically a navigation aid) is no different at all to a category or a navbox. It's actually pretty hopeless. If it approached something like Glossary of association football terms then I could understand its utility, right now it's utterly pointless. And you make an interesting (and unfounded, or at least unverifiable) claim that categories are not used by the reader. Can you prove that or are you just making it up? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
[37] says the category is hit a lot less though the factor is "only" of ten. It can reasonably be assumed to show that the cat page is hit less by readers (though it could be that WP editors hammered the list page even when readers prefer to use the category). I took "cats" because that is one of the default examples for the pageview tools page, could be different for other lists though. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
It is an editing guideline "best treated with common sense and exceptions may apply", so what? Everything is subject to WP:IAR, too, but it does not mean everything is an exception to all guidelines. I have seen plenty of cases where a guideline was not followed for the greater good of WP, but if you are going to say an editing guideline such as NOTDUP should be ignored in a particular case, you better had to say why that one case warrants it ("it is beyond me" is not enough), and Ajf773 did not do that above. If you want the guideline to be ignored all the time, go ask for it to be removed at WP:VPP or wherever. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
It seems you can't see the wood for the trees. That's fine, and you've made your point, just as many others have adequately refuted it. This list provides nothing, absolutely nothing. It might as well be "Words beginning with A". The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
At the risk of being redundant, the article can easily be expanded with descriptions and other additional content. I considered doing so, but it would be pointless if the article is to then later be deleted. See also: WP:NOEFFORT. North America 1000 20:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Well a referenced glossary of terms would have been unlikely to have been nominated. Just saying. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I added the sources, etc. after this was nominated. In addition to qualifying for an article per WP:NOTDUP, the topic also passes WP:LISTN, having been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. North America 1000 20:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as it passes WP:STAND, but expand to include basic information about each listed item, which would make it much more useful to anyone who comes across it (see List of vegetable oils, a featured list, for a good example of this being done in an acceptable manner). I would also suggest (if consensus dictates that this list fails the inclusion criteria) merging into computer hardware, with each item on the list becoming a section of the article, which already includes most of the items on the list as is. My only major concern is that this list is WP:REDUNDANT to computer hardware, though this is unlikely, since "categories, lists, and navboxes that contain the same elements are typically allowed". Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 21:25, 27 May 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. Tone 07:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jernej Karničar

Jernej Karničar (  | 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 mountaineer. Does not pass the notability threshold; no significant coverage in third-party sources. Eleassar my talk 06:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have reopened this discussion per a request on my user talk page ( diff). It was previously closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR, per having received no input. North America 1000 05:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I think the reason this is getting so little response is because this does cover a non-English subject, which means that we want to avoid systemic bias, which is so difficult when you can't read the language that secondary sources would generally be in. That said, I would expect to find a notable foreign athlete from recent times to at least have SOME google hits, even if I can't read what those hits say. Given this, I'll go ahead and say delete. I'm willing to change my mind if anyone can pop in with a news reference. Fieari ( talk) 05:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing here at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Shrine of the Irish Oak Inc

Shrine of the Irish Oak 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)

A church. It belongs to Universal Life Church, which is the "diploma mill" of churches. No inclination of nobility as refs about the church all come from Facebook, YouTube or church controlled sites. Creating editor is a member of the church and has removed Prods stating, "updated info and provided more verification links and resource". Bgwhite ( talk) 05:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The church has been in legal existence since 2004, still in good standing with the state of Arkansas, and only chartered under the ULC in 2013,though it is still it own church and is in no way "controlled" by the ULC here are two non church sourced links showing that its legal http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/corps/search_corps.php?DETAIL=245505&corp_type_id=&corp_name=shrine+of+the+irish+oak&agent_search=&agent_city=&agent_state=&filing_number=&cmd= existence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf Paradox ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia has pretty specific requirements for notability, both in general and with regards to organizations such as churches. That it exists as a legal entity does not, by itself, establish notability. Why should this article exist? TechBear | Talk | Contributions

I am now of the opinion that this article should not have ever been written,and all info on the Irish Oak denomination of modern Paganism should have staid on witchvox, and other religious Neo pagan sites only, It was my mistake for writing/posting it here, But I would like to point out that: the issues of the article only popped up/became an issue when the info was added that we associate with the ULC, it then became a target there were no issues with it before that. but trying to make it right and get what is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf Paradox ( talk • contribs) 21:34, 20 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) 05:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete though if someone can come up with a merge target I might be OK with that. The only directly germane and reliable source is the state charter link, which confers no notability. Everything else seems to be a primary source with one (irrelevant) exception. Mangoe ( talk) 13:50, 27 May 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, technically expired PROD as it is unsourced BLP-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Juliet The Orange

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

Originally I had this as a BLP prod-but not sure if that fits for this. Anyway a band with very questionable notability. Having a tough time finding anything also. Wgolf ( talk) 03:38, 20 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) 04:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches have found a few links at Books particularly but nothing actually solidly convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:48, 27 May 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America 1000 06:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tiyamiyu

Tiyamiyu (  | 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 name is notable. A deletion proposal (PROD) was removed by the creator of the article, without giving any reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 12:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I did put the etymology and concept of this surname up for other people that bear the name to have an indepth knowledge of this word only to have it deleted and someone elsewhere taking credit whom doesnt even understand the language in question i.e yoruba/kwa dialect and also see Tiyamiyu: meaning, definition, origin - WordSense.eu, where the article was republished with credits given to a non african (i seem confused how it was approved by the moderator at wordsense.eu).
Secondly, It has a web popularity of approximately 4,300 pages see Tiyamiyu - http://www.name-list.net/nigeria/surname/Tiyamiyu
Thirdly, it is confused with Tiamiyu the name of a town in arabia to a point that its spelt wrongly, see http://www.dailytrust.com.ng/weekly/index.php/philosofaith/9252-re-names-and-naming-among-muslims.
Fourthly, i am not putting it up because its my Forename or Surname but because the name is unique and the meaning seemed lost until i researched within the african community history of Iperu and leaders.
Finally, i ask is it wrong to enlighten people on this error and have editors whom have no knowledge of a lexicon to determine the fate of a word than to ask and seek clarifications. We all learn and i expect knowledge dosnt lie in a single individual. As a graduate of Philosophy i understand the need for emperical evidence in science but in logic its analytical, this has been a challenge in african history or tradition documentation. Even there exist no clear definition between oral tradition and oral history in Africa in general and Nigeria in particular [1]. Thanks Tiyamiyu ( talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ http://m.ohr.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/77.extract
  • Comment I have found that african oral tradition and values are mostly deleted from or not published on the view that it lacks verifiable evidence, secondly within wikipeadia editors whom is african and is on ground to verify sources. Tiyamiyu ( talk) 15:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looks just like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ireyomi, with both articles having been created by editors with the same name as the article and both apparently being Nigerian. At least this one has sources, so I'm not sure about this one. I cleaned up the article just a bit and added the sources given above. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 02:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The name has been a source of concern to the bearers as different versions are given to the meaning of the name by various people. The name was used by an African prince whom accepted islam but didnt want to be seen as abadoning cultural values and tradition. I have added additional reference and links. This is clearly different from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ireyomi. Tiyamiyu ( talk) 15:15, 15 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 03:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt on this one. Fighting systemic bias is an important goal of Wikipedia. We currently have some references, which is a start, and the page creator has made a good faith statement that the subject is notable enough to have engendered some controversy within the native language in question. Assuming this is true, there should be additional references in existence. I do not have the lingual skill to go finding these additional references, but let's allow some time for native bilingual speakers to come in and improve the article. Fieari ( talk) 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks 'Fieari', i would look into more properly referenced links to similar controversy on this surname similar to the earlier reference.

Tiyamiyu ( talk)Tiyamiyu

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks spirit of eagle Tiyamiyu ( talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America 1000 06:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Jozi (musical group)

Jozi (musical group) (  | 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 fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. One of the sources is an unreliable self published wordpress source. The other source talks about one of the artists in the group and not the group itself. A Google search of the duo doesn't show significant coverage.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 04:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 04:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 18 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 01:50, 20 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) 04:45, 27 May 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Khristian Mizzi

Khristian Mizzi (  | 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 have been unable to find sources that would make subject meet WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC, and none of the sources found indicate he qualifies under any criterion in WP:MUSBIO. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 13:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep As leader of KM & the Sirens, he has issued two albums, they have toured Canada. Refs have been added. He is notable per WP:MUSICBIO. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 09:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Shaidar cuebiyar: Thank you for adding sources, I will have a look at them. Which part of WP:MUSICBIO did you say sources verify him meeting? Sam Sailor Talk! 14:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment regarding the 3 added citations:
Comment: Not a reliable, secondary source, but a band announcement at the St Kilda Festival. Does not count towards establishing notability.
Comment: Not a reliable, secondary source, the pages are Wikipedia:USERGENERATED. Does not count towards establishing notability.
Comment: Not a reliable, secondary source: "Australian musicians, record labels and artist representatives can apply here to get music distributed through Amrap's AirIt." Does not count towards establishing notability.
None of this brings us closer to subject meeting WP:GNG/ WP:BASIC or WP:MUSBIO, sorry. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now and Draft instead as this is simply questionable overall, I'm not confident keeping for now until there's better for a solid independent article. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ SwisterTwister: Why do you suggest incubation without a rationale? This is IMHO not a WP:TOOSOON case, and if we consider subject has been active but non-notable for 10+ years there is little or no WP:AI? to support incubation. Sam Sailor Talk! 15:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN ( talk) 00:54, 20 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) 04:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Rotation on the national ABC would be meet NMUSIC requirements, however coverage here and here, appears short-term and state-based only. Nothing useful found in the Age or Herald Sun. He's won some festival awards, but to a level satisfying WP:ANYBIO. ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 11:34, 27 May 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. North America 1000 16:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

May 2016 Afghanistan road crash

May 2016 Afghanistan road crash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears WP:NOTNEWS applies. reddogsix ( talk) 03:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • This article contains a very notable event, and many like it have articles about them. When 73 people die in a single event, it is extremely notable. This is an example of an article of a road accident with less deaths: /info/en/?search=2011_M5_motorway_crash
Accidents involving a bus are also notable, and there are many other articles on them too with less deaths. /info/en/?search=Bluffton_University_bus_crash The article can be improved upon so that it looks less like "news", instead of outright deleting it. I believe that it would be better to argue on how the article could be improved upon, since it covers a notable event that deserves an article. Beejsterb ( talk) 04:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There has been significant coverage of this article. It is however not yet known if this horrible event will have lasting effects ( WP:EFFECT) or if it will have more significant coverage as time goes on ( WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE). DeviantAttitude ( talk) 15:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 16:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, significant coverage, definitely meets WP:GNG. Extremly high number of victims.-- Gerry1214 ( talk) 20:23, 23 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) 04:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe in a year or two people will still write/post about what was definitely a very bad accident, but at the moment we have no sourcing other than ephemeral, routine news coverage. Mangoe ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. BBC link shows it happened. Death toll is notable. That should be enough. -- One Salient Oversight ( talk) 10:45, 1 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, default to keep. The main dispute revolves around the question of how much value these lists add to Wikipedia on top of the categories. The "keep" side argued that the lists do provide sufficient additional value; the "delete" side argued that the additional value is insignificant or that it doesn't make sense to classify software based on the nationality of their developers. Opinions are clearly divided without any sign of heading towards consensus. Since most of these articles have been around for several years, I'm defaulting to keep. Deryck C. 13:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of video games developed in Belgium

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

An incomplete list that will probably never be finished. This list has only had 3 edits in it's entire lifespan. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Also nominating, for the same reason:
List of video games developed in Slovakia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games developed in Hong Kong (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games developed in France (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of video games developed in Portugal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the majority of the listings in this are redlinks)
List of video games developed in the Czech Republic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the majority of the listings in this are redlinks)
There is one other lists like this ( Netherlands) which isn't listed because it contain a large amount of entries. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all I don't see any valid deletion rationales here. Only having 3 edits isn't a reason for deletion, neither is that it'll "probably never be finished". These lists go hand-in-hand with the categories they are in (for example Category:Video games developed in Belgium), and as they're a list of notable articles, per WP:CLN, they should be kept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Lugnuts: Under the link you referenced ( WP:CLN, under the disadvantages of a list, it says "Every article links to its categories in a consistent way, but lists may be more difficult to discover because not every article listed links to it, and each may choose to link to it in a different way. Attempting to enforce crosslinks from articles in the category is error-prone, makes editing the list taxing, and counteracts the ease-of-editing benefits lists otherwise enjoy". That's exactly what these lists are, taxing and pointless when the categories exist. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Read WP:AOAC. Basically WP:NOTDUP applies and no list is ever deleted simply because it exists as a category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No list is ever kept simply because a duplicate category exists for it either. NOTDUP is an anti-deletion rationale, not a keep rationale, and there's also other factors at play here. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 16:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Because categories merely categorize articles, but lists have to actually talk about them? No reliable sources actually discuss all the video games developed in Belgium. They might talk about video gaming in Belgium, but we already have that article at Video gaming in Belgium. This, meanwhile, is blatantly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
"...lists have to actually talk about them..." No, they don't. The list doesn't need to double as a prose topical article, or to have any more justification than having the same information as the category, just in a different presentation format, along with the added benefit of being able to have direct sources, annotations, and sortability. If you prefer to use categories in this context, keep doing that, and just ignore the lists. That's the whole point of WP:NOTDUP. postdlf ( talk) 14:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Except lists do need more justification for their existence than categories. Unlike categories, which exist primarily for the purpose of categorizing articles and thus regular Wikipedia guidelines do not apply to them, lists are articles and thus need to demonstrate notability, verifiability, and all that to meet WP:42. So unless you can prove the existence of sources that talk about "lists of video games developed in Belgium" specifically (as opposed to video gaming in Belgium) this list falls afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LISTPURP basically says that lists can be valuable sources of information. This is not a valuable source of information, and saying "we should keep this list because a duplicate category exists for it" is not enough for keeping. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 00:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
You seem to be implying WP:LISTN must be satisfied here, but of course that guideline itself says it is only one way of addressing notability. More generally, you seem just unfamiliar with list and category practice and standards. Your assertions aren't reflected in guidelines nor demonstrated AFD consensus, no matter how many times you repeat them. And that's all we're doing at this point, so good day, sir. postdlf ( talk) 00:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't want to go on about this either, but since your closing statement accused me of being unfamiliar with/violating guidelines, I reckon it's only fair that I get to respond to these accusations. Yes, LISTN isn't perfect, but it is the best and most relevant guideline here, seeing as this isn't a cross-categorization list and neither does it fill a "recognized" purpose when many countries, such as the United States, doesn't even have a corresponding list, and when Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources explicitly talks about citing sources. Additionally, when the opposing argument is that lists and categories are one and the same and an anti-deletion rationale like WP:NOTDUP is being used as a keep rationale, I daresay LISTN is as valid as any. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 01:26, 29 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) 04:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep All - This is a useful type of subcategory, and there is enough information to expand. Video games by country is actually a very useful thing to look up, especially from an academic perspective. It has been noted numerous times by critics and academics that video games from different countries are vastly different from each other, and that games from the same country tend to have unifying features or outlooks. The list of games can certainly be completed, as there are a finite number of games from any given country, although some countries will have a VERY long list... those might be sub-dividable further. Each list article can ALSO contain relevant and properly sourced information about what academics/critics/reviewers believe are defining features of games from that country. For example, games from Russia tend to be very bleak, games from japan have a different view of weapons than other countries, and so forth (just off the top of my head). Fieari ( talk) 06:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
None of your points are actually relevant to this discussion though. Firstly, no-one is suggesting that we delete the categories, we're only proposing to delete these redundant listicles that go along with it. Secondly, the stuff about Russian games being bleak or Japanese game weapons are better discussed on articles such as Video gaming in Russia or Video gaming in Japan, as well as what academics say about them. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 05:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Fieari:, what academic perspective are you talking about? This seems WP:OR to me, why would you think Japanese video game developers have a different view on weapons? I think Shinji Mikami and Suda51 might feel very differently. If there is such research, that would somehow show that games from a certain country are similar in a way, that would allow for its own article, or at least a mention in the articles on "video gaming in [x]". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge - The category "list of games developed in X" ties the game to a country via a developer. What makes sense is to have one or more lists of developers/designers/publishers in the country, and then a separate least for the games each of those developers/designers/publishers have released (likely built into the article about those entities). That's the underlying meaning here. WP:NOTDUP means it doesn't duplicate a category and shouldn't be deleted for that reason; it doesn't mean that we should have a list for every category (i.e. that it's not a deletion rationale doesn't make it a keep rationale). I say delete or merge because there may be developer lists it would make sense to move the content to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment/Question - I find it odd that the nom suggests keeping the Netherlands article simply because it has a large number of entries. If the number of entries and edits to the articles (along with the idea that they won't be improved) are the justification for deleting them, why not keep them and apply some WP:FIXIT? I'm sure there are enough games out there for the small lists to match or exceed the Netherlands list. ZettaComposer ( talk) 17:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Agreed. The Netherlands article shouldn't be exempt from this just because it has more entries. The problem is the article format, not the number of entries. We don't delete based on the current state of an article except in extreme circumstances, if there's a way to fix it. We delete when the list itself is problematic. And in this case, I think it is problematic. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closer: While the nominator excluded List of video games developed in the Netherlands, the basis for exclusion wasn't sound, and it looks like all of the participants who have supported deletion wish to include the Netherlands article in that decision. Since the article wasn't tagged, however, and as it seems too late now, it would probably be inappropriate to delete. So perhaps it's better left for a separate discussion, or perhaps if this is closed as delete then that could be taken as precedent for a bold redirect of that article? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – These articles qualify per WP:NOTDUP relative to the following categories:
They also qualify as functional navigational aids per WP:LISTPURP. Also, these articles can be expanded with descriptions, sources, images, etc., which cannot be done with categories. Inre the nomination rationale, see also WP:NOEFFORT and WP:NOTBUILT. North America 1000 16:40, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Northamerica1000: (and others) WP:NOTDUP is an antidote to a particular delete argument, but it's not a keep argument apart from that (i.e. the only time it should be a keep argument is when the only deletion argument is ~"this duplicates the category"). The existence of a category isn't justification for a list; it's merely not justification for deletion. There are topics/purposes for which either a list or category might be more appropriate than the other simply because the systems have different purposes (which, after all, is the basis of WP:NOTDUP).
Similarly, navigational aids aren't exempted from the rest of the guidelines for lists -- they're just one of several purposes embedded or stand-alone lists can have. The list is still subject to e.g. WP:LISTN/ WP:SAL, or else this same rationale about navigation could be applied to literally any conceivable list that linked to Wikipedia articles (e.g. List of European bands with albums named after animals featured in George Orwell's Animal Farm could be argued a navigational aid if it linked to bands with Wikipedia articles). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Your slippery slope fear is not based on experience or based on a consensus-supported view (see, e.g., WP:LISTOUTCOMES). You're also artificially compartmentalizing the issues by insisting both that the existence of the category structure has no bearing on whether corresponding lists should exist, and that you think navigational function is no basis for keeping lists (which is contra WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTPURP). Given how strict we are with categories, if a category is not unverifiable, indiscriminate, or trivial than a corresponding list obviously isn't either (a point that has already been made). Regardless, the response to your claim that the list needs some special justification beyond what justifies the corresponding category has already been provided above multiple times, in describing what these lists already do that the categories cannot. postdlf ( talk) 18:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It's not a slippery slope fear. The question of why this should be kept is somewhere in the question of "why would we keep list of video games developed in Belgium but not my list of European bands with... example?" If the arguments you're giving would result in both being kept, then clearly something is wrong. If the argument relies on "because one seems useful to me and the other does not", then something is wrong. If the argument relies on abandoning all responsibility for judgment by saying "well we have a category for one of them", then something is wrong. In other words, it's not "this is a slippery slope"; it's "there needs to be a better reason for keeping".
Navigation is a purpose of a list, yes. But do you think that just saying "it's a navigational aid" grants a free pass to have any list you can think of as long as it links to Wikipedia articles? If not, then it's obviously not enough to simply say that. I'm trying to determine what the basis for keeping is beyond that. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
We have plenty of general policies and guidelines such as WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, or WP:IINFO that prevent us from realizing your straw man. And again, if the category passes those bottom-level thresholds and WP:OCAT, then the list also does and is necessarily also useful for navigation because it's the same information just in a different format. If you also think the category structure should be deleted, that argument of course would not satisfy you, but you'd also be the only commenter here expressing that view or questioning whether country of origin was a significant enough fact to merit indexing by list or category. postdlf ( talk) 19:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're using negative rhetorical terms like "straw man" but still haven't offered an argument for why these articles should be kept [and the example I gave should not]. If those policies and guidelines "prevent us from realizing [that example]", what is the basis for distinction?
Perhaps it just comes down to what seems to be a central point of disagreement: The existence of a category (regardless of its validity) does not, as far as I'm concerned, automatically validate a corresponding list article (because they are different processes with different purposes and different requirements). Obviously I've not argued anything like "the category [structure] should be deleted" (speaking of straw men), because whether a category exists should be irrelevant to the question of whether to delete a list (not a reason to delete, and not a reason to keep). It had not occurred to me that anyone would hold a position otherwise. I suppose that's a matter for a project talk page rather than here, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I feel these lists just duplicate the corresponding categories while adding little extra value. Lists can be very valuable as navigation aids; for example, a list corresponding to a higher-level category can make the structure of the lower-level categories clearer (compare List of operating systems to Category:Operating systems). They are also useful for e.g. officeholders, in that they make clear the temporal aspects of it in ways that a category can't. But these lists don't seem to do any of that; while it does provide the info in chronological order, the members of the list aren't necessarily temporally related to each other (unlike e.g. a political office which only one person can hold at a time.) SJK ( talk) 22:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all We normally do have such lists, unless the categories are very small. They have the potential of adding context, and helping people find the article they are looking for. And not just the potential--they give the platform, the year, and the developer--I don't see this as "adding little extra value" -- these are 3 basic and very helpful factors. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • @ DGG: The context is "video gaming in [x]", not "list of video games developed in [x]". And what article would the reader be looking for exactly? We've already established that there's a category on the subject. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Video games have no "nationality", the geographical boundaries in which they were developed is not of importance and does not provide the reader with any additional knowledge. Seeing a list of "video games developed in [x]" does not somehow lead to a greater understanding of those games or the video game industry of that country. Is a game created in [x] typical for [x]? Is Scottish developer Rockstar North's take on American pop culture with the Grand Theft Auto series typical for Scotland? Writer-producers Dan Houser and Sam Houser, both English, live in New York City. That leads to my following point:
  • The reason for inclusion is unnecessarily strict, some games are developed by teams around the world. And what exactly are we going to consider "developed"? Video game music is very much a part of a game and its development. Jesper Kyd apparently recorded the soundtrack to Assassin's Creed II in Los Angeles, with the game developed in Montreal; while BioShock 2's main campaign was developed by 2K Marin, from the U.S., the multiplayer part was developed by Digital Extremes, from Canada. List of video games developed in the United States and Canada? List of video games developed in Canada and the United States? What about Far Cry 4, mainly developed by Ubisoft Montreal with additional work by Ubisoft Toronto, Red Storm Entertainment (from North Carolina), Ubisoft Shanghai, and Ubisoft Kiev. What about ports? BioShock was originally developed by 2K Boston and 2K Australia, it was ported to the PlayStation 3 by Digital Extremes and to iOS by 2K China. List of video game ports developed in China?
  • I also like to point out the fact that the city of Hong Kong is a " Special Administrative Region" of China. So we've already got List of video games developed in Belgium, are we going to have List of video games developed in Flanders or List of video games developed in Ghent? And again, Rockstar North, List of video games developed in the United Kingdom, List of video games developed in Scotland, List of video games developed in Great Britain? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Generally agree with the above. It makes sense to have "Games by developer X", "Games by publisher X", "Developers in country X", "Publishers in country X", "Designers in country X" and many other possible combinations, but not games developed by companies or people in country X. If, on the off chance, there are examples of a game's development being important to the country (or the reverse), it's covered in "video gaming in country X". The connection is too indiscriminate for a separate list and it's made redundant by the other more specific lists (if there's content to merge to developer/designer/company articles/lists, I'd support that, of course). Speaking of indiscriminate, yes, it would also be possible to have a "list of games developed in city/state/province/region/continent X", which would be kept using the same keep arguments, it seems. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all This is why there are categories, I thought. The redundancy seems unnecessary and work-making (in the form of manual list additions, which may not even be made by article creators who don't realize there's this list their article must be added to in addition to adding the category, so that this list isn't even going to be as inclusive as clicking on the cat link) for no good reason. Julietdeltalima (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-blocked nominator. North America 1000 16:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cyfuture

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

Reason: The article Cyfuture falls under Conflict of interest. B.P. ( talk) 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • People have conflicts of interest. Articles are inanimate, and do not. Please state, with reference to deletion policy, a reason for deleting this (lopsidedly sourced) article. Uncle G ( talk) 18:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Doesn't look like the nominator will be replying, since they've now been blocked as a sockpuppet. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Since that's the case, I've had a quick look around myself for in-depth reliable and independent sources that actually discuss this subject, rather than discuss another company and only tangentially mention this one. I didn't find any. Uncle G ( talk) 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 21:17, 23 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) 04:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because the nominator has failed to explain the conflict of interest that motivated this nomination. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and speedy tag as I have now, there's nothing at all actually convincing and there's no need to clarify from the nominator as the current article says it all. FWIW, my searches have also found several links now but nothing comparably better convincing so delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 27 May 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 06:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fatal Blast Whip

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

Does not appear to be a notable music act. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:53, 27 May 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. Clear consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Bayu Indrawan

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

Non-notable academic. Page created by a temp banned user, banned for socking. It was prod'd by another editor but the prod was removed by the article author - who appears to be the person in the article. Related article created by the same person is [ for deletion]. Article text describes a non-notable academic. The claims of notability are of being an expert on waste management, having delivered keynote speeches, and being on international leadership programs. None of these are a sufficient claim of notability. The article references are largely either self-drafted works or are descriptions of participation in events. This is not third party coverage describing a notable academic as every academic gets invited to speak at events and conferences. MLA ( talk) 02:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Notability of this person is OK. Recently this person appears many times in local Indonesia television. Pedulilingkungan ( talk)— Pedulilingkungan ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - as per nomination. I PRODed it and there has been no improvement in establishing notability since the PROD was removed. There appears to be a cabal of meat or sock puppets working to maintain a couple of article here, including this one. Such activities do not have any impact on the ability to determine notability or lack of it.   Velella   Velella Talk   08:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It would take something pretty exceptional for an academic below the level of professor to pass WP:PROF, and I see no evidence of such exceptionality here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 10:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:45, 3 June 2016 (UTC). reply
  • Delete as this is loaded with information and sources but examining it shows nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability, there's simply nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:56, 3 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike Sullivan (ice hockey, born 1973)

Mike Sullivan (ice hockey, born 1973) (  | 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 Joeykai ( talk) 22:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:35, 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 09:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Another in Dolovis' multi-hundred player stable of NN hockey article creations, this one is even shakier than most; he had a single starring season in the mid-minors, but not enough to win any league accolades. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, a search for news sources turned up zip that would qualify for the GNG. Ravenswing 15:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • 270 appearances at professional level, or is "professional" supposed to be (or the equivalent of) semi-professional for at least some of these teams and leagues? In association football one appearance at fully professional level is enough for notability. Peter James ( talk) 22:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Reply: Not quite; as does the footy WikiProject, the hockey WikiProject maintains a list of leagues ( WP:NHOCKEY/LA) detailing which leagues satisfy the various criteria of NHOCKEY, and playing in the ECHL no more certifies notability than does playing in the English National League, however much a number of its teams are indeed professional. A player at the subject's level needs to have "[a]chieved preeminent honors in a lower minor or major junior league (all-time top ten career scorer or First Team All-Star)" to gain presumptive notability. In any event, the "fully professional" nomenclature is an unfortunate artifact of NSPORTS criteria going back to WP:NATHLETE, serving well neither the many areas of amateur sport where practitioners routinely meet the GNG, or the many levels where athletes do get paid but come no nearer the GNG than the "fully professional" auto mechanic on the corner. Ravenswing 01:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Ravenswing. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and I found little coverage; admittedly I may have missed some coverage that is buried among the more famous hockey Mike Sullivan but if there is any the creator should have included some in the article. Rlendog ( talk) 23:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's still nothing for actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 3 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 speedily deleted as a copyright violation ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Dr. napoleon imarhiagbe

Dr. napoleon imarhiagbe (  | 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 is unreference Akhilonair ( talk) 01:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Hi. There's no need to start a deletion discussion for a lack of references. For anything other than a biography of a living person, that isn't grounds for deletion at all. For a biography of a living person like this one, see WP:BLPPROD for proposed deletion of such an article, no discussion required. I didn't bother with that because I submitted the article for speedy deletion. Largoplazo ( talk) 01:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Klariz Magboo

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

Non-notable person; lacks significant coverage from reliable sources. Most of the references cited in the article have no mention of her and are not reliable. Sixth o f March 01:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Complex, but clear, case of a vanity article. BlueSalix ( talk) 03:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as this article is detailed and apparently sourced but examining this shows nothing actually convincing for an easily comprehensible notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 28 May 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. Discussion about a potential renaming of the article, splitting it, etc. as suggested herein can continue on the article's talk page if desired. North America 1000 06:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Said Al Nasr

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

Currently still questionable for any applicable notability such as WP:EVENT, WP:CRIME, WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG, my searches are finding several news sources at Books, News and browsers. At best, this could be restarted as an article for the event itself perhaps but, as that may also be questionable, this may be best also moved to an article circling the series of such events itself. There are two inbound links, Silco incident and List of terrorist incidents, 1980, and although this could've been redirected to the latter, I nominated because this is still questionable for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 20 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 01:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Very Weak Delete Keep - as per note to me (below) from E.M.Gregory, seems to meet our GNG. There seem to be some sources in books I can't access. I'm hesitant to see articles of this type deleted, however. BlueSalix ( talk) 03:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • User:BlueSalix, I suspect that you ran into the problem of transliteration, I have added two alternate transliterations of perp's name, plus a number of reliable sources. Sources are myriad but mostly in archives since while this was a major international news story, the murder - and hence the coverage - occurred in 1980 and the murderer was released (swapped) in 1981. Interested in your opinion on moving to a page about the incident. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see any substantial coverage. Keep. I agree that after rework the article is worth keeping. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 11:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
User:Arthistorian1977, please revisit, new sourcing and rename proposal. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep and rename: 1980 Antwerp summer camp attack, or something to that effect, but rename for incident, not perpetrator. The attack on Jewish children and families waiting for a summer camp bus, 1 child killed, several adults and children seriously injured, was notable. I am now sourcing, rewriting article to make it a page on a terrorist attack on a group of children and their families who were visibly Jewish and waiting in formt of a large, Jewish institution by an identified member of a terrorist group who targeted them because of their identity. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note also that this incident (not the attacker, the incident) is notable because 1.) it was Abu Nidal; 2.) it was one of a series of notable anti-Semitic attacks in the early 1980s such as the 1981 Vienna synagogue attack, 3.) the attacker was swapped in exchange for the hostages taken in the Silco incident. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • See, for example, this [41] google books search on "Abu Nidal" + Antwerp + 1980. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There is a strong case to have an article on the incident, due to the wide coverage and the connection with the later Silco prisoner/hostage exchange. There is also a case to have an article on the attacker as well, for the same reason. While WP:ONEEVENT might apply if the coverage was limited to the original attack, the Silco trade is an additional reason to have an article on the attacker. Mattflaschen - Talk 17:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
    There are sufficient reliable sources, though you may need to search under multiple transliterations, or phrasing that does not include the attacker's name. E.g. I found Belgian hostages freed from Middle East by searching on Silco and Libya (originally in a paywalled source, but it turns out to be available for free too). Mattflaschen - Talk 17:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Happy to undertake to split/write as 2 articles, on on the terrorist, the second on the attack, if that is the consensus here. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:06, 30 May 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. Weak arguments but uncontested after three weeks. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Udupi Jilla Alpasankhyatara Vedike

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

No real content Rathfelder ( talk) 21:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 00:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 00:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 13:55, 20 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 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as could not find anything other than wikipedia mirror sites. Seems to be an org with no notability as such. Lakun.patra ( talk) 08:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete altogether and I nearly speedied this too, nothing at all to suggest the stability of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 3 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. Not much discussion, calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

RuPaul's Drag Race Battle of the Seasons: 2016 Extravaganza Tour

RuPaul's Drag Race Battle of the Seasons: 2016 Extravaganza Tour (  | 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:NTOUR. Azealia911 talk 21:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 13:56, 20 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 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it was only a few months-tour, nothing at all to suggest there was the depth to suggest an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 3 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. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 16:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Duryog Nivaran

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

Doesn't appear to exist any more. Unclear to me whether it was notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 13:57, 20 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 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, this is an RS describing the activity of the organization in some detail.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:03, 3 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. Based on the discussion I would have closed as merge but will not without an appropriate target. If anyone wants to create a new article to merge this information into I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n( talk page) 15:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chicago

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chicago (  | 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. consuls are not top tier diplomats. Secondly there is no inherent notability of these lists as a similar list was recently deleted. Let's see if the usual suspect turn up with WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. LibStar ( talk) 11:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk 15:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 18:40, 20 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 00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my arguments at several other diplomat-related AfDs. This is just another formulaic microstub about a non-notable topic. Reyk YO! 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 15:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the scope of this role is international and it has received significant independent coverage, including in The Age (2004 Koutsoukis article) and announcement of appointments in The Canberra Times. Clare. ( talk) 08:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
The Canberra Times articles are merely routine announcements and contain no discussion of the consul role like what he does. LibStar ( talk) 09:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm waiting for someone to vote keep per "Clare's rationale ". LibStar ( talk) 16:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is a notable posting, given the notability of recent appointees who are blue-linked, but I believe there is scope for building this page a little more to make it more compliant with what is expected of these list pages. Siegfried Nugent ( talk) 05:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
in what way does it meet a notability guideline? the 3 blue links are notable for other reasons. e.g. 2 were members of parliament. LibStar ( talk) 07:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and then Redirect (or redirect only for now if needed) to Lists of heads of diplomatic missions of Australia as there's nothing to suggest all of these are actually acceptable for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (keep) by continent or similar, for example, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, should all be one article. Not particualry notable or encyclopedic as standalone articles but combined could be a useful reference/resource for readers. Aoziwe ( talk) 15:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. Consul-General of Chicago is a relatively minor posting, it has no great diplomatic importance in its own right. However, of the last 5 appointees, 3 of them were independently notable enough to have their own article. I think part of the reason for this, is that the appointees are a bit of a mix – some of them career diplomats, others former politicians. Members of the later category will almost always be notable independently; most of the former aren't independently notable, but some of them are. Given all of this, my preference is to keep the list but merge it into another article . (I'm not sure which merge target is best though.) SJK ( talk) 22:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment none of the merge !voters have suggested an appropriate target. LibStar ( talk) 07:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I was suggesting above that they be merged into fewer articles, for example List of Consuls-General of Australia in North America, noting also independent notability as per above too. Aoziwe ( talk) 13:05, 5 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 redirect to List of Beast Wars Neo characters#Predacons.  Sandstein  11:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Guiledart

Guiledart (  | 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, no third-party sources cited. Josh Milburn ( talk) 18:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:20, 21 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 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Can't see any reason why this is worth an article...I'de say delete (non-notable, fancruft) unless there's a suitable redirect. TheLongTone ( talk) 12:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
That suitable redirect would obviously be to the character page for the animated series this guy comes from. List_of_Beast_Wars_Neo_characters#Predacons Mathewignash ( talk) 01:21, 29 May 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 01:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC) reply

SAE 310S stainless Steel

SAE 310S stainless Steel (  | 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 L1A1 FAL ( talk) 00:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Would the nominator care to expand further on his reasons? Xxanthippe ( talk) 06:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC). reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 00:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
If merge is the outcome, the best target might be SAE steel grades#Stainless steel. -- Mark viking ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - almost self evidentially notable. If there isn't enough information about the subject, I wouldn't OBJECT to a merge, but I suspect that there is enough information to warrant a full article. History of the material, uses, physical properties... this can be expanded. No need to delete. Fieari ( talk) 06:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This has been a steel standard for almost 70 years, and given that, there is a lot of information out there about this class of materials. Property sheets like [42], [43], [44], and [45] give the basic facts about the materials. This US standard also has international counterparts [46], [47]. Applications are found in sources like [48] and [49]. There seem plenty of in depth reliable sources on which to base an article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 04:42, 29 May 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_May_27&oldid=1142621365"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE