Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 June 27 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete and redirect to Slackware#Hardware architectures. KaisaL ( talk) 02:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Slackintosh

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

NN Linux distro. No independent sources, WP:ENN. MSJapan ( talk) 20:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 23:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
To be more precise, there's a threefold problem. First, this isn't mentioned on the target page. That's addressable, but I can't find anything supporting the merging of unsourced content being compliant with the policy on unsourced content. Lastly, even taking a WP:V standpoint based on the fact that there's a non-RS, non third-party, non-independent homepage for this, there's no list of or subsection about Slackware ports listed on the Slackware page, and I see no reason to create one specifically to hold one line of unsourced content. MSJapan ( talk) 00:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
There is no WP:V problem with this material. The complaints seem to be a pointy smokescreen for overzealous deletion. I have added a mention to Slackware#Hardware_architectures and so am OK with merge or redirect. Deletion is not called for here because Slackintosh is a potential search term, we have a couple incoming links and WP:CHEAP. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:04, 28 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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Legea patrimoniului arheologic

Legea patrimoniului arheologic (  | 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 repository for copy and pastes of the law.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 23:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 23:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions.   I dream of horses ( My talk page) ( My edits) @ 23:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Poorly translated ("hide of information regarding occasional discovery of archaeological remains") copy of primary source - Arjayay ( talk) 09:55, 29 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. Deleted by Jimfbleak ( talk · contribs) deleted page ( G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) JMHamo ( talk) 06:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Cloe Rene Moreau

Cloe Rene Moreau (  | 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, lack of sources. Fails WP:BIO JMHamo ( talk) 22:41, 26 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 Pure & Simple with Dolly's Biggest Hits. (non-admin closure) GSS ( talk) 07:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Pure & Simple (Dolly Parton album)

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

Duplicate page Benjichilders ( talk) 22:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

What do you mean? Just redirect to Pure & Simple with Dolly's Biggest Hits then. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:29, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Jimmy Allen (placekicker)

Jimmy Allen (placekicker) (  | 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:BASIC. - Mr X 22:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 07:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 07:44, 27 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 Game Boy line. To preserve WP:Attribution history. czar 17:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Comparison of Nintendo portable consoles

Comparison of Nintendo portable consoles (  | 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 has been split into three articles: Game Boy line, Nintendo DS line, and Nintendo 3DS family Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 20:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep only as a salted redirect to keep the edit history. If the article has been split up, its likely going to be impossible to separate the contributions from all relevant editors in the splits that a history merge-type process won't work easily. A redirect keeps that history. (The redirect could simply go to Nintendo#Handheld consoles) -- MASEM ( t) 01:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Really haven't thought of that. I will do as you said. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 02:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect was undone. I assumed that was to do with AfD tags that I deleted. Anyway can I undo my AfD request? Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 09:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) @ Rukario-sama: A few significant modifications to an AfDed article, such as redirecting it, are Bad Things (tm). I reverted your edit. Please wait until the AfD ends, because the final consensus may disagree with the construction that Masem proposed. You cannot withdraw an AfD once it started except if everyone else wants to keep (and Masem's !vote is not really a keep).
I could not see where the split was performed in the edit history of the three articles you mentioned, but if it is the case, I encourage you to use Template:Copied (or similar) to provide attribution, per WP:COPYWITHIN. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
This article has been split as copy (maybe that's what you have overlooked) into three articles and little changes was made to it since 2013. It's just headaches to have two. There was no discussion made to that split proposal though. I don't know what is more right, but it's not good to have two. I'm in favor of keeping edit history as I think we have yet to inherit new changes from this article to the three articles. My current position is to keep as redirect. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 10:19, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
OK, I assumed that the split had to be recent and looked only at the 100 last edits on each page. My bad.
I agree with you, either we re-merge or we totally split. The children articles are big enough to stand by themselves (per WP:SIZESPLIT), the only thing that worries me is what we redirect to, especially in the light of the edit history to keep. Maybe keep as a pseudo-DAB page? Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It's alright. We only have to purge the original article and replace it with a redirect or a disambiguation solution. I think the latter is better because it can let people know the original article has been split into multiple articles mentioned and don't automatically redirect before trying to open the edit history. Rukario-sama ^ㅈ^ -(...) 00:56, 28 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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Matthew Wright (critic)

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

Article about a British critic and writer who has published an un-authorized biography about Seasick Steve, but apart from that seems to be utterly non-notable by Wikipedia's standards, created by a user with a probable conflict of interest, considering that their only contributions to Wikipedia apart from creating this article are adding material about the biography, and the subject of this article, on Seasick Steve, in obvious attempts to promote the biography (see also Special:Contributions/THPB91 and Special:Contributions/109.155.33.106). None of the sources given is about the subject of this article, instead the first one is only a link to the publisher, confirming that the biography exists, and all the others about Seasick Steve, leaving nothing to confirm any notability for the subject of this article, Matthew Wright. Thomas.W talk 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Leave It's a perfectly valid page about a noted arts critic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.33.106 ( talk) 08:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC) — 109.155.33.106 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete per WP:BASIC with no in-depth secondary sources about Wright. No suggestion that Wright meets WP:AUTHOR. -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - borderline promotional of non-notable critic, and probable COI (that's just my opinion). Deb ( talk) 10:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There are some Dutch sources from around the same 1-2 day period, but not much beyond that from what I can see. Searching for just his name is difficult, as he shares his name with several other people in the same profession. Offhand this might at most merit a 1-2 sentence mention in the main article for the performer, but that's kind of debatable given the type of claims in the book and the fact that we only have 4 sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The warnings given at the top of this page are all now inaccurate. There is plenty of independent and reputable European coverage of the subject, and the biography. The page is only an orphan because the link from the Seasick Steve page has incorrectly been removed. Were the Seasick Steve page created by Steve's own PR team, it could hardly be less accurate, though the publication of true information seems to be low on everyone's list round here. HoboLow ( talk) 15:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: HoboLow ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • All sources now in the article are about Seasick Steve and the book, not about the subject of the article, and thus don't support any notability (by Wikipedia's standards) for Matthew Wright (which as a minimum requires "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject"). Thomas.W talk 15:30, 30 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. I am happy there is an actionable consensus here, particularly given the uncertainty of those leaning to keep. If anyone wishes to redirect this, that is their prerogative and I would not find that objectionable. Also, as a potential WP:TOOSOON, recreation after additional reliable coverage should not be prejudiced per the outcome of this debate. KaisaL ( talk) 03:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Rick Tyler (politician)

Rick Tyler (politician) (  | 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 political candidate who fails WP:POLITICIAN. He drew some coverage this week for a billboard that says "Make America White Again", but this act does not establish WP:GNG. It's more WP:BIO1E, if that much. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I created this article thinking that all the coverage Tyler has been getting makes him notable, but I see why one might think otherwise. If other users think he's not notable enough, I'd be open to making this a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2016, where there's already a short blurb about him and the sign. He, his sign, and the surrounding controversy are definitely notable in the context of the election. But maybe he's not notable enough for his own bio. I'll leave it up to the other editors to come to a consensus. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Delete failed candidates for US house seats are not notable. In this case, the coverage is trivial, and driven by various attempts to attack other people. The coverage has little to do with what this guy is saying, and it is actually a bit hard to believe this guy really believes his rhetoric, as opposed to he is using it to try to attack others rhetoric. Either way he is just not notable.03:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect for now. If he wins, does anything else newsworthy, or if coverage of this one event blows up even bigger, then the article can be recreated, but until then, it's WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Fieari ( talk) 06:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for office are not notable just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and source that he gets over some other notability criterion for some other reason besides his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an NPOL pass for the election itself. But nothing here demonstrates that at all — a brief blip of media coverage related to a single controversial billboard just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic of sustained permanent encyclopedic interest. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after much thought. The case could be made that we don't want Tyler getting more publicity. However, I think it's more important, with the Southern Poverty Law Center, to know as much as possible about white supremacists. Amyzex ( talk) 18:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
That's the SPLC's job, and I fully support them in it. But it's not our role to create a special exemption from our notability rules just to help name and shame the racists — the combination of our neutral point of view requirements, which prevent us from explicitly calling it out the way the SPLC can, with our notability standards for politicians, which would require us to single this guy out as somehow more notable than the norm for non-elected candidates in order to keep the article, would combine to create an effect that some readers could easily misconstrue as an endorsement. Bearcat ( talk) 02:39, 28 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. MBisanz talk 01:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Information technology and ethics

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

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, probably can't be fixed without WP:TNT. If I didn't know better, I'd say this was another "Wiki in the classroom" kind of project. MSJapan ( talk) 23:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS ( talk) 16:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NOTESSAY, especially with text like "This [cybercrime] is the main topic that I will discuss in detail because it is also the main subject for my assignment project." AndrewWTaylor ( talk) 21:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I endorsed Acroterion's PROD: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or academic research. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:21, 28 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. MBisanz talk 01:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Amer Abdallah

Amer Abdallah (  | 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 kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 14:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
True but both WP:KICK and WP:NKICK are the same with regards to notability. He does not meet either since the WKA title (which I assume is the basis of your comment) is only considered notable through 2000. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:17, 28 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 deleted', previously deleted (RfD very recently) plus vandalism

2027 Copa América

AfDs for this article:
2027 Copa América (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete this ridiculously early crystal balling. Salt until the summer of 2026. A previous article has been deleted at AfD and a later redirect was deleted at RfD. Salt so we don't have to go through this again. Safiel ( talk) 14:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

strong [and speedy] delete unsourced
And lock creation pr OP. Lihaas ( talk) 21:27, 26 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. This is clearly an acutely controversial topic. There's clear arguments on both sides of the debate, and there's differing interpretations of the policy in the area, particularly in terms of WP:PORNBIO. There's no sign of any consensus at this moment in time. Given the high levels of participation already, and the palpable split between editors, I have zero confidence that relisting this for another seven days would lead to any sort of consensus. As such, I am closing this as a no consensus. I hope this detailed closure explains my decision. KaisaL ( talk) 00:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ava Addams

AfDs for this article:
Ava Addams (  | 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 PORNBIO & GNG, This was created by an editor who went on a mass article creation, It's twice been CSD'd under G4 however one editor for some reason disagrees so renominating again!. – Davey2010 Talk 13:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Rebecca1990 - Nope no cherry picking, First off I apologize for not pinging you - I went through every name pasting them above but somehow missed yours (certainly wasn't intentional), Secondly as a rule I only ping the previous discussion but no further and seeing as it was a 2013 discussion I have no idea if a few have retired etc etc), Thanks, – Davey2010 Talk 16:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
"Moronic comments"? I would urge you to read WP:NPA. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Carrite's delete vote is basically an acknowledgment that this passes PORNBIO. Only reason he voted delete is because he disagrees with the PORNBIO guideline criteria. No logical reason here to "IAR" ( WP:Ignore all rules), since keeping this article in no way prevents us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, in fact, it does the opposite due to the likelihood that Addams will also win an AVN/XBIZ/XRCO non-scene/ensemble award in the future, resulting in the eventual recreation of the article anyways. Like I've said before, "considering NightMoves well-known/significant under PORNBIO will more often lead to EARLIER creation of articles than ADDITIONAL creation of articles. A lot of porn stars/directors received the first award of their careers from NightMoves. Devon won NM Best Actress in 2003 and did not win anything else until her AVN HoF induction in 2010, Pat Myne won NM Best Director in 2004 and did not win anything else until his AVN HoF induction in 2011, and Eric Masterson won NM Best Actor in 2005 and did not win anything else until his AVN HoF induction in 2014" and "now that the AVN and XBIZ awards have taken place, four people (Kleio Valentien, Ryan Driller, Jessy Dubai, Kendra Sunderland) whose only non-scene/ensemble award wins prior to AVN/XBIZ 2016 were from NightMoves, have now won either an AVN or XBIZ non-scene/ensemble award. Accepting NightMoves Awards as passing PORNBIO only gave them notability under that guideline three months earlier than it would have otherwise." Also, last week's XRCO show awarded Ryan Conner with her only other non-scene/ensemble award besides her 2001 NightMoves win. Last year, it was Anikka Albrite, Carter Cruise, Maddy O'Reilly, Nikki Benz, and Prinzzess won AVN/XBIZ/XRCO non-scene/ensemble awards with their only previous non-scene/ensemble wins being from NightMoves. All five of those WP articles were created prior to AVN/XBIZ/XRCO 2015, and it would have been a complete waste of time to delete them just to recreate them again, especially when they already met PORNBIO with their NightMoves wins. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 16:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. GNG and PORNBIO failure. The most significant change since the last AfD is the NightMoves win, which does not establish notability per PORNBIO. Citing a majority of votes in the Keri Sable debate, which closed as no consensus, does not make a convincing argument. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keri Sable's AfD wasn't the only evidence for NightMoves's notability I provided. I also cited a Pulitzer Prize-winning newspaper's description of the NightMoves Awards as "the third largest in the porn industry" and the fact that it's the porn industry's third longest running awards show as evidence for notability. Since your vote, I've also provided evidence that there are porn awards with less coverage that aren't as longevous as NightMoves which have consensus among WP users to include in PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 ( talk) 16:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am early closing this under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 19:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Shahidul Alam

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

According to the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE guidelines the article can not be promoted. No WP:RS. ~ Moheen (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 07:11, 28 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. MBisanz talk 01:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mariana Flores

Mariana Flores (  | 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 yet notable per WP:NACTOR, WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO - so far she has only appeared in minor roles and short films. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing ( talk) 12:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 12:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 12:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:48, 26 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. Keep per consensus and any lack of new arguments since the previous AFD in 2014. KaisaL ( talk) 00:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sarker Protick

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

According to the WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE guidelines the article can not be promoted. And the photographer is not widely known in his country. ~ Moheen (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, on the basis this article has already been to AfD once and the consensus was "keep". Whether or not the nominator knows of him, he appears to have had some noticeable level of recognition in his own country (for example the articles found by Zayeem at the last AfD) and in wider circles, for example 3-page profile in BJP, winner of several awards. Sionk ( talk) 13:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It wouldn't matter in the slightest if this person were completely unknown in his own country. How has the situation changed since the first AfD was closed as "keep"? -- Hoary ( talk) 14:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hello, AfD nominator? Please explain either (i) how the situation has changed since the first AfD was closed as "keep", or (ii) how the first AfD was defective. Additionally, please explain what you mean by "promoted". -- Hoary ( talk) 22:36, 26 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 Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr). MBisanz talk 01:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Georg Schönberger

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

Does not meet notability guidelines (low ranking commander), nor WP:SOLDIER, as have not earned the country's highest award for valour. Do not see RS sources to establish notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: several books seem to mention the award based on a Google Books search: [5], a few of which seem reliable. Not sure, though, if the grade of award that Schonberger received was the highest or not. Can anyone else shed light on this? Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The WP:Soldier states,
    • "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades and/or have civil and military versions. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."
While the Knight's Cross was a prestigious award, it was not the highest grade (there ware Swords, Diamonds, etc). Moreover, the GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources, which appear to be lacking in this case. The sources that I see are memoirs by Kurt Meyer and a work by a HIAG-affiliated Patrick Agte, who's been described by one scholar as a "neo-Nazi": Google books.
Please also see Waffen-SS in popular culture on these two authors. That's my read on where things stand with this nomination; I'd be happy to be corrected via presentation of sources, or clarification on the grade of the award. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
G'day, not sure yet about the significant coverage aspect, but I'm not sure that the issue about the grading has been confirmed. The German system doesn't seem to compare that easily with the Western European one where there was a clear hierarchy of medals and a soldier could receive one over the other based on the comparative merit of a single act. The German system seems to have been culmulative, i.e. multiple acts were rewarded with the next award, kind of like a Bar to the VC. I could well be wrong on this, but that is what I'm sensing. In this regard it seems possible that the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross was the highest award, but the Oak Leaves, Swords and Diamonds etc. were treated as subsequent awards for the same level of act / achievement. I'd greatly appreciate if anyone wa able to clarify this point as correct or incorrect. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 11:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Add: there's no entry for the subject in Neue Deutsche Biographie, the online German biographical encyclopedia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ AustralianRupert: I've done some "original research" on my own by trying to compare the award rates of the U.S. Medal of Honor to the Knight's Cross. My inputs were: 464 Medal of Honor recipients out of appox. US 18M servicemen in WWII (0.0026% award rate). For Germany, 7,300 KC recipients out of approx 20M servicemen (0.036% award rate). Assuming that American and German soldiers were equally brave, for the Knight's Cross to be as prestigious and rare as the Medal of Honor, it would have needed to be awarded in about 500 cases. Unless my math is completely off, this equates roughly to Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, of which 890 were awarded, a much lower number vs the Knight's Cross. What do you think? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
G'day, I think we need to be careful with this sort of comparison as it appears it was both a gallantry award and a distinguished service award (for leadership in battle). Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 09:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  09:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: I haven't been able to find much that indicates significant coverage, although there are a few mentions here and there (one assumes there may be more in paper sources in German language books perhaps, though). As such, in the interests of moving this debate forward I propose a redirect as a compromise solution, back to the list on which the subject's name appears: List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr). I think this raises an important question for the Milhist Project, though, so overall I would suggest we hold off on further nominations of these types of articles until an RFC can be held to discuss what level of the Knight's Cross is considered to be the "highest" award. Once that is completed, more clarification could be added to the Milhist notability guide. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 00:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect if this helps get a consensus, as the article is still not convincing for its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 26 June 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 // 11:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This has proven to be quite an in-depth debate, certainly in the first week, and much of it has focused on the quality (and the perceived lack of reliability and independence) of the sources. Having examined the contributions and concerns enclosed within the debate, I feel there is a consensus for deletion that I am thus acting upon. Note: Despite a request during the debate and some issues with editing from a blocked user prior to the AFD nomination proper, I am not salting the page, but if issues with inappropriate recreation of the content occur I am sure myself or a fellow administrator will take such action at the time. (It is always possible that additional sources and developments could lead to a stronger case for inclusion, and I would not want to create an undue barrier to the creation of an article in the future, which is why I am opting to not salt as an outcome to this debate.) I hope this explains my reasons for the close, as I appreciate that this has been a hotly-contested debate. KaisaL ( talk) 03:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Alexander Asiedu

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

Does not meet WP:BIO and I'd og so far as to say doesn't meet GNG, but there are two things going on here. The article was previously CSDed during the first AfD about a day ago as material created by a blocked user (it was a c/p move of a declined AFC draft of the same article). The article was requested to be userfied, and then was dropped back into mainspace by the user who requested userfication without substanatial change from the CSDed version (which was also declined at AFC, which I think is key to its overall lack of suitability for the encyclopedia). On top of that, the subject is not notable and does not assert notability. His companies have limited press, but he as an individual does not. The first two sources (Sun Online) simply don't exist online, and they can't be found except on LinkedIn Pulse, which isn't RS. The article also says Asiedu is the chair of "Sun Publishing", which very likely implies that even if the sources existed, Asiedu is not independent of the Sun Online paper. Therefore, the six citations to those sources aren't verifiable, and are likely not independent odf the source if they were. The third is a report on a company memorandum of understanding Asiedu signed as chairman, and also does not report the piece of information cited to it. The fourth is again in the context of a company MoU the subject signed, and rather than say Asiedu is the chair, says he is a shareholder, so that's not a correct citation. The UN article has a "Chairman's Response" from Asiedu in the role he serves with the organization named, but is not about Asiedu. the Cape Coast article isn't independent because it says Asiedu serves on the Advisory Board of the school (he doesn't, he's a member of the "Diamond Club" listed in the article), and I honestly have no idea about the Peace FM site, because it is a radio station site that claims to only cover local news, and the notability of the event isn't even addressed. Nevertheless, the content is about the speech, not the subject, and does not even include the claim cited to it that he worked for the African Development Bank. Therefore, what the sources claim is either untrue or unverifiable, three of the six sources aren't independent of the subject, and none of them offer significant coverage of the subject as required by GNG, not will the subject inherit notability from his companies. MSJapan ( talk) 21:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, passes GNG: I disagree with the nominator's assessment of the sources. Gulf African review is not a trivial mention, there's whole paragraphs about him in the article. TV3 is also a more than trivial mention; there are whole paragraphs about him in that article as well. Those two combine to pass WP:GNG. Also, per WP:PAYWALL, only being available on LinkedIn Pulse is not in an of itself a reason to say that the sources are unreliable. Sources don't even have to be online to be reliable! I would also caution the nominator for seemingly using notability, verifiability and reliability seemingly interchangeably. To a certain extent, what is in the article isn't entirely relevant to whether the article passes GNG or not; what is relevant is what is in the sources, and what type of sources those are. Also, in his claim about AfC, the nominator fails to note that the article was reviewed and accepted by an AfC reviewer (me) prior to being mainspaced. p b p 21:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - no, it's not paywall; I mean it is flat-out gone from the Internet (the domain doesn't resolve, period) except for being available on LinkedIn, where it only appears as a Pulse listing, and we can't use LinkedIn per RS. I don't know what you are seeing in those two sources "about Asiedu the individual" - those sources are about the companies he chairs, not the subject, or they are things he said, not things about the subject. Things the subject says are not independent of the subject. This is a biographical article, not an article about his companies, and they are different. That is the sourcing problem here. Also, I appreciate the COI disclosure - you pushed for the original nom not to be deleted in the first AfD despite being previously declined at AFC, had it userfied, then you approved it at AFC anyway and pushed it into mainspace yourself. I was wondering why the old draft history had disappeared. I'll let the community deal with the WP:POINT. MSJapan ( talk) 22:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Again, sources don't have to be online to be invalid. And stop making spurious POINT accusations: I violated no policies or procedures in what I did, my reviewer rights allow me to accept AfCs, and the only thing POINTy here is that I don't toe your line, or the line of the reviewer who declined the old AfC, 100%. You make it seem like I or the whole community has to accept what one reviewer said as written in stone, when in fact he/she as much right as a reviewer to decline an article as I do to accept it. p b p 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure the reviewer found exactly what I did, and if you think otherwise, why are you ignoring the fact that the subject owns the paper whose articles are being used for the majority of sources to prove his notability? How do you have a source called "X Online" that can be "reliable" when a) it's not online, as in it doesn't exist anymore, and b) the subject of the article owns the paper? Why are you not addressing the fact that a BIO article has to be about a person, not the things they say? If I give a speech, that doesn't mean I get an article, but it does mean that the fact I made the speech gets mentioned. Stop trying to make this personal, and address the sourcing issues instead. MSJapan ( talk) 18:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Um, I'm not basing the case for notability on those particular sources... Also, how am I making this personal? I'm not the one accusing you of POINT. p b p 18:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Would you folk give it a rest and let the community decide whether the subject is notable? You went from bickering on my Talk page to bickering here. It's not helpful.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 19:10, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Request - @ MSJapan: can you please summarize your reason for deletion. I don't think the wall of text you've posted is going encourage participation in this AfD. The reason you gave previously was concise but apparently invalid. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'd like to address the nom's del reason(s). I guess I can just assume MSJapan is asserting that the subject is not notable. ~ Kvng ( talk) 18:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The references are essentially PR, and so is the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sorry, this fails WP:GNG. Simply having a bunch of questionable sources covering a subject doesn't make them notable. Let's have a look at the sources:
  1. " Faces at Alex Asiedus 59th Birthday Bash" (Available at linkedin) - This is NOT an independent source. Read this:The investment banker-turned-international businessman, who is also the Chairman of The Sun Publishing Ghana Limited, was all smile. Basically the subject's own newspaper is writing about him.
  2. " ARII to begin Unprecedented Medical Mission" NOT an independent source. Same newspaper as above
  3. " Atlantic Holdings Agbogba Anglican Basic Schools Questionable reliablity, quotes subject in context of company, notability is not inherited. The title of the news article makes me wonder how reliable this publication is. In addition, the article simply quotes the person. It doesn't say anything why the subject is notable. In addition, the subject is quoted simply because the company signed some agreement. There is nothing to independently prove the notability of the subject here.
  4. " UAE Based Sino Ghanaian firm to build ict plant in Nigeria" - in GulfAfricaReview. One line mention in context of company, notability is not inherited A one sentence mention, that too in context of a company which signed the agreement is not significant coverage. In addition, it is not known how reliable/independent the source it. From the looks of it, it seems they like to publish press releases.
  5. " Ghanaian NGO African Rights Initiative gets UN recognition NOT an independent source, also in context of organisation Check out the last line where it says With additional files from the thesunonlinegh. Basically, a press release and not independent. The PR language is apparent here.
  6. " Vice-President Launches UCC Diamond Club Trivial 3 word mention in a non-notable university group A listing of the members of a university group and the subject is listed as well. Trivial mention which says nothing about the subject
  7. " Leadership Must Be Dedicated to Change in Africa- Alex Asiedu" So so. Not a great source, reads like a PR, but I will pass. The source is more about what the subject said at a fundraiser. I don't know how reliable the source is, but it at least talks a bit about the subject. Considering the lack of reliable, independent sources, this is probably the best among all of these.

Note to closing admin: Should the article be deleted, given the ongoing sockpuppetry involved with this article, I'm going to request that this article additionally be SALTED, as well as the targets Alex Asiedu, Draft:Alexander Asiedu, and Draft:Alex Asiedu to prevent re-creation without explicit request. MSJapan ( talk) 06:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I think that's a bit much. After all, the guy who originally drafted the article was found not to be connected with the guy who previously mainspaced it. Also, things generally aren't SALTed until they are re-created after a full AfD, i.e., if the AfD passes (which it shouldn't), and somebody still recreates it, then it should be SALTed. Also, there's no reason to SALT Alex Asiedu as nobody's ever created anything at it. p b p 13:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Actually, it's not. Lemongirl made it very clear that Gulf Africa Review was a one line mention in the context of a company. MSJapan ( talk) 19:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I respectfully disagree with Lemongirl on this. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:24, 26 June 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 // 11:02, 26 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. I am not satisfied that a consensus has formed. There has been several in-depth arguments to keep, but valid points to delete and also a suggestion of a merge mean I am ultimately dissatisfied that it is reasonable to call this either way. The discussion mostly fizzled out in week two, so I see no advantage to an additional relist. KaisaL ( talk) 03:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Douglas Ousterhout

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

promotional. He did write a textbook and may be notable for that but i tried and failed to remove the promotionalism. A plastic surgeon's description of the operations he does is advertising for him. A newspaper's description of him as eminent is not reliably sourced, because only a scientific source will do for that,so its advertising for him also. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. There's nothing promotional at all going on here. The man is retired. But more to the point, that's a complaint about content. Here at AfD, we care only about notability, which can be established either by multiple reliable independent sources discussing the subject in detail or by showing that the subject should be presumed notable based on other criteria. We have both. He invented facial feminization surgery and he wrote the definitive books on the subject, Aesthetic Contouring of the Craniofacial Skeleton and Facial Feminization Surgery: A Guide for the Transgendered Woman, which appears to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Google scholar reports his scholarly articles have attracted over 1200 citations, which also appears to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. Finally, we have sources. The SF Chronical article [8] had already been cited but a Google search quickly turned up addition sources, including an Allure article [9] describing what he did in detail. This is an easy keep. Msnicki ( talk) 06:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Citations depend on the field.Clinical medicine, especially in surgical fields, has a very large number of citations because 1/surgeons report individual cases and 2/in medicine in general, people normally cite everything possible on the subject, not merely everything that is significant. Total number of citations i particularly meaningless: what matters is the distribution. An accepted figure in that field,as suggested in fact by Garfield,who invented the technique, is at least one paper with over 100 citations; there are none of them here. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
You're objecting that his top paper only got 92 citations not 100? Msnicki ( talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Msnicki ( talk) 14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Sources give only passing mention. None of the sources is about Ousterhout at all; they just include a quote or two from him. He appears only to have edited books (which does not meet ACADEMIC) rather than author them (which does meet ACADEMIC). Number of citations is not in ACADEMIC at all. Frumiousbandersnatch2 ( talk) 18:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Passing mention? The SF Chronicle article is almost 1800 words and devotes paragraph after paragraph exclusively to him and what he does. The only paragraphs that aren't about him and what he does are there to give context, e.g., some brief sketches of a few of his patients and how he's changed their lives. At most AfDs, a brief mention is a sentence or two, not an 1800 word article in the Chron devoted to the subject.
Re: citations in WP:SCHOLAR, sure it's there: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics. It just doesn't give a number. It leaves it up to us to consider. Msnicki ( talk) 00:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm genuinely surprised by this reaction. Response here. I was trying to be nice. Msnicki ( talk) 20:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I have just added two book sources. [10] One is by a Pulitzer Prize winner who devotes a whole chapter to describing what Ousterhout has done to a patient named Mel. The other is by an assistant professor of sociology reflecting on what Ousterhout promises his patients, published by the New York University Press.
When we have such solid sources supporting notability, the WP:ATA !votes to delete seem surprising. Are these other individuals actually examining the sources in an WP:NPOV fashion or are they working an agenda? Msnicki ( talk) 21:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. As with the previous sources, both of these again provide only passing mentioning; neither provides in depth coverage. Indeed, the sources are not actually about Ousterhout at all, they are about facial feminization (when discussing their transitions, some patients name their surgeons). The gratitude is understandable, but it does not demonstrate notability for WP's purposes:
In the one by the Pulitzer Prize winner, the author was trying to understand her father's transition to female (i.e., the author was not an expert in trans issues). The book is searchable on Amazon, and searching for "Ousterhout" revealed three hits, all on the same page. It quotes a former patient, Mel, who says:
  1. “'I wouldn’t have done the surgery if I couldn’t have the face,' Mel said. 'I could never be a clown. If I’m going to be seen in women’s clothes, I’m going to be genuine. I had one of the best facial surgeons in the country, Dr. Douglas Ousterhout'." (I'm not a fan of someone saying that trans folks who can't afford facial surgery are "clowns," but that's neither here nor there regarding notability.)
  2. Then: “I’d look up Ousterhout on the Internet and find before-and-after photographs of his patients, YouTube promotional videos, and patient testimonials to his magic touch.”
  3. And finally, the passage cites a blog by another former patient, Diane, who wrote, “Dr. Ousterhout will try to improve your appearance so that you feel that you fit back into society as the person you want to see in the mirror.”
Happy patients are all well and good, but neither customer testimonials, nor their blogs, nor mentions of those blogs by non-experts establish notability.
In the other book, Saving Face: Disfigurement and the Politics of Appearance, I again searched on “Ousterhout” which found 10 mentions. Of those, 6 were in a footnote or a citation in the reference list. (Again, citations are fine, but do not establish notability.) The remaining 4 hits were:
  1. A quote from a former patient’s blog, which says, “Many thanks to Douglas Ousterhout [FFS surgeon] for understanding and caring…” (p. 83). All well and good, but, again, patient testimonials do not indicate notability.
  2. “In a pamphlet distributed by FFS surgeon Douglas K. Ousterhout…techniques of facial feminization are described in detail” (p. 88). Fine to cite Ousterhout’s pamphlet for the information about FFS, but the bar for PROF is higher than that.
  3. “Ousterhout asserts that…skulls of men and women differ in both shape and size” (p. 89). Again, fine to use Ousterhout as a source of the statement, but it does not establish notability on Ousterhout’s part.
  4. “Ousterhout suggests a sliding genioplasty” (p. 90). Ditto.
Whether user:Msnicki is conveying the content of these sources faithfully or with excessive spin-doctoring is better left up to other readers.
— James Cantor ( talk) 12:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
If it takes this much space to summarize these two "passing mentions", they clearly were not passing mentions. Anyone is free to examine the four sources I rely on, SF Chronicle (1800 words), Allure, In the Darkroom and Saving Face, to verify these are sources discussing the subject and what he does at length. None is offered in support of WP:SCHOLAR (support for that is found in the citations for his scholarly work) nor as support for any medical claims. They are offered as evidence that multiple reliable independent secondary sources have written about him in detail, which is all it takes to establish notability at AfD. Everything else is a content question to be taken to the article talk page. Msnicki ( talk) 14:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't summarize anything. I provided the mentions in their entirety, so that readers could assess your claim that an RS "devotes a whole chapter to describing what Ousterhout has done." I also recommend folks read the sources for themselves and decide whether testimonials on blogs from satisfied clients counts as detailed coverage. — James Cantor ( talk) 15:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please identify which of the four sources I rely on you think are blogs. Msnicki ( talk) 16:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I didn't say your sources were blogs; I pointed out that the sources you added were themselves merely reiterating client testimonials on blogs. — James Cantor ( talk) 16:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The fact that these clearly WP:RS have decided to report and discuss material they found on blogs (however unreliable that material may be) does not make these sources unreliable. It makes them WP:SECONDARY. They are both reliable sources. One author is a Pulitzer Prize winner and the the other is an associate professor in sociology. Both publishers are similarly reliable. Moreover, they do not just "reiterat[e] client testimonials", they offer their own reporting and thoughts, which is the essence of a good secondary source. Not every sentence has to have Ousterhout's name in it to count. Msnicki ( talk) 16:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't think one can find a better illustration of scraping the bottom of the notability barrel. Living in a house that appeared in a movie does not a notable person make. Indeed, there is little (if any) evidence that the house itself is notable, nevermind its current owner. — James Cantor ( talk) 15:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It could be worse. At least it's not an ambiguous quote in a tabloid story, remarking that self-identified shemales "change their stories". [12] Msnicki ( talk) 16:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Even if true, that's a complaint about content, to be dealt with on the talk page. At AfD, we care only about notability as defined by WP:GNG, which asks that there be multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject. Those sources exist. Msnicki ( talk) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Promotional articles are deleted all the time. However, one way of dealing with it is to merge Facial feminization surgery, as suggested by the editor below. Coretheapple ( talk) 03:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • merge and redirect to Facial feminization surgery His claim to fame is having pioneered that surgery but we really don't have enough on him for an article outside of that achievement. The target article is pretty bad; I am working on fixing that and will mention him there as a pioneer; that fact is very well sourced. Jytdog ( talk) 00:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
That's a possibility. Hey, what a coinky-dink to see you here. Coretheapple ( talk) 03:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Jytdog, you've done a lot of really, really good work on both the FFS and Ousterhout articles. I argued that we concern ourselves here at AfD with notability, not content, and obviously believed the sources were there to satisfy WP:GNG. But others have argued that it was promotional and you argued there wasn't really enough to report.
Since then, you've completely rewritten the article. You've turned the Ousterhout article into a pretty good article about him and how he invented FFS. I think your changes should satisfy arguments it was promotional and perhaps your argument as well that there just isn't enough to report.
Would you now be willing to reconsider your own !vote and change to keep? Msnicki ( talk) 17:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Thanks! The content I added here was just copied from content I generated at the FFS article and it works fine there; there is no need for a separate article on him. Jytdog ( talk) 17:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Guthmann, Edward (2006-04-26). "Facing facts". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-06-26. Retrieved 2016-06-26.

      The article notes:

      Ousterhout, who practices at the California Pacific Medical Center's Davies campus on Castro Street, is widely considered the country's foremost facial feminization surgeon. This is because of the cranial and maxillofacial techniques he developed to change the shape of the skull. Unlike most plastic surgeons with their standard menu of tummy tucks, eyelid lifts and rhinoplasties, Ousterhout, 70, brings skills he acquired at the Center for Craniofacial Anomalies at the UCSF Medical Center, where for 25 years he was head surgeon and worked on children born with severe skull deformities. In 1998, when HMOs reduced reimbursements for skull surgery ("I wasn't going to be able to afford my practice"), he switched to female feminization surgery full time.

      ...

      For $22,000 to $40,000 -- roughly twice the cost of sexual reassignment surgery -- Ousterhout's patients undergo as much as 10 1/2 hours of surgery. They remain in the hospital two days after surgery, then transfer to the Cocoon House, a bed-and-breakfast facility run by two nurses in Noe Valley, for eight days of convalescence.

      Eighty-five to 90 percent of Ousterhout's patients are transgender. Ninety-five percent come from outside the Bay Area. "I have one patient who wants the surgery so badly," he says. "She's in a coal-mining town somewhere in Kentucky and she says, 'I don't dare dress as a female where anybody can see me. Literally, I'll be killed.' And she's probably right."

    2. Kron, Joan (2015-06-12). "A Look at Caitlyn Jenner's Facial Feminization Surgery". Allure. Archived from the original on 2016-06-26. Retrieved 2016-06-26.

      The article notes:

      Facial feminization is an aggressive remodeling of every aspect of the facial skeleton. A mere face-lift won’t do it—saws are involved, along with burrs to whittle down bones. A typical operation can last up to 12 hours. But for the patients, it’s worth the risks, the pain, and the high five-figure price. “As a transgendered individual, perhaps nothing is more vital to you than having a body that matches how you feel,” wrote Douglas K. Ousterhout in his 2009 book, Facial Feminization Surgery: A Guide for the Transgendered Woman (Addicus Books).

      Semiretired now, Ousterhout is the San Francisco plastic- and cranio-facial surgeon who pioneered the specialty in 1982, after his first transgender patient asked for help. “Dr. O. has done more than 2,000 of these surgeries,” says his associate and handpicked successor, Jordan Deschamps-Braly, who did not do Jenner’s surgery.

      ...

      In the 1980s, facial feminization was uncharted territory. To plan his first operation, Ousterhout, who had devoted 25 years to pediatric birth defects, first studied the 1,500 human crania in the Atkinson Skull Collection at the University of Pacific School of Dentistry, comparing male and female bone structure. His work eventually became the basis of a whole new surgical specialty. We don't know exactly what procedures Jenner underwent, but the following is Ousterhout and Deschamps-Braly’s menu of the most important feminization procedures—and a tiny snapshot of what’s involved. (Warning: What follows is not for the squeamish.)

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

    Cunard ( talk) 02:04, 26 June 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 // 10:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per focused, non-incidental coverage in reliable, bylined, secondary sources. The article is somewhat poorly written, and could use more encyclopedic style, but AfD is not cleanup. I find arguments that reliable secondary sources are not allowed to themselves use what we consider to be unreliable sources as their own sources to be unfounded, and against WP policy. Reliable secondary sources are perfectly allowed to go to primary sources for their information, and in fact SHOULD do so. Reliable secondary sources are perfectly allowed to evaluate and selectively integrate from sources non-independent to the subject, and in fact, should do so. Multiple reliable bylined secondary sources are all that is required to establish notability, and we have that. We not only have WP:BASIC, but WP:GNG, and WP:SCHOLAR as well. I must !vote keep. Fieari ( talk) 07:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per !votes by Fieari and Cunard. Ceosad ( talk) 19:22, 27 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. Only argument to keep has been a bizarre WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, so satisfied there is consensus to delete this article at this time. KaisaL ( talk) 00:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Fire in entertainment

Fire in entertainment (  | 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 is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of places where fire appears in entertainment (in effect, the bad kind of WP:IPC). It is clear WP:OR to assemble such a list based only on primary sources. Secondary sources are required, per WP:PSTS, and also more specifically per this RfC. There is no evidence that this list is discussed in reliable sources, and even if the topic of fire in entertainment were discussed in such places, it is extremely unlikely that the article would look anything like the present form if it were to be rewritten in a policy-compliant manner. I should add that this article has been tagged for notability since December, it was just WP:PRODded, although the prod was contested by the author without addressing the reason for the PROD. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 10:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Violates WP:OR. Unsourced and barely comprehensible information about the use of fire as a thematic element in media, followed a completely arbitrary list of examples that provide no indication of the intended topic, is not an encyclopedia article. (Note: I was the one who originally PRODded this article.) -- Kinu  t/ c 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • delete as original research and completely arbitrary. I can think of dozens of films with fire in not on that list - pretty much every action film for one – except as with many of the entries their inclusion would be trivial and arbitrary. Does not belong on WP.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 11:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. How indiscriminate is List of chemists? Like also in that list an encyclopedia of course can arrange their fully notable articles how it wants, not only alphabetically. Your opinion fully notable artistic elements (even used in a non-trivial symbolic way) are not notable enough for their art work's sorting arrangement obviously have other reasons and I want to know them. #empathy -- MathLine ( talk) 20:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the intro appears to be OR without references, and the two references do not float the boat, so to speak. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

ALQASIM II BIN MOHAMMAD

ALQASIM II BIN MOHAMMAD (  | 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 WP:A2 and WP:A10, because the article falls halfway between them, yet does not fulfill either criterion completely. The page is a hardly comprehensible machine translation of ar:القاسم كنون بن محمد بن القاسم, which duplicates the scope of Al-Qasim Guennoun. Also, the all-caps title clearly does not need to be kept. This page needs to be WP:TNTed (and preferably retranslated by someone fluent in Arabic, but that's for another time). HyperGaruda ( talk) 16:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda ( talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda ( talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda ( talk) 16:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Besides being a copy of extant material and a duplication of content which belongs at Al-Qasim Guennoun, this article is absolutely unreadable and unsourced. The Arabic-language version has only general references and no citations. I see no point in retaining this content nor is there any way a non-Arabic speaking person could merge this into the existing article. Chris Troutman ( talk) 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This article is utterly unreadable, the stub article actually conveys more information than the wall of text that is this article. There are also significant issues with this article meeting WP:MOS and at best this is an essay. Mr rnddude ( talk) 15:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (with some reluctance). The other article cited here is a mere stub, but I do not see how anyone could merge this on, or in the absence of citations, be sure that it met WP:V. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 28 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. MBisanz talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sergio Garcia (bodybuilder)

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

The last AfD was closed as no-consensus but there were two delete votes and no keep. Claims to notability are not supported by RS and not clear the claims themselves are notable. The initial entry of the first AfD is instructive. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Pinged SwisterTwister who nominated the first AfD and also Mdtemp who was the only other to comment on it other than the closer. Peter Rehse ( talk) 11:07, 26 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. As with many of the similar debates being closed today, there is no real consensus here that would be actionable. Perhaps it may be an idea for these topics to collectively be discussed with regards to the policy, as their route through AFD seems to be proving both slow and contentious, and relistings are rarely triggering much more than a trickle of additional thought. Either way, I will close this as a no consensus at this time. KaisaL ( talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Fritz Amling

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

Does not meet GNG; meets WP:Soldier, but I'm unable to locate significant coverage by RS; pls see Google books result. He appears to be included in the Sturmgeschütze Vor! ("Assault Guns Ready for Action!") by Franz Kurowski, but this source is not RS, as outlined in the linked article. The other sources seem to be collections of primary material such as Franz Thomas, ‎Günter Wegmann K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

"In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they: Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour." The footnote states: "Some awards are/were bestowed in different grades. For the purpose of this notability guide only the highest military grade of such awards qualifies. See: Discussion regarding awards with multiple grades."

While the Knight's Cross was a prestigious award, it was not the highest grade (there ware Oak Leaves, Swords, Diamonds, etc). The subject fails GNG, which still needs to be met. here's a mention in the photo caption standing next to Walter Model, but being pictured next to a famous person is not sufficient to establish notability: Walther Model by Robert Forczyk; the rest of the Google books search results do not look promising, with non-RS author Franz Kurowski (Sturmgeschütze Vor! - Assaults Gun Ready for Action!) and collections of primary materials by Franz Thomas, ‎Günter Wegmann.
Separately, as has been suggested on my Talk page, I'm including an October 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. It uses a link to another wikipedia article as a citation, to support the number for the claim of the tanks destroyed. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I've explained elsewhere in your multiple nominations that you need to do your due diligence. Have you checked the German Encyclopedia of Biography? It is available online and is free. Make an effort beyond a Google Books search, they are notoriously unreliable when dealing with people whose native language wasn't English, I have a lot of experience of this with Serbo-Croat sources. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 08:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the suggestion re: Neue Deutsche Biographie, which I checked. There's no entry for the subject in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. When I do the search a slightly different way (searching for "Oberwachtmeister Fritz Amling") I come up with eight sources in English and German. Some of these are "trivial" coverage per WP:SIGCOV, some are marginal. On balance, however, this seems enough to meet WP:GNG, though I acknowledge that it's not clearcut. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment: When I search for the term "Oberwachtmeister Fritz Amling" in Google books, I come up with three sources, one of which is non RS Franz Kurowski; please see: sample of his writing. Another one is a list of the subject's awards; as a directory, it is not "significant coverage" and thus "does not constitutes evidence of notability". Plus a one line mention in Model's biography. This does not appear to amount to "significant coverage". K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:25, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Project Planet Bioia

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

Created in 2011 and then... nothing. No external references. Richfife ( talk) 01:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:25, 26 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 The Day Before You Came. MBisanz talk 01:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Cassandra (ABBA song)

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

This article fails notability and is filled with false information. It was not a single, it was a B-side. The sources on the page that claim it charted in four European countries are false (each source says the title has been deleted), and the first source ( abbaomnibus.net) clearly states it was only a B-side track and not a single. Furthermore, a previous version of this article was created and subsequently deleted back in 2009 [13]. This current version was created in 2014 by a user who has since been blocked for sockpupptry. Kookoo Star ( talk) 04:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to " The Day Before You Came". The reason why the links to the four chart sites don't find anything is because the links are incorrectly formatted: however, a proper search for the song on the Hung Medien sites brings up a note that the labelling of the song as an A-side is a pressing error, so Kookoo Star is correct that this was only ever a B-side. However, it's one of ABBA's better-known B-sides – I think there is a good chance people will search for the song on Wikipedia, and I would not be surprised if one of Carl Magnus Palm's biographies of the band discusses the song and contains information that could be used to support the article. So perhaps the best solution would be to redirect to the single for which it was the B-side and add a line or two about the song to that article. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:53, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Doug Baldwin (writer)

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

non notable writer. Trivial awards. The only possibly substantial award is fro a playscript that was never produced DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:48, 26 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 04:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Solomon Taiwo Justified

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

Poorly referenced with no indication of notability per WP:NACTOR, has so far only had a string of minor roles. Speedied twice already A7. The National Diversity Awards nominations are open to the public online, so a nomination for one isn't itself an indication of notability. No significant coverage online from WP:RS. WP:TOOSOON at best. OnionRing ( talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) OnionRing ( talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. OnionRing ( talk) 13:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:48, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike Halsey

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

Non-notable. Writer of some tech user guide books. Sources are either their own website, or other Wikipedia articles. User:Techheretic seems to be the only real contributor to this article. Most other editors seem to be just fixes and maintenance. User:Techheretic's contributions are only to this article. That looks suspiciously like self promotion.

The MVP Award is simply a title Microsoft gives as a thank you to its community members [14]. It doesn't add anything in notability. Chris Ssk talk 22:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:47, 26 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. — Spaceman Spiff 18:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Nilanjanaa Jayant

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

Looks like case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:ONEEVENT. Kinda failing WP:GNG and only one thing that may pass WP:MUSBIO - winning "Golden voice of America". The problem with this is that, I can't find any independant reference of this competition outside of contest, related to her. [15] Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 05:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 05:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There is not enough coverage in reliable sources to determine notability. The subject seems to have won the Golden voice of America award, which in my understanding is not a "major music award", failing WP:MUSBIO. She is supposed to perform once at Carnegie Hall in October 2016 which is not a notable event. Past performances at other events do not help the case either as those events too are not significant in itself and the fact that she even performed there remains unreferenced. Ya sh ! 23:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:45, 26 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. Normally I would relist this again, but in light of the long period without transclusion and lack of participation for 21 days I am going to close it as a no consensus due to lack of interest. Any user may relist this without prejudice as a fresh debate. KaisaL ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sidharth Prabhu

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

URLs used for References are bare URLs and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia. So I'm requesting to delete these kind of pages from Wikipedia. Josu4u ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

DGG, Those are not films and all the refs didn't even mentioning anything about the Sidharth Prabhu, hope its a hoax. Josu4u ( talk) 20:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
there has certainly been a great deal of junk in this general topic area recently. We in the US have a great difficulty in judging, because there is the impression that a great many newspaper articles in India about films and performers and allied media are paid for. Ref 6 seems to be about a movie, but is the site any better than IMdB? And he isn't mentioned on it in any case. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
No DGG, its not better than IMDb. That website is only adding articles about films in India, sometimes these websites publish paid articles for the promotion of films. Here in India too we consider IMDb as genuine. Josu4u ( talk) 22:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural Note: This discussion was not properly transcluded until now, please consider that when deciding on closing. I have also added the above AfD template. Monty 845 23:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:47, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The given references are about productions in which the subject has appeared, not about the subject himself, except The Hindu article from 2012 where a passing comment said just "Siddharth and Bhagyalakshmy are cast as their kids.". That is a long way from anything that could demonstrate biographical notability, nor are my searches finding anything better. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD ( talk) 07:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:43, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Will Colbert

Will Colbert (  | 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 NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai ( talk) 04:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This article appears to meet WP:NHOCKEY which states "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they: 1. Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league". The article and references indicate that during the 2012–13 season he played 33 games with the Belfast Giants of the Elite Ice Hockey League, which per the league article is "the highest level of ice hockey competition in the United Kingdom". Also, during the 2013–14 season he played 35 games with the Tilburg Trappers of the Eredivisie, which per the league article is "the only professional ice hockey league in the Netherlands and the highest level of competition organized by the Nederlandse IJshockey Bond (Dutch Ice Hockey Federation)". If I am mistaken please let me know. Thanks. -- Zyxw ( talk) 11:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yes, you are mistaken. According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA both the EIHL and Eredivisie are considered "lower-level leagues" "for the purpose of satisfying Criterion #4." Criterion #4 is "achieved preeminent honors." Joeykai ( talk) 13:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Joeykai is correct that WP:NHOCKEY/LA specifies that both of the leagues involved here are considered lower-level leagues that can get some players over NHOCKEY point #4, but do not give all their players an automatic #1 pass the way the NHL does. And nothing claimed here fulfills #4. Bearcat ( talk) 19:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep According to his Eliteprospects profile he won the award for best defenseman in the Eredivisie the one year he played. That would seem to me to meet the requirement of criterion 4 as achieving a preeminent honor. Even in a narrow interpretation of preeminent honor, the best defenseman is equivelant to being a first team all-star that is listed (actually better since presumably there are two all-star defenseman and he is number one). Therefore we can presume sources exist - I would presume they are in Dutch so will be hard to find, but we should presume they exist and that we should keep. RonSigPi ( talk) 00:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:42, 26 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Ryan McGinnis (ice hockey)

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

fails NHOCKEY and GNG Joeykai ( talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:41, 26 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. There appears to be a clear consensus to reform this content, but as one comment here states, this may be best dealt with via a talk page discussion than an AFD debate. I certainly see no value of relisting this again given the trickle of debate thus far; I recommend editors discuss the possibilities from here at talk. KaisaL ( talk) 02:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Magic Kingdom Resort Area

Magic Kingdom Resort Area (  | 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 should have been deleted under speedy deletion criteria ( WP:A3: "...and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, ... and/or images.") as it is a "see also" page in that all it does it links to other pages. It is just obscurity by given the different headers and adding some pictures. This page duplicates/forks Template:Walt Disney World and Walt_Disney_World#Resorts. Spshu ( talk) 19:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: this is a test AfD for additional similar articles: Epcot Resort Area, Animal Kingdom Resort Area, Disney Springs Resort Area, ESPN Wide World of Sports Resort Area. Spshu ( talk) 20:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
WP:CFORK is a guide line, which I should have mention in my nomination post and we are not a travel guide either which seems to be its use. Why is it necessary to maintain multiple list in different locations? Spshu ( talk) 17:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
There seems no doubt that a comprehensive rationalisation is needed but that is better dealt with by talk page discussion rather than by a series of AFDs. Just Chilling ( talk) 22:47, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge into a list of all the Disney resort areas, per above. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:08, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Evin Crowley

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

Delete as insufficiently notable actress. Last acted in 1976 per IMDb. Quis separabit? 18:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 04:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Edwardx, very true! Not even bullheaded charger on steroids can argue with the way you put it. In a solid way! I'd just like to add too that she is remembered today for the roles she played. Karl Twist ( talk) 09:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:39, 26 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. This string of nominations under the reasoning of WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER has been contentious, but I am satisfied that there is a consensus to keep - rather than no consensus - this particular article after two relists. KaisaL ( talk) 02:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Heinrich Kling

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

Does not meet GNG; the Knight's Cross is cited to what appears to be an (incomprehensible) primary source / database, so the article may also fail WP:SOLDIER. Article tagged since Jan 2016. Sources: Google books search produces Panzer Aces, a work by Franz Kurowski, who is non RS. Other sources appears to be all primary material. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Nom's comment: As was suggested on my Talk page, I am including a Jan 2016 version of the article, tagged both Unreliable sources and Refimprove. I believe that four months is sufficient time to improve an article. The material was cited to non-RS websites, such as:
    • ss.501.panzer
    • panzer.ace
    • axis.persons, etc.
Other citations were to a non-RS Franz Kurowski and HIAG-affiliated Waffen-SS admirer Patrick Agte. Per WP:MILMOS – Sources, "policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. The use of high-quality primary sources is also appropriate".
Kurowski and Agte fail both of these criteria. I had a chance to handle a book by Kurowski that he wrote on the Afrika Korps; and it was definitely low-quality: half a page of sources, no footnotes/endnotes and plenty of dialog. So it read more like a novel, rather than a historical study.
The subject fails GNG regardless. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
As also suggested on my Talk page, I checked the name against the Neue Deutsche Biographie; however, no entry for the subject exists. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or keep: a redirect is probably the best solution here if significant coverage cannot be located currently. I would also be perfectly happy with keeping the article, if that is what the consensus is. If redirection is determined to be the best solution, then I'd suggest redirecting to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km) where the award is fully referenced. Two reasonable sources appear to have been in the article as further reading, but were removed with this edit: [16]. Again, unless you can provide a policy reason for doing so, I am not sure I understand why you are removing these sources. It is perfectly acceptable for editors to add books/web sites that are not specifically cited as long as they are done in an appropriate manner; indeed doing so helps readers and other editors do further research. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 12:24, 26 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. No actionable consensus has yet clearly formed, and I do not believe it is likely to with additional relists. KaisaL ( talk) 02:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Hans-Babo von Rohr

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

Does not meet GNG; while the subject received the Knight's Cross, Google books search does not produce meaningful results. K.e.coffman ( talk) 08:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: that remains to be seen. As a recipient of the Knight's Cross, he meets WP:SOLDIER, and while that does not trump WP:GNG, it should be accepted as a guide on whether it will meet GNG if sufficient effort is made to locate reliable sources. Certainly there are several standard references on the Knight's Cross that must mention this man and his award, the date it was received and what role he was performing when awarded it. Google Books searches are a very blunt instrument, and I would not delete an article on that basis alone, particularly as there are sources that mention him and the award. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 03:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Separately, as was suggested on my Talk page, I am including a 2015 version of the article, before I edited it; however, it does not appear to look much different.
While the Knight's Cross was a prestigious award, it was not the highest grade (there ware Oak Leaves, Swords, Diamonds, etc). Moreover, the GNG still needs to be met, through multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Even if your assessment of the reliability of the sources in your Google Books search was accepted, have you checked the German Encyclopedia of Biography? Subjects are also more likely to have information available in their native language, and Google Books is a blunt instrument with English-speaking subjects, let alone non-English-speaking ones. Not enough effort has been demonstrated to justify deleting this article. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the suggestion re: Neue Deutsche Biographie, which I checked. There is no entry in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure if you have already, but I have notified the author of the article, DocYako, that the article is being discussed at AfD. I would encourage you to do this for your other AfDs, too, if the article creator is currently active and if you haven't already done so. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 13:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • When I first created the article I thought that it met the basic guidelines of notability as he was a Knight's Cross recipient and the Knight's Cross was a high decoration for valour during World War II. I you want to delete it then be prepared to delete other entries about American and British servicemen who were also awarded decorations with less cites/references. DocYako ( talk) 23:27, 26 June 2016
    • Nom's comment: Sure, if the articles on Allied servicemen do not meet WP:GNG by demonstrating that there's significant coverage, then I would not object if they were deleted. After all, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and should contain articles on notable subjects, as demonstrated by sources. A high award is not a gurantee of notability, as WP:Soldier states. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:49, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sektor3

Sektor3 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sektor3 appears to be defunct; it was dissolved in 2013 according to its Swedish Wikipedia article, which has also been challenged on grounods of relevance. Ylleman ( talk) 14:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:GNG. I could not find significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources. It's possible there is significant coverage in Swedish sources, but I don't speak Swedish, so it is difficult for me to locate any such sources. If another editor can cite examples of significant coverage, I will be happy to change my vote. -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 10:48, 26 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. After two relists I am unsatisfied that a clear and indisputable consensus will form, so I am closing this under the banner of no consensus. The possibility of a redirect and restoration of material removed in contentious circumstances from the article may be raised on the talk page if so desired. KaisaL ( talk) 02:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Alfredo Carpaneto

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

While the subject meets WP:Soldier, they do not appear to meet GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage by RS; Google books search produces a one line mention in Tigers in Combat Vol I (as having received the Knight's Cross), and two mentions in memoirs by another WWII soldier, Otto Carius. K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep this is a classic example of an editor deleting large amounts of text and sources then nominating it for deletion. There were several sources on this article prior to their deletion by the nominator. Please check the article history for such behaviour when supporting a deletion nomination. A check of "what links here" would show that his award is fully cited on the list at List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C) to Scherzer and Fellgiebel, including his rank at the time, the date of award and his position at the time of award. It is not that hard to make such checks before nominating for deletion or supporting deletion. All of this information should have been available to editors considering deletion, yet it is not, due to the deletion of significant parts of the article prior to its nomination. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 04:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Separately, as was suggested on my Talk page, I'm included a Oct 2015 version of the article, before I edited it. It was section-tagged Refimporve since 2013. I believe that years is a sufficient window to establish notability. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Add: No entry for the subject in Neue Deutsche Biographie, the online German biographical encyclopedia.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:06, 19 June 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) 05:35, 26 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) Yellow Dingo ( talk) 00:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

David Levy (economist)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK ( talk) 04:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:48, 19 June 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) 05:31, 26 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. The relists have yielded enough dispute as to close this as a no consensus. KaisaL ( talk) 02:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Bernard London

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK ( talk) 04:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 08:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:47, 19 June 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) 05:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Cooper, Tim (2012). Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives To The Throwaway Society. Gower Publishing. p. 11. ISBN  1409458873.
  2. ^ Angeli, Franco (2011). Calabro, Grazia; D'Amico, Augusto; Lanfranchi, Maurizio; Moschella, Giovani; Pulejo, Luisa (eds.). Moving from the Crisis to Sustainability: Emerging Issues in the International Context. p. 239. ISBN  8856847051.
  3. ^ Nørgård, Jørgen S. (2013). "Happy degrowth through more amateur economy" (PDF). Journal of Cleaner Production. 38: 61–70. Retrieved June 23, 2016.
  4. ^ Slade, Giles (2009). Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America. Harvard University Press. p. 72-75, 290. ISBN  0674043758.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Timothy Luehrman

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK ( talk) 04:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:47, 19 June 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) 05:27, 26 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. No reason to keep the subject that is enshrined in policy or an established guideline has been provided, so despite the very limited input (that was not helped by relisting), I am yielding to the in-depth analysis of LaMona with a nod to the deletion of the subject in 2010 per AFD process. KaisaL ( talk) 02:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Joel Magnuson

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK ( talk) 04:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:46, 19 June 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) 05:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In spite of his library holdings, I was only able to find one review, in Publisher's Weekly, for any of his books (which I added). Not even Kirkus or Library Journal, so it isn't clear how his books got into libraries. (Note, his Amazon page shows an LJ review blurb, but I cannot find it on LJ itself, and there's no real citation to follow). The publisher of both of his books is 7 Stories Press, a small publisher. On his Amazon page he is listed as being an "independent economist" and "visiting fellow at the Ashcroft International Business School at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England,..., and is on the faculty at the East West Sanctuary in Nagykovácsi, Hungary." His book "Mindfulness" has all of 12 cites, some of which look fring-y. So I'm not seeing WP:ACADEMICS and I also don't get WP:AUTHOR from this. It also says that he "specializ[es] in non-orthodox approaches to political economy", so I'm wondering if what we have here isn't WP:FRINGE. Again, I can't explain the library holdings, which seem high, especially in light of the small press and lack of reviews. LaMona ( talk) 00:15, 27 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. Firstly, I have to say that the lack of rationale given in this debate is not ideal, as only the opener has really said anything at all about their arguments. Secondly, as two relists have not attracted much interest to this debate, I must close it as a no consensus. It may be brought back to AFD without prejudice, but I would hope for slightly more than "notable" and "non-notable" !votes in future. KaisaL ( talk) 02:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Mandel (economist)

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

Does not meet any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. LK ( talk) 04:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:43, 19 June 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) 05:24, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Stwo

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

Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. DBrown SPS ( talk) 03:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as it does not show reference to work by that person, but lack of reference. 71.15.141.166 ( talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions and list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions 71.15.141.166 ( talk) 03:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:23, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael Colcord

Michael Colcord (  | 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 pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS Yellow Dingo ( talk) 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 19 June 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) 05:21, 26 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. despite the little participation it seems obvious it does not meet the relevant standards. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Yatton RFC

Yatton RFC (  | 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 & Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs. for (;;) (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:06, 19 June 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) 05:19, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Brian Rix (motorcyclist)

Brian Rix (motorcyclist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brian Rix has not received significant, ongoing coverage in reliable secondary sources. There are two (2) short news articles in Australian media [17] [18] which contain no original reporting, and merely paraphrase the contents of a press release announcing the sale of Rix's book. Essentially WP:ROUTINE coverage of the works of local authors.

Much like climbing Mt. Everest, a long motorcycle ride in the 1920s or 1930s was a much more significant achievement than today. See List of long-distance motorcycle riders. Writing a book about your epic vacation is not the pioneering achievement it once was. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 16:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 03:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 19 June 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) 05:18, 26 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-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Operation Provide Comfort (Charity Drive)

Operation Provide Comfort (Charity Drive) (  | 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 working references. Organisation doesn't appear to exist any more. Not clear that it merits a separate article. Could merge into Operation Provide Comfort Rathfelder ( talk) 16:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 04:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:02, 19 June 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) 05:18, 26 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 04:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Pariyatti

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

In its present form this article is more suited to a dictionary Rathfelder ( talk) 16:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:58, 19 June 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) 05:17, 26 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. MBisanz talk 01:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Dilshad A

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines for biographies. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:21, 11 June 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) 05:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:08, 26 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. North America 1000 04:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Anu Sithara

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

Notability, no credible sources, don't think it pass WP:NACTOR fitINDIA ( talk) 19:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:42, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - The Deccan Chronicle article is a good one; rest all are low-quality film posts. Had had substantial supporting roles in two films and was an actress in a 2016 film. It still does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Depend on consensus. Cheers, Nairspecht Converse 06:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now at best as there are a few films so far but still nothing particularly convincing and I would be willing to Draft later if needed but only with the conditions that this will not be restored by that author themselves. SwisterTwister talk 18:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN ( talk) 01:36, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:08, 26 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 Dynamic HTML. MBisanz talk 01:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

DOM scripting

DOM scripting (  | 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 trivial intersection of two topics (DOM and scripting), seemingly an attempt to generalize JavaScript or Dynamic HTML but lacking notability in this context. Possible copyvio, current text seems to be taken from google book [19] Ham Pastrami ( talk) 06:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 15:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:06, 26 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. KaisaL ( talk) 02:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Joe Charlebois

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 15:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

No he fails WP:NHOCKEY. According to WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the Austrian Hockey League is a lower-level league "for the purpose of satisfying criterion #4." Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY is "achieved preeminent honors." "Note: merely playing in one of these leagues is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements." Joeykai ( talk) 15:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: One of many hundreds of NN stub articles created by the indefatigable Dolovis in open defiance of hockey WikiProject consensus, and for which he was sanctioned against new article creation. The subject is a career minor leaguer without distinction, and fails of NHOCKEY. As Joeykai correctly states, the Austrian league is a lesser league, and "top professional league" does not mean the highest-level league in any given country: if that were the case, we'd be giving presumptive passes to beer league players in Lichtenstein. No evidence that he meets the GNG, beyond routine sports coverage explicitly debarred from contributing towards notability as per WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 08:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 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. Michig ( talk) 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Sean Shibe

Sean Shibe (  | 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, coverage is sparse at best. Deprodded for no reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: appears notable enough in expanded article. A solo classical guitarist can't meet many of the criteria in WP:BAND, but I think Brighton and Wigmore Hall recital reviews and interview in The Scotsman etc are enough. This page also has a quote from a review of his Wigmore Hall 2014 concert in Classical Guitar Magazine, to which I don't have access, which appears to be further independent coverage in reliable source. Pam D 14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Also Radio 3 broadcast satisfying bullet 12 of WP:BAND: "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." Pam D 14:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • References are not "notable"; they're either reliable or non-reliable. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of these are in the article. North America 1000 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_26&oldid=1142622001"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE