Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Log 2016 March 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 March	9 March >

Guide to deletion

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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Lisa Burke

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. Couldn't find a single independent source about her. Seems to have participated in several minor occurrences for which there is no coverage, and which do not really constitute notability claims. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. I agree; this article has a total of four sources, three of which are local and one of which does not function correctly. Additionally, it is written in a manner which seemingly implies that the main contributor had a close connection to the subject, which violates WP:BOLP in terms of neutrality. The best thing to do is to delete; if the subject were truly notable, there would be more third-party sources. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 00:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. I see some trivial mentions and quotations in the media, such as [1], [2], and [3], but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to warrant an article. There's this announcement that she became pregnant, but it seems more like tabloid fodder than anything else. The bio reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article, which pushes me a bit more toward deletion. It's possible that this could be recreated if it were less promotional and better sourced, but the sources that I've found do not indicate more than questionable notability. For example, searching Google for "Inside A Lightning Bolt" "lisa burke" turns up almost nothing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Mariño family

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Misleading use of inline citations :eg. 1, 2 and 3. Sources mention members of the House of Traba but there is no mention of the Mariños as members of this house. Source sustaining that the Mariños descend from Fernando Pérez de Traba is a personal gen site, i.e., unreliable, as well as geneall.net gen site in url. black list at pt.wiki and deleted from all articles. Tombo Toxos Outos used as a reference is a cartulary, a primary source. Based on this cartulary, the first recorded Mariño is the 9th one mentioned in the Stematta section, Xoan Froylaz Marinus, as mentioned in this gen site (pretty reliable but mainly based on primary sources). Those mentioned before him except, perhaps, the mermaid, are not documented in any reliable source as being ancestors of Xoan Froyaz Marinus. Lastly, Ruiz-Mariño (obviously, there is a conflict of interest) and Siredejoinville (see contributions of both) are one-and-the-same, as Ruiz-Mariño (signing as Lord Byron) confessed at es.wiki. This article was deleted at es.wiki for the reasons mentioned above, mainly, original research and lack of secondary sources. Maragm ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. There does not seem to be anything here worth preserving. Srnec ( talk) 03:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry ( user:Ruiz-Mariño= User:Siredejoinville...)-- . HombreDHojalata.^talk 10:16, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Other time I explain. All resources are valids in accordance with wikipedia. Original sources were retired so much time and about "cartularios" coming of a writer, a book wrote by a writer. I ask for don´t delete the page Mariño Family, it is good referenced and in accordance to wikipedia. Here, there are not interest conflict in any aspect. There are secondaries verified sources too, each one of them is a valid and verified source.

Please retire the notes you put by no valid reasons and don´t delete the article. Please I ask for some expert librarian that takes the matter in his hands. The Family Mariño article is a very serious article.

-- Siredejoinville ( talk) 14:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Community Night Out

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. Promotional. Doesn't appear to exist now. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: Not even an assertion of importance. Toddst1 ( talk) 22:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

strong delete unreferenced. Doesn't even say where this event is located. LibStar ( talk) 06:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
strong delete unreferenced and appears heavily promotional... except, frankly, isn't even informative enough for me to figure out precisely for whom. Disclosure: I edited the article for the sole purpose of changing "chamber of commerces" to "chambers of commerce". Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax. The creator is a long-term sock: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SubhamPitambarSahu. utcursch | talk 19:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Pitambar Sahu Institute of Management & Technology

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence that this institution exists. Looking up the address on Google Earth and Maps reveals an "Ignou Regional Centre Bhubaneswar", which does appear to be some sort of university, but no indication of anything described in this article. Adam9007 ( talk) 22:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 22:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 22:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as non-notable, if it even exists. This is part of a walled garden of articles about Subham Sahu, see AfD here, and his group of companies, AfD here. These articles, by a small group of SPA editors, are distinguished by large claims and a total absence of independent sources, or even convincing non-independent sources. They are either hoaxes, or at best an attempt to use Wikipedia to make non-notable startups look vastly bigger and more important than they are. The references provided for this one are a Google map and three Wikipedia articles, the founder's one and two lists into which this institution has been inserted by the SPAs. Searches find nothing. JohnCD ( talk) 22:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Can not say Studied some sources and come to know about Subham Sahu and this article. Can not describe about this Educational unit as have not heard much about it. Pitambar Sahu Institute of Management & Technology have to be studied far and should have some sources which haven't find yet. If this article is true their should be some presence required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premikpatel ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Premikpatel is a single-purpose account, blocked as sock-puppet of the article's creator. utcursch | talk 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence it exists outside of places like facebook and if it is offering degree courses I should be able to find it to apply. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 12:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the WP:NOTNEWS issue, that is: is this a topic of lasting importance or just another of the day's news items? - If there is more lasting and substantial coverage in reliable sources, the issue can be revisited, but until then the topic can be covered in the appropriate election and campaign articles, to the extent editorial consensus deems necessary. Sandstein 08:55, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

"Never Trump" movement

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. A full discussion is probably a good idea. "Never Trump" is a Twitter hashtag, and while it has gotten significant coverage in reliable sources, I don't think it should have a page. There isn't an actual "movement", just some political insiders, like Mitt Romney, coming out against Trump. The articles that do discuss it ( for example) suggest that it's unworkable. At least People United Means Action was a registered PAC. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 15:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. As I mentioned when I endorsed the PROD, even if it is an organized movement, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia until it gains significantly more publicity, and, more to the point, significantly more coverage in secondary sources that aren't just Twitter. -- Gimubrc ( talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep I'm sorry, I don't see any policy that says this article should be deleted. It has so much coverage [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. What do you mean, Gimubrc and Muboshgu, about there not being enough publicity? I think we have more than enough coverage. -- Mr. Guye ( talk) 22:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- I didn't say it doesn't have enough publicity. I said it's not a notable topic, despite the coverage it has received. Sources don't guarantee WP:GNG. This is not a real movement. It, to me, does not appear to be likely to have lasting notability. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete or Merge. It's too early to determine if "Never Trump" will be notable enough in the long run to meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTNEWS. I suggest merging with either United States presidential election, 2016, one of it's offshoots, or Donald Trump. If it does end up becoming a major news topic, we can always recreate the page later in the future, when things become clearer. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 00:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete: Its a two-line dead-end article whose only link is from a two-line section of Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, and that section (ideally expanded) is where the matter belongs for the moment ( WP:NOPAGE -- the same logic would apply to "Bernie or Bust"). ^~~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~~ 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- Comment: Even if there were to be a separate article, it should be something along the lines of "Republican opposition to Trump 2016", which could adequately cover things more broadly/contextually than just the "Never Trump" "movement", which is neither the beginning nor (ignoring fellow candidates' opposition) the entirety of the current middle. #NeverTrump appears to have had little impact on recent primaries. ^~~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
  (Talk)~~ 08:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. -- Callinus ( talk) 14:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: evolving issue yet very important talked about topic. -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
KEEP: The "Never Trump" movement has been a big issue in the news lately, so the topic is notable enough to warrant retention of the article. However, the article desperately needs to be expanded and improved. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 04:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete or merge to ~~Donald Trump~~ Donald Trump presidential campaign, per WP:TOOSOON, WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep for now. It's real enough [15] , although it's moment may have come and already gone [16] [17] It can be reconsidered during the Sanders administration - or whoever. And possibly/probably merged to the article on the Trump campaign. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- "Keep for now" doesn't make sense. Nobody's said it isn't "real", we're debating notability, which is not temporary. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  - Phrase is routinely used to argue, as I have here, that this is presently notable enough to Keep, although since ongoing impact cannot be assessed until some time has passed, at which point a reassessment may be warranted. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    - What you are describing is WP:RECENTISM, ("Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.") and it is not justification for keeping an article. as i said before, this topic is better served as a small section in the Donald Trump article or perhaps even better in the Donald Trump presidential campaign article. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and suggesting this topic will have any kind of long reaching impact even in a few months is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perhaps it will be shown to have long lived notability, at which time it can be expanded into a full article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 15:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, and its apparent reliance on a single source, which does not look good on its own already. Parsley Man ( talk) 05:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Parsley, AFD is about whether sources to support notability exist, not whether they are already on the page. Please see sources I linked to above, plus: [18], [19], [20] and more: [21]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't think you're listening to what Insertcleverphrasehere is saying about WP:RECENTISM... Parsley Man ( talk) 19:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note That Nom's assertion that this is a hashtag is a misapprehension. It is a political movement supported by Rubio, Cruz and Kasich, and by major Republican pundits and donors, and by many Democrats as well. Opinions on notability may vary, but should not be based on erroneous characterization. I urge User:Muboshgu to correct this erroneous description. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Not sure that this assertion holds water. At least half the hits on google are for the hashtag, and that is definitely where it started. I think the Nom's description is accurate enough. Insert CleverPhrase Here 15:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Google hits? What say focus on reliable sources, more likely to be found on google news search: [22]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich have all pledged to support the Republican nominee, no matter who it is. Despite some hedging, and some Rubio merchandise (they claim they're only "Never Trump" for the primaries), they've held to that, so I stand by my characterization 100%. – Muboshgu ( talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Added some copy form today's news. This article just needs expand, sourcing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Cloud Nine (Expression)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure WP:DICTDEF, already sufficiently covered in the Cloud Nine dab page. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. I had PRODded this as a WP:DICTDEF and the original author removed the prod. I agree with Toddst1's rationale that the coverage at the Cloud Nine page (including the link there to the Wiktionary page wikt:cloud nine) is sufficient. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. shoy ( reactions) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If anything, create a redirect to Wiktionary. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 23:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - per Nom. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Bryan Marshall (ice hockey)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 20:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep, should not be nominated as played top level hockey in Denmark the Metal Ligaen, won notable achievements eg, 2007-2008 NCAA (CCHA) Second All-Star Team 2010-2011 Danish Champion Danish League All-Star Team Danish League Most Assists (50) Danish League Most Points (79) Denmark Player of the Month (November) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=15085#sthash.UZ9xCze0.dpuf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triggerbit ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 March 2016‎

None of those things make him pass NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 03:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: No presumptive notability is accorded to players in the Danish league, which is semi-professional and not remotely close to "top level." Neither does being a collegiate Second Team All-Star meet NHOCKEY's requirement, which only triggers for a First Team All-Star. The subject would stand on the GNG, then, and there's no evidence this is met: the sources in the article all run afoul of WP:ROUTINE or else are primary sources from his teams' websites. Ravenswing 23:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per Ravenswing. Deadman137 ( talk) 23:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Noah Chirimampunga

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found nothing on him via a simple Google search; even though the article asserts notability, neither of the links provided work. It is also pretty clearly an autobiography. GAB^Hello! 20:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as none of this convinces WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Self-promotion of non-notable person. Google returns nothing. Elaenia ( talk) 06:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Gizoo

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plenty of shallow mentions of their products but little about them as a company. Fails GNG due to lack of coverage. Philafrenzy ( talk) 17:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as searches apparently only found one BBC article from July 2009. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge to Serif Europe, its parent company. The merge target only has a passing mention, and this will improve the article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete @ Northamerica1000: The article for the parent company was started by the same user who started the Gizoo article. I did a quick check over Serif Europe and it doesn't appear to be notable at first glance either. For this article, I'd favor either deleting or redirecting, but it's likely the Serif Europe article itself would be deleted at AfD if nominated, so the end result would be the same. Elaenia ( talk) 07:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Aaron Harstad

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai ( talk) 19:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails NHOCKEY, NCOLLATH, NHSPHSATH, and GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 22:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete No significant coverage and doesn't meet the notability requirements for hockey players or college athletes. Mdtemp ( talk) 08:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As near as I can tell, once all the sock-puppets are grouped consolidated, it's unanimous to delete, except fo that one person. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Steve Wilks (musician)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician. There is no indication that Wilks is a significant musician, as there is no evidence of any significant coverage, awards, or significant airplay for this artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment well if he has no coverage why his his music in a sitcom in usa on fox tv http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/meteor-shower-337857/ answer this question and delete page petredow ( talk) 10:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Steve Wilks meets the two of the Wikipedia criteria for notability of musicians and ensembles (although only one is enough):

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;
Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

That's the reason enough not to delete this article.

Sandra.Stamenkovic91 ( talk) 20:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)— Sandra.Stamenkovic91 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment @ Sandra.Samenkovic91: The article does not assert either of those claims. Of what style is Wilks the most prominent representative, or of which city is he the most prominent musician? And where is the verification of this claim? Also, of which substantial national broadcast segment was he the subject, and where is the verification of that claim? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment @ WikiDan61:

He is the prominent representative of reggae music in Bristol, UK. Beside that he cooperated with some respected reggae artist (it is all mentioned in the text). He appeared on Roni Size's album "Return to V" on two songs: "Fassyhole" and "Thirsty".

Here are some of the links you might want to check: https://www.discogs.com/Roni-Size-Return-To-V/release/337340 http://musiceyz.co.uk/2016/02/21/iona-by-steve-wilks-review/ http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/size-does-matter-15112.html http://www.reggae.fr/artiste-biographie/871_Steve-Wilks.html

I hope I'll meet understanding

Best regards

Sandra.Stamenkovic91 ( talk) 22:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)— Sandra.Stamenkovic91 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

In addition,

he also produced Junior Kellys Jah Know that went out on wontstop records Jamaica, and also on Jetstar records on the Kings of zion album. Beside that he produced Anthony b on Make my Money released on wontstop record. Sandra.Stamenkovic91 ( talk) 22:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment @ Sandra.Stamenkovic91: We'll need proof of your assertion that Wilks is the prominent reggae musician in Bristol, in the form of references in reliable sources indicating that fact. As for his appearances with other artists, notability is not inherited: one does not become notable merely because one has worked with notable people. Again, the bottom line is significant coverage in independent sources. Discogs merely lists that Wilks performed; the Reggae.fr biography appears to have been written by an "Official" representative of Wilks; the significance of Musiceyz is difficult to assess, but it looks like an independent music blog, without the requisite editorial oversight to be considered a reliable source; and the Independent article is about Roni Size, not Wilks, who is just mentioned in the briefest of passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I concur with WikiDan61. His music is self-published, which confers exactly nothing in the way of notability; and I can't find any reliable source coverage any more substantial than his single-sentence, barely-a-namedrop mention in the Independent article already linked. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Delete. — Cryptic 04:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Joseph2302 ( talk) 07:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Per Joseph2302 142.105.159.60 ( talk) 19:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep The artist has been involved in the bristol music scene and jamaica reggae scene and has articles in the Huffington post and others he has worked with legends in the reggae industry Anthony B and Junior kelly and produced both of demo released one on his label and the other was released threw jet star records how even wrote his name wrong has they were bad business people..He has a proven track record in the business ..the page should stay

links

i rest my case musicpeople 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)just my thoughts — 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ~~Keep~~ Look what the question is hear the man has notoriety yet another one of his songs in a national program usa fox tv north shore sitcom http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/pilot-326191/[musicpeople] 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[musicpeople]]— 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck multiple vote. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Looking at those articles, 5 of them are mainly about his cafe and drugs- decent coverage, but falls under WP:BLP1E His music is only mentioned in [23] (a blog, not a reliable source), [24] (possibly reliable), and [25] (passing mentions). As such, he doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG, and is a serious case of WP:BLP1E. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Well i show the cafe has the has to do with this artist music he his from this life and his music speaks about it his songs being on a national sitcom 2these are just examples the page in question has worked with known and produced very well known artist and has done 27 albums to date on his own production getting distribution from jetstar records on junior kelly jah know and i am looking at more now has notoriety the cafe is shown in his wiki media page he has come out of this enviormnet the cafe is a part of his music and the cafe has had wide spread international news and he owned it while he was doing music so it is relevant [musicpeople]

https://conspiromedia.wordpress.com/tag/steve-wilks/

http://elissahawke.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/steve-wilks-aint-afraid-to-say-nothin.html [musicpeople] 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 00:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)— 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

@ 2.223.238.195: The two links you've provided are blogs by random people/organizations who aren't known in their subject area. Quoting a random person's blog isn't useful for establishing notability, but if you're able to fsame articles from reliable sources which cover the subject in-depth, then it'll be a different situation. Elaenia ( talk) 00:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

the links are on the page already Daly, Max; Sampson, Steve (2012). Narcomania: A Journey Through Britain's Drug World. Random House. pp. 62–63. ISBN 9781448136490. Retrieved 7 March 2016. Jump up ^ http://www.stevewilks.com Jump up ^ David Icke (October 9, 2012). "Good Vibrations Podcast: Steve Wilks". davidicke.com. Retrieved 7 March 2016. Jump up ^ "Size does matter". The Independent. 3 January 2005. Retrieved 1 March 2016. Jump up ^ "Steve Wilks, Biographie sur Reggae.fr, artiste, photo, vidéo, article, discographie, albums". Retrieved 1 March 2016. Jump up ^ "Iona by Steve Wilks (Review)". musiceyz. Retrieved 1 March 2016. Jump up ^ McQuiston, James (February 18, 2016). "Steve Wilks Iona Single Review". NeuFutur Magazine Online. Retrieved 7 March 2016. Rating: 9.0/10 Jump up ^ "Steve Wilks". Retrieved 1 March 2016.Steve Wilks official website Steve Wilks on facebook Steve Wilks on you tube Steve Wilks on Disco Logs Authority control ORCID: 0000-0003-3411-5159 MusicBrainz: 8834711b-74b3-4e91-9cdd-46bb58ad4284Hope this clears it up thanks[musicpeople] 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 01:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)— 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Steve Wilks meets the two of the Wikipedia criteria for notability of musicians and ensembles (although only one is enough): reply

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city;
Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/meteor-shower-337857/ http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/pilot-326191/ well he seems to have had Smiling played on to episodes of North shore The pilot and episode 4 http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/pilot-326191/ and it seems he had We wear it well played in the pilot too and this is on fox sitcom major usa channel [musicpeople] 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 02:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC) has for known in the town here is a official radio station in bristol the town http://www.ujimaradio.com/on-air/shows-old/codes-of-the-streets-dj-style/ mentions he is apart of the BiG which has been going over 19 years http://www.bbc.co.uk/bristol/content/articles/2005/08/24/smallprint_feature.shtml https://issuu.com/venuepublishing/docs/venue_970 page 4 it seems steve d wright wrote a review on friends now and mr wilks was not happy Venue magazine was one of bristols biggest mags and the page had many reviews on songs just looking for them [musicpeople] 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 02:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)— 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. no i am not connected to the subject this is a free space for others to put there point of view well that is what i thought i will put a last piece http://bristolhardcore.proboards.com/thread/238/ashton-court-2007 the page seems to be performing on big stages and ashton court is a big festival and the stage he was on is the same has Mad Professor & The Ariwa Posse so has we need to have real info and the write thing on wiki i thought i would add my piece ....and thats that hope page stays cause it is relevant to me has fan of artist and a lover of music thus me taking my time to add to this article with my views[musicpeople} 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 02:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)— 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment Multiple users and IPs without any activity elsewhere on Wikipedia appear to be canvassing for the article to be kept, although it's possible it's a single user using multiple IPs/accounts. See Special:Contributions/Peterdow123, Special:Contributions/Sandra.Stamenkovic91, Special:Contributions/174.113.211.25, and Special:Contributions/2.223.238.195. Elaenia ( talk) 03:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

that is rubbish i have i seen the article and i am not attached to article i have edited the article to add facts has truth i think you are a little paranoid you need to check the ip addresses of the others you list before you make false statements cause i have read that and you have got under my skin because you are negative to this article with no facts you should be deleted from wiki [musicpeople] 2.223.238.195 ( talk) 03:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)— 2.223.238.195 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Delete unless additional independent reliable sources not associated with the musician are added. Robert McClenon ( talk) 03:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Help http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/meteor-shower-337857/ http://home.scarlet.be/baldacchino/review.htm http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/pilot-326191/ can someone add these to references has this will make the page qualify his music has been played on national tv show north shore 4 times if someone could add to references and take out roni size independent has they say it is no good thank you for the help i a trying to help the page and artist has he has work that has been worthy of the page with ref thanks petredow ( talk) 19:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[Peterdow123]— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. just added new sources but i am not wiki media say yet let me know your thoughts thanks for the help and words[:Peterdow123} petredow ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. last thing i will add is that the music artist in concern has been apart of the bristol music scene and jamaica recording scene fr years having 3 songs played on a sitcom on national tv is a requirement that fits with wiki media and he has beened reviewed many ties by publications of wiki worth if you edit the page to get reference in good ay much appreciated[Peterdow123 petredow ( talk) 20:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. so i thought i would add that live performance on main stage bristol community festival the artist for this page played main stage and Reef play the same stage the saturday night Ashton Court Festival http://www.p4ft.co.uk/bcf.htm petredow ( talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep The articles has reliable source and ref petredow ( talk) 02:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: Multiple vote struck. Joseph2302 ( talk) 09:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note above user is a single purpose account with a declared connection to the subject. Elaenia ( talk) 02:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Just adding this artist has stuff all over the place if you look http://www.etampois-sudessonne.fr/fr/evenement/1604/fete-musique-etampes-jeudi-21-juin-2012 musicpeople 5.66.138.201 ( talk) 01:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC) http://radiomagnetic.com/contributors/shows/archive/fiasco/featuring-joe-90/ adding links that are sourcable let me know what you think thanks music people — Preceding musicpeople comment added by 5.66.138.201 ( talk) 01:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) musicpeople— 5.66.138.201 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment I note that two separate IP users have attempted to "sign" their comments using the name "musicpeople". To the latest "musicpeople", I would mention that the two links you've provided are insignificiant: a listing at a music festival of little or no notability, and a track in a track listing of a podcast. These are not examples of significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment IAshtoncourt festival was one of the biggest 2 day festival n europe and when going big acts performed there that is a factt look ,i see a lot of you people here just talk but with no nothing .i look at this page and then artist has had major airplay on major outlets fox tv and the page is petredow ( talk) 11:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

i have looked at all comments on this page you say about ashton court but is has a page on wiki /info/en/?search=Ashton_Court_Festival this just one example .if the page don't qualify then it will come down,but it does qualify so the outcome will be decided when the outcome is decided .it won't stop any wars in the world or change second-class life for nations who suffer under it.So be clever peace and love petredow ( talk) 12:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I've just come across this discussion on the internet, after looking up this artist, and I'm quite surprised that this site is up for deletion. Steve Wilks is a well known musician in Bristol and has worked with people like Roni Size, Anthony B and Junior Kelly. He's well known on the reggae seen and I've seen him perform at Ashton Court, which is one of the most well known festivals in the UK. I'm not really one for using Wikipedia, but felt that I should say something just passing 77.96.26.84 ( talk) 19:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)— 77.96.26.84 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment i just look the internet for subject natter this man is not well pulicised on the net but i still leave in links artist is named with the best in the business http://www.trouverdeshotels.com/amerique-centrale/culture-jamaique.html http://www.forsenergy.com/d91a4fd042d4be7f.html petredow ( talk) 23:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The parade of links to unattributed mirrors of old versions of Wikipedia articles (which no longer mention this person) and glowing testimonials from IPs (which all happen to have the same editing quirks) is utterly unconvincing. If you want to save this article, the way to do that is with substantial sources from professional journalists with genuine editorial oversight. — Cryptic 23:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment i am looking for material this is a genuine article from a respected mag/reveiwer http://www.reggae.fr/artiste-biographie/871_Steve-Wilks.html i am looking for his all music link mite find it lol petredow ( talk) 00:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment It is hard to find internet stuff on this guy has you can see he is from a bad life and maybe has something to say we are supposed to hear - we don't know. I will leave it at this, the cafe he owned was international known black and white cafe and has a big involvement in his music has they mention in this interview with roni size that he had 2 songs on return to v Steve Wilks qualifies has WPA and maybe we can see he has worked with songwriting and production and released from his label worthy of WPK

the truth is the internet and the powers have a way a blocking the real thing ..i leave it at that.. Thanks for the chat and learning they have him listed at all music but say they can't show due to label issues http://www.allmusic.com/album/dj-kicks-mw0000038650 he his listed here so it looks like this guy his about the place a lot and has songs on big production http://www.reggae.fr/lire-article/1122_Steve-Wilks---To-be-Humble.html this is a review of to be humble Album French magazine http://www.radio-dj.ru/it/Dance/97181.htm Paris radio ? http://www.allmusic.com/search/all/steve%20wilks%20he%20loves%20you http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/size-does-matter-15112.html petredow ( talk) 00:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment The artist on page will have reviews on all music soon due to label problems with his connection with believe digital france is where the problem is that there are none to see has you can see his music is listed on All Music web site

Here is video of him on a show in France tv net work cap24 which is not a cable network i can't find the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtsgxcr9EX0 2.126.103.180 ( talk) 18:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)— 2.126.103.180 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment The page passes wiki pedia notable artist Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtsgxcr9EX0

Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. https://www.discogs.com/Anthony-B-Make-My-Money/release/7880847 Accomplisher Artist from Jamaica steve wilks was producer on this single http://www.vpreggae.com/kings-of-zion-2-va/ The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications) http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/pilot-326191/ http://www.tv.com/shows/north-shore/meteor-shower-337857/ and that is it petredow ( talk) 21:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep because it meets wikipedia standard good i learnt a lot and mite have to do more thanks all of you for the experience petredow ( talk) 21:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Note: Multiple vote struck Joseph2302 ( talk) 09:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Move to userspace of.. uh... whichever of these redlink accounts made/wants it, I guess. It is a pretty well structured article, and seems to have no dearth of content. It just needs more sources to establish notability, which several voters here are very adamant it has. I feel it has potential, it just isn't ready to be an article yet. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 05:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

There aren't any non-connected users supporting a keep actually (as far as I can tell from the mess above), it's just one person using multiple IPs and I think like 2 accounts - voting multiple times. It's seriously getting confusing to follow... Elaenia ( talk) 05:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that's what I figured. I'd say I admire their tenaciousness, but, well, I don't. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 06:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Agree, all these IPs should be classed as the same person. The clear consensus of established, non-connected editors is to delete. Joseph2302 ( talk) 08:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I've also tagged the SPA edits, and struck multiple votes. I oppose userfication because he isn't notable, and it'll just end up in it getting recreated quickly by this meat/sockfarm, and we'll have to have another discussion like this one because they aren't listening. Joseph2302 ( talk) 09:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

i have just come on here and read your words of lies and negative i am here in support of this page if the ip addresses are the same you could see that i see how you work here and the same negative person keeps on saying the same i say you must be removed from wiki for making false comments the page has passed the wiki pedia he has songs played on national tv programme and had his work used by anthony b and junior kelly which are 2 jamaican big big starts check on the net...All music has his music listed but due to label blah blah don't show it you cannot delete this page has you would be going against your own rules lol but do you care ...dont make false statements ( talk petredow ( talk) 10:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Keep you speak about all the mumbo jumbo up there but in that mumbo jumbo is the facts that he has worked with establish artist and songwriter have re created over his work and he has had his music played in national tv shows in usa many times ,plus he his an established member of the music community in bristol and jamaica but he has not much internet coverage but all music has him listed has a composer on smith and mighty album so delete the page and go against your own rules petredow ( talk) 10:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)— Peterdow123Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: struck multiple vote (again) Joseph2302 ( talk) 10:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment so what if i made not many edits on other pages SO the fact is the page passes the standard delete it and go against your own rule .11:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC) petredow ( talk)— Peterdow123 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The fact that you've only made edits on this page, and are using multiple IPs to make it look like more people support makes it seem that you're not here to contribute positively to the encyclopedia as a whole. 11:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

so you say i am all the people above answer this please petredow ( talk) 11:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, that's what I believe the sockpuppet investigation will reveal. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

That is a false statement but it is ok delete the page and go against your own rules that is all i say has the page passes the standard lol they are not my rules petredow ( talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete As failing WP:BIO, no secondary sources suggest he has so far had anything more than a reflected temporary notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment i don't think having worked in the north shore tv show and having music played on national t.v show numerous times and had many projects smith and mighty anthony b junior kelly to name a few petredow ( talk) 12:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note This user attempted to strike my !vote (although failed in the attempt). _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment yes i did i seen others do it to my comments maybe i don't understand the practice but don't bring negarive i did not know you could not do that has i seen people strick my comments? i am sorry i did not mean to sway nothing the page stands for itself don't try and sway with negative we are powerful petredow ( talk) 13:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Peterdow123 You say we are powerful, does more than one person have access to this account? Amortias ( T)( C) 13:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment no just me petredow ( talk) 14:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment can all forgive me has i been told that i can only have one vote on the page i am sorry i did not know If this is the page does qualify then take it down but if it does do the rite thing thank you petredow ( talk) 15:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Administrator note A reminder that this a discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Please keep it to that. Any more malarkey such as striking out bolded recommendations and, yes, you should only make one bolded recommendation such as 'keep' or 'delete', may be met with blocks. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:N and WP:GNG. Sources do not establish notability. MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the small amount of participation it would be fair to revisit this AfD sooner or later. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Matthew Perryman Jones

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I could not find any RSes to support notability. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Could not find significant coverage. Many hist in this HighBeam search but it turns out none constitute significant coverage, in my opinion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 21:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - This musician has been significantly covered in reliable sources with regards to his music, where this passes notability guidelines, for a music biography to be created for him. He has been written album in a biography from AllMusic, Relevant magazine interview, The Huffington Post interview. His album, Swallow the Sea, was reviewed by AllMusic and PopMatters. The subsequent album, Land of the Living, was reviewed by American Songwriter and Christianity Today. The Cross Bearer ( talk) 03:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- I saw the AllMusic bio, but when none of the albums had ratings I assumed none were reviewed. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - Changing !vote based on sources found by The Cross Bearer especially: [26], [27], [28], [29] ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, mainly doe to different reading of the notability guideline. I would suggest having an RfC on amending/clarifying the guideline and return to the issue if it gets amended.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Parveen Kumar (boxer)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable boxer who fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. No significant non-routine coverage and losing in the first round of the Commonwealth championships does not meet WP:NBOX (nor does just competing at the national championships). Mdtemp ( talk) 16:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 16:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment : Minded towards a 'Keep' !vote at the moment, per NBOX #4 : "have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament." Thoughts?-- Donniediamond ( talk) 17:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't think losing a first round fight at the Commonwealth Games is sufficient to show notability. Logically, that would imply that all competitors at the Commonwealth Games are automatically notable and I don't think that's in keeping with the consensus at WP:NSPORTS. I know previous boxing discussions have shown some support for Commonwealth medal winners, but not for all competitors. Papaursa ( talk) 03:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG with the only references being routine coverage of his first round loss at the Commonwealth Games. As I explained above, I don't think simply appearing at the Commonwealth Games guarantees notability. Papaursa ( talk) 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete As per nominator. Peter Rehse ( talk) 13:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Per WP:NBOX which states "A boxer is presumed notable if he or she...have represented their AIBA affiliated country in a continental (or higher) tournament" AusLondonder ( talk) 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

It's one thing for pre-internet fighters which can be hard to find coverage for but another for a current fighter to have no significant coverage. As Papaursa pointed out, this is a presumption that all Commonwealth Games athletes are automatically notable and I know of no rule stating that. I don't believe the Commonwealth Games is the highest level, which has generally been presumed to be the Olympics or at least the world championships. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

As discussed elsewhere, sports with a worldwide scope do not require Olympic or world championship participation. In track, top 8 in the Commonwealth games can do it, and in even lesser contexts top 3 (see WP:NTRACK). In tennis, winning a second tier tournament is enough (see WP:NTENNIS). Same can be said for Motorsports, where competing in the Xfinity Series or GP2 Series, both second tier series, would count (see WP:NMOTORSPORT). Further, guidelines exist for basically national sports, such as American Football and Australian Football. I think highest level competition relates to the level of competition, not the international nature of the event. RonSigPi ( talk) 23:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

In addition, we're not talking about top 8 or a medal at the Commonwealth Games, but rather someone who lost in the first round. Papaursa ( talk) 02:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Normally, I try to stick with a presumption until shown otherwise - that is why the SNGs are there. However, as can be seen in Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), the boxing guidelines are somewhat confusing. Also, this is a fighter from the 2014 games and from a nation that has a English as a dominant language. Seems like Internet sources should be pretty easy to find if they exist. While I cannot bring myself to go against the presumption the SNGs give, I think this would be a very fair case to require show cause in view of the above. RonSigPi ( talk) 23:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

This is another example of WP:NBOX being far too lenient. If he'd won a medal, the argument to keep might have merit, but not for merely showing up at an event that is not at the highest level. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete I think the failure to meet WP:GNG trumps the SNG when you consider he is a current athlete and doesn't generate significant coverage. Especially when his meeting of the SNG is so weak. Astudent0 ( talk) 07:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep I have added some new references. He fought in the final of his national elite competition, earning a silver medal, which I think just about passes WP:BOX.-- Donniediamond ( talk) 12:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep. Whatever the guidelines states, keeping would be a common sense move. This is a boxer that has placed in his national tournament and has represented his country at major international competitions, which on the spectrum of amateur boxing activity corresponds as far as I am concerned to competing at the highest level. Sources for Asian topics are often hard to find from a Google search without skills in the languages concerned and knowledge of local media sources, but despite this the article is well enough sourced.-- Michig ( talk) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
'Keep Per WP:NBOX #4, Parveen is considered notable. MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (leaning keep, given that sources have been added)-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Wintrust Financial

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entire page copied word-for-word from a website - ^theWOLFchild 05:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Exhibit 'A', Exhibit 'B'. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 10:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Updated article with source. Information directly from company's website, simply stating matter of fact. Bakerboy448 ( talk) 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - the nominator gives a reason that is good grounds for a CSD but not for an AfD. Wintrust is a medium-sized regional bank in the midwest and the article shouldn't have any difficulty establishing notability. A few more references would help though. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 16:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: To be honest, I haven't done many page deletion nominations, and so I brought this to AfD. But please note that page has been changed since I tagged it. It was initially a direct-copy from another webpage, word for word, from beginning to end. That is why I tagged it. If you feel it's been improved since then, so be it. I have no opinion either way. I'll leave it up to the community. - ^theWOLFchild 16:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Good catch! Technically copyright violations should be reported for speedy deletion under WP:COPYVIO rather than brought to this forum, but you did the right thing in escalating. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I basically forgot all about CSD. I blanked the page to protect the project and filed AfD. I'll know for next time. (whenever that might be... ) - ^theWOLFchild 19:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete at best actually because none of the current article has better solid signs of notability and my searches found links at Books, News and browsers but simply nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I've added some more from Chicago Tribune and from American Banker that seem to meet WP:SECONDARY. I'll keep looking. These guys are now the second or third biggest bank in Metro Chicago now, depending on how you count. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Good job of improving the article! It was unacceptable in every way at the time of nomination and should have been speedy deleted (but fixing it was also acceptable of course). I see enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and the most important part of its notability their naming rights on billboards for 2 major league baseball teams. Royal broil 14:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, run-of-the-mill bank, article makes no claim of notability. Minor news article about bank having some trouble during the 2008-2009 worldwide financial crisis does not help. Speciate ( talk) 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Respectfully, most articles on Wikipedia are run-of-the -mill. The question is whether the article meets WP:GNG or not. There has been enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 17:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The one "keep" doesn't address the arguments for deletion. Sandstein 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Math Girl

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced article about a three-episode series of animated short films on YouTube, with no strong evidence of notability per WP:NFILM. Of the sources listed in the external links section, two are dead links (and one of those, further, was a university student newspaper that never counted toward WP:GNG even when live), one is a PDF of an article by one of the creators in their own employer's staff magazine (a primary source that cannot assist notability), and one is a glancing namecheck of the films' existence in an article that isn't about them. As always, something like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists — it must either be shown to meet a specific criterion in NFILM, or at least be referenced to a lot more reliable source coverage of it than this. And for added bonus, the article was created by User:Vjungic — a transparent WP:COI if you check the names of the films' creators. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 19:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. I found a few hits for this: [30] from Inside Higher Education (trivial mention), [31] from Maclean's (another trivial mention), and [32] from The Globe and Mail, which is finally a bit more substantial. The problem is that I don't think one good source can really demonstrate notability. I'm curious what others think. Since it's an educational project from a math professor, I think it would be alright to be a little more lenient than usual. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 03:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for finding the Globe and Mail source. Note that it contains two separate long passages about Math Girl, including in the second passage about how it was inspired by one diminutive female who reluctantly stood up to acknowledge that she was the one student in a large mathematics class to score 100% on an exam. In 2007, Youtube (created in 2005) was young. This educational innovation to produce a motivating cartoon and post it freely was a "high tech" approach, and in the article was celebrated along with a) "clickers" and b) the recording and posting of lecture videos, two then-new innovations that are now hugely important. Perhaps the educational world would be far better today if the art/skill of creating avatars/characters and generating new educational cartoons would have become as widespread, also. -- do ncr am 04:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. Is "math girl" an example of a teaching avatar that one source is about? Rename/move to that more general topic. This is not commercial work for anyone's financial gain. It is okay/good/great for persons connected to a topic to contribute about it. See wp:coi. Try to work with this positively please. And I think I have heard of this, it may well be notable topic. do ncr am 04:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Notability is always contingent upon the quality of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support the article — Wikipedia does not have any policy that educational or non-profit projects get a special exemption from our sourcing rules just because we respect or like their mission. And a COI is not "okay/good/great" — it's acceptable for people with a direct connection to the topic to make purely factual corrections to an article, but they're not allowed per COI to (a) start the article themselves, (b) tilt it in an advertorial/PR direction, (c) make up their own special sourcing or notability standards for themselves that aren't compliant with our sourcing and notability standards. So a COI is forgivable, if the proper sourcing exists for us to repair the article with — but it's not "great", if the sourcing isn't improvable. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that nominating an article that isn't complying with our notability and sourcing rules, and can't be brought into accordance with those rules because the volume and quality of reliable sourcing just isn't there, is somehow not being "constructive" — my responsibility to be constructive attaches to Wikipedia, not to every individual person or organization or project that thinks of Wikipedia as a nifty little free PR platform. Bearcat ( talk) 18:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Let me say I appreciate the nom's good intentions, and also that I just revisited wp:COI and see that its text has hardened greatly relative to when I really learned/absorbed it. The AFD nomination may perhaps be in tune with relatively harsh attitude of current 2016 wording. However IMHO it is unduly harsh relative to wp:COI's September 24, 2007 wording when the article was started by editor Vjungic. Vjungic is presumably Veselin Jungic, who was then self-described as "a working mathematician", which does not sound inappropriately promotional to me. The COI standard then emphasized in its lede "Merely participating in or having professional expertise in a subject is not, by itself, a conflict of interest. < br > Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace." Also sourcing standards have changed since 2007. It seems unfair to insinuate in the nom that something nefarious was done ("And for added bonus, the article was created by User:Vjungic — a transparent WP:COI if you check the names of the films' creators.") The editor was in fact properly revealing of their connection to the topic by their username choice, IMHO. And there has never been any suggestion that the editor violated COI policy by imposing wording that was contentious in any way...indeed there is no criticism of the article ever suggested at its Talk page. Suggesting that the editor was mistreating Wikipedia as a "nifty little free PR platform" or that they "make up their own special sourcing and notability standards" is unnecessary, especially without providing any support for the implication that the editor benefited financially or in any other way from the writing. I rather imagine the editor was honestly trying to contribute to development of knowledge, and that then the idea of "teaching avatars" was new and promising. So I am sorry that my comment causes some offense to the nominator in 2016, but I don't think the editor was wrong to contribute in 2007. If "teaching avatars" did not become much of a thing since 2007, and if Math Girl herself didn't get developed much since then, I concede it would be appropriate to criticize the article, but along the lines of tagging it and commenting at the Talk page that there's now some problem, hoping for a constructive rewrite or merger or something.

Commenting more broadly about AFD, not especially about this one, it dismays me to see the energy put into negativity/destruction relative to the passivity about searching for better alternatives. Such as when (not necessarily here, but very frequently) there could be a list-article started that would reasonably include the topic as a list-item. Dismissing and deleting all or substantially all of an editor's contributions is especially bad (not saying that is happening here, I didn't even check), when almost all of us started with contributions that don't look great to ourselves after many years. I personally would like to see a serious review of AFD and what it has done over time. -- do ncr am 04:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. Article was consistent with wp:COI standard when created. -- do ncr am 02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The primary basis of my deletion rationale was not the COI — it was the article's total lack of sourceability to any substantive coverage in reliable sources, a condition which no article topic ever gets an exemption from having to meet under any circumstances. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete at best for now as my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete due to lack of notable sources. ZettaComposer ( talk) 20:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

K. K. Nishad

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage; modest credits at imdb do not suggest notability. Highly promotional tone. ubiquity ( talk) 16:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 16:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity ( talk) 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator. Probable autobio. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete fails GNG, movies only few are notable themselves. Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Trending keep, but with qualifications, therefore no clear consensus. Sandstein 11:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

SITEX Corporation

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has superficial referenciness but it turns out that the references don't support the notability of the company (for example, "In February 1999, SITEX became the first and only uniform rental plant in the United States to have all textile processes ISO 9002 certified" is sourced to a Houston Chronicle article describing ISO9002 but not mentioning SITEX, and to the ISO 9000 definition on ISO's homepage). The user has fewer than 200 edits which include writing a small number of articles that appear to be promotional, one of which (on a firm of ambulance chasers) was submitted at AFC and deleted, the other (on a quack) I submitted and is also heading to delete. The crappy state of this article could be a result of inexperience, but it looks more like an attempt to paint a minor family form as more significant than it actually is. Guy ( Help!) 14:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: "Crappy state of the article" seems a bit harsh. I will look for a few more citations and remove the ISO9000 line you've questioned but this organization is pretty noteworthy in the Kentucky and Indiana areas they operate in. It isn't a commercial article or focused on the products but the impact they've had on the economic state of that areas as they have taken over several other businesses and acquired a good bit of the operations of organizations. I'll make sure to pass any articles I feel deserve to be included through the AFC in the future to avoid eating up editors' and contributors' time or making wiki look bad. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AChrisTurner ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 16:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

- I've made a few edits to remove content unsupported by references. AChrisTurner ( talk) 16:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. The sources are decent. SITEX is notable enough for a stand alone article IMO. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

*Keep. As a sailor, this corporation is a big-time player in the marine electronics industry. Sorry. Wrong SiTex. Apologies. Aloha27 talk 00:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete and draft and userfy if needed as my searches actually found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak Keep. Some of the fluff the article had was annoying, but I think it has bare notability based on existing press mentions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk •
Work} 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep, notability seems established and article is (after the edits mentioned above) sourced for all main statements. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Statements in article are sourced by third party sources and therefore SITEX is notable. MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

List of notable anglophones known by their middle names

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary and unmaintainable WP:LISTCRUFT. — swpb^T 14:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — swpb^T 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as arbitrary and subtrivial; mere coincidence of naming practice that fails WP:LISTPURP rather than representing any meaningful relationship. Absent some proof that such people have been discussed as a group ("What You Didn't Know About Anglophones Known By Their Middle Names", possibly the lamest attempt at clickbait one could imagine), there is simply no legitimate reason to lump these together. postdlf ( talk) 19:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - relatively notable topic in nomenclature and the style of Personal names [33]-- Prisencolin ( talk) 05:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- The concept of being known by a middle name may be notable, but that says nothing about whether a list of such people is an appropriate topic for an article. — swpb^T 14:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. I don't see how this satisfies WP:LISTN. The sources I've found, such as [34], seem little better than clickbait and do not discuss the topic in depth. I agree that this seems like arbitrary trivia. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete As someone who is an anglophone and is known by his middle name, I can assert how utterly trivial this is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Spa Luchtaine

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax see creator's contributions ( Revdrphd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) Cavrdg ( talk) 12:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as no sources in article or elsewhere that I have looked, so fails WP:Verifiability. Will change vote if RS can be found. Atlantic306 ( talk) 03:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I've expanded on the creator's contributions in the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spa Elaine -- Cavrdg ( talk) 12:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete -- A NN medieval hamlet. Merge/redirect might be a possibility, if one knew where it was, but are we sure this is not WP:OR? Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf ( talk) 00:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Omnicare Cooperative

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, fails WP:CORP, relies too heavily on primary sources JMHamo ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: An article by a probably-connected WP:SPA which includes some use of the first person plural voice. The given references provide verification of existence but not of attained notability, nor do my Google and Highbeam searches identify better. AllyD ( talk) 17:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Just 25 search results, most of which are government filings any company would have. Elaenia ( talk) 08:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable, fails WP:CORP. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 17:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Erin O'Brien (writer)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An author whose biographical article was speedy deleted said that she used O'Brien's article as a blueprint on what was an acceptable article on Wikipedia. After looking at it, I can see why her own article was so similar to O'Brien's and I question whether or not this author is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I would think she is notable according to the Wikipedia standard, but as I look at the article, I see it has no citations at all. I'll see if I can add some citations to make the notability clear Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 22:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Andrés de Fuensalida

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no coverage, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Almost no claim to any significance here either. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment -- It is always difficult to judge the merit of an article when there is only a stub. The sources cited seem to be purely genealogical ones: one on the founding families of Chile; the other on the Fuensalida family. If we were dealing with US history, we would not regard the fact that a person was on the Mayflower voyage as providing notability. If he was merely one of the small army that conquered Peru, etc, I would say he was NN. However, if an account of what he did can be provided or he was an officer leading a conquistador force, I would say keep. At present there is not enough to say anything. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment -- The subject's name seems more usually to be spelled as Andrés de Fuenzalida - Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. However, most of what I then get on a search is addresses in a street in Santiago de Chile that is presumably named after him, and most of the rest is snippets at best. Enough to suggest that there might well be some reliable sources somewhere - not enough for me to locate any of them. PWilkinson ( talk) 22:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Created by an editor doing a family geneaology per their disclosure and building that up in WP, including creating a category for their family. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#679699sof. That is not what WP is for. (do we need a new WP:NOTFAMILYTREE part of WP:NOT?) Jytdog ( talk) 02:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, the article does not even claim a reason for notability. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 10:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Deb Baker

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Author has two books that have appeared in Booklist and Kirkus, but I don't find significant reviews. (Note that Capital Times is a local paper (Madison, WI). I don't have access to those, but local-only publications are low on the notability support scale.) Under the name Hannah Reed she has books published by Berkley Publishing, which is a Penguin imprint. I don't find any reviews for these books. (Although the references say 'subscription required' you can search Booklist without a subscription.) The others are self-published, some with listed publisher D.B. Publishing, LLC which is clearly herself. The remainder (that I have checked) are on Amazon with publisher CreateSpace. The source for the award is not an RS (it's someone's personal site) and Authorlink is not, AFAIK, a major literary award. This fails wp:NAUTHOR, because it does not meet "(c) has won significant critical attention". LaMona ( talk) 19:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep I fixed this article up quite a bit. 1) She has an author bio in a Gale published book 2) she has 2 Kirkus reviews and reviews in Booklist and Library Journal and 3) Local sources don't take away from notability. She is notable in her area. Author passes GNG, she doesn't need to pass anything else. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 22:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The author bio can be used for information, but I don't see how that supports notability - that reference work does not appear to be selective, so it's a directory of all authors, probably gathered from publisher information. (It has 145K entries.) And reviews in Kirkus and Booklist are hardly "(c) has won significant critical attention" - they are review publications that review thousands of books per year, each book getting about 300 words. Just to be sure that we're all on the same page, here are the criteria for notability for creative professionals, including authors:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I think that all we can say about this person is that she has written books. A lot of people have written books. If we put every author who is included in Kirkus and Booklist in Wikipedia it would be close to the size of WorldCat (with over 200 million titles). LaMona ( talk) 19:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Right, that's for authors in case there is no information to show GNG. If she passes GNG, that's all we need to worry about. She does, which is why I propose keep. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Can you say what sources you see as meeting GNG? LaMona ( talk) 22:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Pretty much what I added. She has a bio in a Gale publication and the news articles are entirely about her. I know you had some questions about the notability of local coverage, but Wiki does not downgrade local news as being "non notable" just because it's local. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 23:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment, 7 of her books appear on WorldCat here [35], (i know the figures are not accurate, but as an indication?) each in about 200 to 300 libraries, although they are not showing up in 1000s of libraries, neither are they only in a handful. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment, WP:NAUTHOR does not preclude "trade reviews", only that the reviews be independent of the subject and from reliable sources, so although some editors appear to be uncomfortable with kirkus, booklist and others, they can be used for notability. ps. if wiki can have (in theory:)) millions of articles on sportspeople ("An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor") why can't it also have millions of articles on authors and books as long as they are notable? so many articles, so little time Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:25, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Coolabahapple, I think that might be fine but the policies don't appear to me to go in that direction. I've been in discussions before about the trade reviews and our need to clarify their weight in terms of notability. We could indeed decide that anyone who has published with a major publisher (=participated in ...etc.) and has a trade review is considered notable. Then we need to get clear about the books themselves -- when does it make sense to have an article for a book? I have to say that as a librarian, and one who has thought a lot about authors and books, I really dislike separating the book from the author except in those cases where the book has become so well known (Don Quixote, War and Peace, etc.) that it has a cultural meaning of its own. Many authors today who are writing fiction or self-help or "how to make money" books are producing serviceable texts but no Moby Dick's among them. Articles for books are too often promotional, especially books that are currently in print. Interestingly, we have less of a tendency to create articles for technical books (O'Reilly et al) and their authors, and yet many of those are better written than their non-technical counterparts. We also treat popular writing and academic writing quite differently in terms of notability. For academic writing, we focus on the author and use wp:academic; for popular writing there is a tendency to focus on the book as "product", to look at sales or library figures, and we pay attention to Booklist and Kirkus. Well, as you can see, there's a whole essay to be done about this. But right now, authors who are not academics come under wp:CREATIVE. LaMona ( talk) 17:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

LaMona, we don't need to use WP:CREATIVE if the article passes GNG. You're making things harder than they need to be. I appreciate your perspective (as a librarian myself), but I think you're overthinking things here. GNG is shown when there are multiple reliable sources where the subject is the main thrust of the article. We can apply GNG to anything: authors, books, whatever you want to write about. All we have to show is that there are enough sources to indicate that the subject is notable. WP:CREATIVE needs to be invoked only when the subject is probably notable, but enough reliable sources are unavailable to show GNG. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 00:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't interpret GNG to mean "any two articles in any newspapers about someone" -- I think that's too low of a barrier. Also, GNG speaks of multiple sources, and so the three Capital Times actually are a single source. ("Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.") In addition, note that the byline is the same for all three articles. GNG also says ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included." Being one of 147,000 in a biographical dictionary is not notable. I've already shown that Writer'sInfo is not a reliable source, it's a personal web site. Reviews in Kirkus and Booklist are, like Allmusic, sources of information but not discriminatory enough to establish notability. So, no, I don't think this meets GNG. LaMona ( talk) 01:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I disagree. Each article is a source. Kirkus and Booklist are good sources. I use them all the time to select materials for my library. Your bar is too high. And yes, being part of a biographical dictionary is notable, otherwise everyone would have an entry. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 04:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment, WP:GNG requires significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail", so it could be argued that the book reviews do not do this regarding the author, thats when WP:AUTHOR (or creative), can be used "3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", though i would like to see a couple more. Agree that the local newspaper articles can be used for notability, although i would be happpier if there was a state or national newspaper article about the subject. This is why i am on the fence with this afd and i have neither stated keep or delete. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - her works are widely published and widely available in libraries. Bearian ( talk) 17:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, seems to be suffciently covered in the references listed. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 11:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Robert Ubell

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a possibility that this person is notable, but not on the basis of this article, which is purely promotional--in fact, I'm tempted to nominate it for speedy deletion. It's the typical administrator fluff, in which the administrator is given credit for every single good thing (and never blamed for any bad thing)--and sometimes the sources actually parrot this, typically with phrases that start with "Under his leadership, ...". Anyway, the sourcing isn't there for this vice-dean, and neither deans nor vice-deans have inherent notability per WP:PROF. Drmies ( talk) 04:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. There are a variety of sources available for this article in Proquest Newspapers. The deletion argument above based on the tone and sources in the article doesn't reflect WP:BEFORE. Yes, the article has problems, but WP:DINC.-- Jahaza ( talk) 20:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- Well, would you mind actually giving a few examples of the reliable coverage you claim you have found? Drmies ( talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  - I had Proquest open, so I ran a search on him. The first 8 hits were press releases related online learning initiatives. So are many of the later ones, a few were atricles about onlining learning initiatives by Stevens and NYU. He was described as "vice dean for online learning", and "vice president of Enterprise Learning" at NYU, here is a paragraph from a 2009, Wall Street Journal article: "There is a misalignment between the university system and the needs of the economy," says Robert Ubell, who heads a New York University program in China to train young Chinese employees of foreign companies. "Chinese graduates often have few practical skills." [36]. That's as much as I know. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Publisher's weekly has

Reid, C. (2000). Ubell builds web program at stevens. Publishers Weekly, 247(9), 18. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197033867

Reid, C. (1997). Ubell to new media spot at marcel dekker. Publishers Weekly, 244(39), 20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/197022674 (About his publishing career.)

His 2010 book Virtual Teamwork: Mastering the Art and Practice of Online Learning and Corporate Collaboration from Wiley gets a review here:

Llorens, J. (2010). ONE FOR THE TEAM. T + D, 64(12), 74. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/817556645

And also a capsule review in Nature: Books in brief. (2010). Nature, 468(7327), 1035. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/822220239

He was coauthor of a 1974 book Children Are the Revolution about daycare in Cuba which has a lot of citations. And is also author of Robert Ubell, "Cuba's Great Leap," Nature (April 1983), which is also widely cited along with other 1983 articles on Cuba.

He was publisher of the American edition of Nature in the 1970s and was editor of The Sciences during a period of editorial renewal at the magazine. See here [37] and here [38].

-- Jahaza ( talk) 16:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete actually as my searches found nothing better at all and this is simply questionable overall. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep. Clearly notable for several reason in WP:PROF, and also as WP:Author. The article, as is common for articles copied from outside sources even with permission, is permeated with very minor material and PR, which is why I generally do not advise people to give permission but to rewrite instead. I removed most of it. I've seen worse. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep I do think there's enough to justify an article. (also just linked to brother's article) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mikey Way. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Electric Century

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:BAND. Also too soon. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 04:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect: to Mikey Way until subject gains nobility. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)
(contribs)} 04:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect and I planned to take actions about this when I encountered it at NPP, as there are simply no convincing signs of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete One member is individually notable, while the others are not. Electric Century (EP) should also be deleted as it has not charted and is not notable. If it had any coverage, it could have saved the band article as well. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep or merge to the Mikey Way article per AfD2. Why wouldn't we? -- Michig ( talk) 07:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- The Electric Century article is already merged to Mikey Way per AfD2. Another merge is unnecessary. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 07:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  - Fair enough, but that would make a redirect appropriate rather than deletion. -- Michig ( talk) 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: Might want to wait now, the band just announced their full album in this weeks kerrang. Might gain some coverage for it. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)
(contribs)} 02:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- Not sure if "some coverage" could get them to pass WP:BAND. The album comes free with the magazine, probably not going to chart in that case. It looks like Fuse and Alternative Press have already covered it, but know that notability isn't temporary. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 02:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: Per AFD 1, and recent change in nobillity, with multiple sites covering them this past week. Teddy2Gloves^{(talk)
(contribs)} 17:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- The only articles I notice that follow WP:BAND #1 criteria are the Fuse and AP articles. unlike the MTV interview they did a while back, they really didn't change much in notability. Their debut album hasn't even been released nor has it gotten the band any success, as the same with their debut EP. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 21:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect as nom to Mikey Way per AfD 2. Already merged to Mikey Way, redirect more appropriate than deletion. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 18:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOURCED HAVE BEEN FOUND & NOM'S NOT OBJECTED SO CLOSING AS KEEP (non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Blood of the Samurai

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence at all of notability, just a plot summary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Seems to be a forgotten low budget movie that was poorly reviewed and didn't get much attention. Not notable; fails WP:MOVIE. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 07:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. I think there's probably enough coverage here to keep it. Reviews: [39] from DVD Talk, [40] from Ain't It Cool News, and [41] from Film Threat, which I can't access right now because the Internet Archive is down for maintenance (but it's linked from the IMDb). There's also [42] from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, his local paper. It received further coverage from local sources in a few more stories: [43], [44], [45]. While I'm usually a bit dismissive of local coverage when it comes to notability, I think this can help flesh out the article, and it also discusses some awards that the film won. It also spawned a local TV series. So, apparently, it did have some impact, even if it was small and local. There's also mention of an article in Filmmaker, but the best I can find is a little blurb in the snippet view on Google Books: [46]. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- Internet Archive is back up. Here's the Film Threat review. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 23:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. I expanded the article and added some sources. It makes more of a claim to notability now. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 22:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep and close per WP:HEY, notability established. Cavarrone 13:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The Jompson Brothers

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted with minimal participation, notability asserted by inheritance from one slightly notable member. Sources are... thin. As in: iTunes sales link and so on. Guy ( Help!) 11:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Wait...Chris Stapleton is "slightly notable"? The article could use better sourcing, but Chris Stapleton is a mega-star. 161.113.20.135 ( talk) 17:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Fairly certain that Chris Stapleton makes this notable. 71.185.45.31 ( talk) 01:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The Chris Stapleton connection is one notable element, but there are others after a short search. The article needs a little bit of work but addressing the language and adding references will improve the article to an acceptable level. The Chris Stapleton segment of the Wikipedia page even has three unique references, this page should have three times that many. AChrisTurner ( talk) 16:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Weak keep, thin on sourcing but the inclusion of Chris Stapleton in the membership is an assertation of notability, as is this source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 02:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Kelly Fitzgerald

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography is cited to a couple of Huffington Post entries, and that's about all I can find. I'm sure the piece is written in good faith to highlight alcohol abuse, but we're not here to support noble causes and there are BLP concerns too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable person. I do however agree with assuming the good faith of the creator. Azealia911 _talk 00:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete this uplifitng self-help story as WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Blaise Godbe Lipman

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Career of minor, usually one appearance roles. Lack of significant body of work or significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Might be notable some day, but not yet. Niteshift36 ( talk) 06:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Had lead and executive producer of Summit, ( which won best film at London Film Festival), also wrote, produced,directed and starred in Another Stupid Day which won awards, as well as short films he's had the lead in feature films Arizona Sky, and Dark Place, meets WP:GNG, will look for better refs. Atlantic306 ( talk) 00:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing that win documented. Where is it? Winning awards isn't important if the award isn't important. If the award/festival is notable, that's more persuasive. He had a role (the lead character during his teens, not later) in Arizona Sky, which was a niche indie film. Niteshift36 ( talk) 02:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Most of those nominations aren't sourced and have been removed. Niteshift36 ( talk) 17:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as clearly none of this is yet better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep He was the lead of the 2012 film The Dark Place, which had very strong audience reaction for which his performance was lauded, as well as starred in season 7 of Showtime's hit show Weeds (TV Series) as 'Alex' alongside Mary Louise Parker and The Office U.S. TV series with Steve Carrell multiple Disney Shows and Sundance Film Festival selection Nobody Walks New sources now cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:904F:9B00:48A8:AFA7:513E:B47C ( talk) 04:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC) — 2605:E000:904F:9B00:48A8:AFA7:513E:B47C ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Appearing in 3 episodes of a single season of Weeds isn't "starring alongside" anyone. Appearing in a single episode of the Office isn't starring in anything. His appearance in Nobody Walks is so minor that it's uncredited. Yes, he was in the niche indie film The Dark Place. Niteshift36 ( talk) 05:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Andre Saint-Albin

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable musician/DJ. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. The sources are all primary/non-independent except for an article from The Guardian (which only mentions him as someone who was present at the event and gave a quote) and music chart rankings from some site called Beatport. I'm not sure how trustable that website is, but even if the ratings are correct, being #21 on a genre-specific chart is not enough to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. I couldn't find any other noteworthy sources on Google. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 06:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as searches found nothing particularly better, still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep This is a learning experience for me so bear with me (I've seen some very rude comments to others on other claims. You won't get that from me here). "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition." Producer won the Nation Wide mixing+producing competition for Insomniac. Beatport is the world's largest music store for DJs.The chart is a world-wide chart. The EP also ranked (besides the one track) on a site with thousands of tracks. Local scene being a city: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; = Currently ranked #2 in Electronica DJ/Producers on reverbnation The artist also has a featured Pandora station (for both Artist and track) (something that non-notable musicians/DJs cannot obtain without having tracks that have ranked in any charts if I recall). (Once again I'm fairly new to this and have been slowly learning the ways of the WIKI. I will add whatever else is needed (as I have been with every alert/notice). I also started to learn to edit other pages by adding new updates that have not been included. I do consider any artist that Google has labeled as a musical artist pretty notable. as you can tell I'm still not WIKI perfect when adding photos and editing sources but I learn with the help of others like yourself. I'm getting ready to start up another page.... BUT!!!! Learning from this experience first. Once again thank you for your time. Cheers! Shawnkevin007 ( talk) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC) — Shawnkevin007 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, sorry but it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Maybe at a later stage. The -only- reference that actually is -about- the topic is the Insomniac article. All the others are listings or mentions in passing (like the Guardian article, which is about Tiesto, not Saint-Albin). I will change my mind if more sources actually discussing Saint-Albin could be added. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 11:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per WP:MUSICBIO, the artist is not notable. Also, Saint-Albin hasn't gained notability yet so like Reinoutr said, maybe WP:TOOSOON? MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Apoquindo massacre

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan article, Google search only provides mirror sites. Non notable incident. Nordic Dragon 12:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 13:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. Nominator doesn't state why the article isn't notable. In fact, there are plenty of sources in Chilean newspapers cited. Being orphan isn't a reason in itself for deletion. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 22:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I think the difficulty may be that the nominator was only WP:GOOGLETESTing in the English language. If you search under the Spanish term "baleo de Apoquindo", for instance, you will find many primary sources discussing the incident. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 20:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I added a number of further sources. There's little in English but the massacre has clearly become a cause celebre in Chile because the 20th anniversary of the attack produced a wave of articles in the major Chilean press. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 15:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep thanks to WP:HEY by User:Fiachra10003, and, of course, that it truly was a major big deal event. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - per faulty reasonings for deletion. per improvements made. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Pallithanam Luca Matthai

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a very notable person Prof TPMS ( talk) 11:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Acccording to the article he was a member of Travancore's legislative assembly and as such passes the first criterion in WP:NPOL. I was wondering if I could recommend reading the actual notability guidelines before nominating for deletion. Thanks. Uanfala ( talk) 14:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

You can, it's called WP:BEFORE; and Nom failed to read the article thoroughly. In Nom's defense, it is a poorly written article and fails to follow standard practices on Wikipedia, one of them is to start the article with a lede section, a paragraph or so that , in the case of a politician, would set out basic information such as what polity he was active in, highest offices held, etc. This article lacks that. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep as provincial legislator. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
delete I, not Nom, failed to read carefully. The "legislature" involved is one of the popular assemblies that existed during the Raj. I have not looked into this one carefully, they vary, some were political statements constructed as part of the independence movement, in the princely states, some were the sort of consultative assemblies that some monarchies and autocracies continue to put together, but none of the colonial-era assemblies had the kind of power that actual legislative assemblies have, and, therefore, do not confer automatic notability. That said, the men and women elected to them are sometimes notable, but their notability must be established in the usual way. Flag me if such evidence is found and I will reconsider. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC

Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing this out. Uanfala ( talk) 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. I disagree. This seems to have been a formal legislature in one of the princely states and he therefore qualifies per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. I note that neither of the links given as references in the article work, and it is hard to find other sources talking about this person. I did find a comment here by an offsite user named Kuttanadan, who I can only assume is the same person as the main contributors to this article, User:Kuttanadan, User:Hkuttanadu, and User:Kuttanad. It does seem that there are scattered references to Matthai online that corroborate some of the information in the article, though on blogs and the like rather than in reliable sources, and there is apparently a road named after him so I will withhold judgement on notability. — Nizolan ^(talk) 13:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep It does not matter what the context surrounding the assembly was nor the way in which individuals became members. Those things are not mentioned at Part 1 of WP:NPOLITICIAN. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Blerim Mazreku

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This basketballer, created by sockpuppet, does not seem notable after discussions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Driloon77 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#Balkan league. He has not played in notable league and from what I can see no international matches played for "Kosovo national basketball team". Same reasoning as previously deleted article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drilon Hajrizi. Qed237 (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - he plays for Sigal Prishtina, threfore participates in the Balkan League and other international events.-- Mondiad ( talk) 03:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

According to the link provided in my nomination, Balkan League is not enough for notability. Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the delete !vote in the discussion (after the nomination) does not state whether or not additional source searches were performed, and per WP:NEXIST, notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles alone. Per an overall lack of participation here closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Katsuya Eguchi

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) The hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search pertained more to the series for which he is best known than to the individual himself. A redirect to Animal Crossing would suffice. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 06:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep I were able to find an endless supply of big-time news articles and in quite a large amount of them he was described as the spearhead of the Animal Crossing series. He was often the spokesperson for it. I added the note of the Animal Crossing fame and 5 sources. Here's the ping: Czar. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 13:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

If you look at the Animal Crossing titles, he was the director of the first one and has been the producer in all of the subsequent ones, not counting the two spin-offs. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 13:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I just noticed that he was a "general producer" even on the spin-off. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 13:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Right, but the coverage needs to be about the individual. All of these sources are more about the Animal Crossing series than the individual, and as such, can be covered adequately within the Animal Crossing series article. czar 14:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

If he is notable for being the spokesperson/creator of it, then how can the sources not be about Animal Crossing as well? That's like covering Shigeru Miyamoto in the Nintendo article because he's always linked to Nintendo (exaggerated example). -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

It's not that the sources can't mention Animal Crossing but that they should be about him, as in the individual himself should be discussed in depth in the source, usually with biographical detail if the figure is important. Miyamoto has plenty of that. czar 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

If there isn't enough depth in one then multiple can be combined. But I'd rather use the argument of being a notable creative professional here, having created the Animal Crossing series. Miyamoto was also an exaggerated example, look here for less exaggerated: Category:Japanese video game designers. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 23:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Other stuff exists? I see plenty of stuff to delete and merge in that category. As for combining, yes, when the sources address his life in any depth at all... czar 23:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Like I had written before, I were looking at a large supply of sources. Going through the pages even deeper I found interviews about his work and life. Here is a surprisingly indepth article about how he really did create the series: 7 Surprising Facts About Nintendo's Animal Crossing. I think that should really be used to pad his article but I'm not sure how to avoid copyright violation. There's also this interview which talks about his career (more in the video if you download it): Nintendo Video Interview: Katsuya Eguchi. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 23:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

That Edge Magazine interview from the "7 Surprising" sounds really indepth but it's not available online. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 23:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Are we allowed to use full quotes from a person being interviewed for a magazine? In a way it's not the magazine's words, right? -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 23:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete and Draft and Userfy if needed as this is still questionable for solid independent notability, the article has some information and sources but this is all still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment I forgot to mention I updated and expanded the article quite a lot. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 12:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Christian Layland

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. A single Google News search result for "Christian Layland" in the context of the claimed notability and a majority of secondary sources are links from the subject's own blog. Appears to be WP:SPIP - creator username appears to be that of the subject. Further fails criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER (no significant roles, no indication of large fanbase, no unique contributions to a field), and I can't see how the subject might meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:JOURNALIST or the other notability requirements. Tiredgrad ( talk) 04:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, I wasn't able to turn up much on this person, not enough to suggest they'd meet the WP:GNG. I would suggest redirecting to The Football Sack, but I'm not sure how notable that is either; apart from a couple of brief mentions in reliable media most of the stuff I found on that was self-promotion as well. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 02:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC). reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti ^Talk 19:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep, The subject of the article barely meets WP:GNG but does meet it. 206.82.167.147 ( talk) 21:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find enough secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject, cover the subject in-depth, and enough of these sources to assert that significant coverage exists. These are required in order for GNG to be met, which is not so. Hence, I am voting delete. ~Oshwah~^{(talk)
(contribs)} 21:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
delete clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Mike Gasaway

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page's only source at the moment is IMDb (which is why I can't just WP:BLPPROD it) and cursory Googling doesn't show very many other viable sources. Nathan2055^{talk -
contribs} 19:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete via WP:BLPPROD. IMDb is not a reliable source, and is in fact specifically called out as an unreliable source at WP:USERGENERATED. BLPPROD can be applied to an article with zero reliable sources. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 19:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- Upon closer review of WP:BLPPROD, I've realized I'm mistaken -- the reliable source bit only applies when removing the BLPPROD tag, not when adding it. Still, my opinion stands -- the article should be deleted for having no reliable sources and not appearing to meet the notability guidelines. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 19:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep his creative involvement with Emmy Award winning Back at the Barnyard and his Annie Award nomination for Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius mean that notability guidelines are passed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Christos Mavridis

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that Mavridis is a professional player. However, since he is yet to make his debut, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 18:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep following new source which shows notability. Giant Snowman 08:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. Soccerway confirms two appearances in the Greek Cup for Alimos against Chania. At the time, which was shortly after Mr Mavridis' 16th birthday, both clubs were members of the Football League (Greece), i.e. Greek second tier, a league listed as fully professional. These appearances may not meet the letter of WP:NFOOTBALL, but long-time consensus is that cup matches between teams from fully professional leagues are treated as if they did. Mr Mavridis is still only 17 and at the very beginning of his football career. If he never makes another senior appearance, then the presumption of notability can be revisited. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I am now seriously confused. When I looked this guy up on soccerway yesterday there was nothing there, and now he's got a full player profile confirming a number of appearances? What's going on here? In any case, it clearly shows that he meets WP:NSPORT, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. @ GiantSnowman: You may want to revisit your !vote. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 16:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep has played in the Greek Cup for Alimos against Chania as per this both of whom play in a WP:FPL. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 01:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down ( talk) 10:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 13:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Dreams (2016 film)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources for this "super hit movie". I can't find any sources beyond some press-release sounding "coming soon" stories from last year and mentions of a trailer being released in January. McGeddon ( talk) 17:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment There are all sorts of claims in the article that the sources don't back up. On top of that the second ref goes to a page with no info about the film. The third one is mostly about KC arriving at the screening of the film with four bodyguards. As it stands the article is very iffy for me. OTOH MichaelQSchmidt has, in the past, taken stubs like this and turned them into viable articles. I would be interested to see if his skills can do anything with this one before making a final decision. MQS if you are too busy or not interested please forgive my pinging you. MarnetteD| Talk 19:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

alts:

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Napalese:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

translated:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

filmmaker:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lead:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

music:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDAFD: "Dreams Movie" "Bhuwan K.C." "Anmol K.C." "Samragyee RL Shah" "Sandhya KC" "Harkulis Basnet" "ड्रिम्स"

Keep Information within article IS verifiable... just needs some more digging. Who knew that the star is the director's son? Xnepali, Glamour Nepal, Nepali Movieworld et al. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - Probably ok to just put this as a stub. It just needs more work is all. I did a quick basic cleanup of the stub to remove some seemingly promotional material and typos. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep per the research and the work done by MQS and I and thanks to them both. MarnetteD| Talk 13:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The two 'maintain' arguments do not discuss whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. After putting those aside, there is a clear consensus to delete (I did notice that Ekkuto made both a 'maintain' and 'keep' argument). Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

TearSolutions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company by COI editor. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete I PRODed this, not realising it had already been done before. My rationale was: " Non-notable company. It has only received coverage from the University of Virginia, which is not independent of the subject." SmartSE ( talk) 17:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 ( talk) 18:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete unable to find secondary sources regarding subject. The references currently used are either press releases or from someone directly related to the company. Elaenia ( talk) 01:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Maintain The company is making a lot of great progress using the findings from extensive research into Lacratin to develop treatments for dry eye. I would very much like to follow it's progress and have the information accessible here. It has been able to raise over $3 million so I would very much consider it a notable company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekkuto ( talk • contribs) — Ekkuto ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It exists and makes money is not a policy-based argument. Doesn't show it passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 ( talk) 14:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - per GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TearSolutions:

Maintain: In addition to a diverse news sources, I found info about this sbir.gov database indicating its innovative work in an underserved area of biopharma. Would like to keep tabs on its important advances Keepnaet ( talk) 13:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep As far as meeting the WP:GNG. It has received coverage from sources that both reliable and independent such as the Journal of Biological Chemistry^[1] to cover the innovation around lacratin and from Bloomberg Business^[2] and Crunchbase^[3] to cover the business and fund raising side of TearSolutions. The form of dry eye targeted by the company affects at least 7% of world population with no effective treatment at the moment. Lacratin is a novel innovation and Tearsolutions is an early stage company so I hope that we do not penalize the idea and business for having these qualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekkuto ( talk)

References

^ "A Cleavage-potentiated Fragment of Tear Lacritin Is Bactericidal". Journal of Biological Chemistry.
^ "Company Overview of TearSolutions, LLC". Bloomberg Business.
^ "TearSolutions". Crunchbase.

Have mentioned our three brand new accounts at SPI here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Probably should have mentioned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ekkuto before (Ekkuto is the oldest account). Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

John Hackleman

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication he meets any notability criteria. Having done some work with a few notable MMA fighters does not show notability because of WP:NOTINHERITED. The article's only source is a link to his non-notable boxing record so GNG is not met. Mdtemp ( talk) 17:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete As per nominator. When you remove the cruft about people he trained with half the article disappears. Peter Rehse ( talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 19:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete There's nothing in the article that shows he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists or boxers and a link to his boxing record is insufficient to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa ( talk) 00:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - per GNG. Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Game theory#Political science. But there is probably consensus to allow a spinoff article again as soon as there is enough content. Sandstein 08:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Political game theory

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Political game theory" not a field, content of page already subsumed in Game theory, other cuban crisis related pages. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 17:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment It seems a real interdisciplinary field of study. There are books on it, such as Political Game Theory: An Introduction, Game Theory for Political Scientists, and Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction. A GScholar search yields about 340 hits. The topic seems notable. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

At time of nomination, was aware of book "Political Game Theory". To the best of my knowledge, books mentioned above and other search pointers are about application of 'Game Theory' to political science/international relations, and not to a subfield/discipline by itself. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 18:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Misnaming an article is grounds for moving it, not for deleting it. The test for a standalone article is whether the topic is covered in reliable sources, not whether or not the topic is a formal field of study. Spinning Spark 19:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Would you have nominated for deletion if the article had been titled Game Theory and Politics? That's the title of yet another book by the way, to save you having to follow the link. Spinning Spark 19:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

...and by the way, the preface to that book explicitly states that it is an "interdisciplinary field". Spinning Spark 19:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

"Game theory and politics" or "Game theory and political science", definitely no, a page that can be expanded and can serve as a navigation point on the topic/an expansion of Game Theory#Political science. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

As I said in my decline of the speedy delete, game theory does no even mention the Cuban missile crisis (which is mostly what is in this article at the moment) so, on the basis of WP:PRESERVE, we should definitely not delete and should probably keep. The proposer says that there are other articles on the Cuban missile crisis, but do any of them have anything relating to game theory? Just on that one example alone, the article could be vastly expanded. I already added one reference, Game theory and the Cuban missile crisis, when I declined the speedy. I note that there is also an entire book on the subject: Hesse Game Theory and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Many others cover this case in detail: Dodge Schelling's Game Theory: How to Make Decisions has a 37-page chapter "Case Study:Cuban Missile Crisis".

Please see Chicken (game), and Brinkmanship for instances where the Cuban missile crises is reasoned about in game-theoretic terms. Schelling is a notable scholar on this topic. Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 19:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

This is not a question, as the proposer seem to believe, of whether or not this article is a subset of Game theory, but rather, whether there is enough material available for a stand-alone article. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, Volume 2 has a very lengthy chapter on "Game theory: Model of Peace and War" covering numerous crises and conflicts. It does not take much digging to find much more. Spinning Spark 19:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge - One sentence about the cuban missile crisis is not the basis for an article. Chuck the ref in the Game Theory article and be done with it. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete, or Merge, and redirect if the precise title is found to be in use, to Game Theory#Political science. Maybe Game_theory#Political_science should talk about the Cuban crisis example, maybe not (my opinion: why not, it was a major instance of it after all); maybe we should have a separate article Game theory analysis of the Cuban missile crisis, maybe not (my opinion: no, but I could be convinced by good sourcing). But at any rate the current article is not the place to deal only with Cuba 1962, and its current content is not a mine of valuable information that editors would take ages to gather again. Just for the record, here it is in its entirety:

"Game Theory was first applied in 1962 to the Cuban missile crisis during the presidency of John F. Kennedy in the Game Theory causes. The main thing is not to harm any of the parties on both sides Havana crisis. [references] Steven J. Brams, Game theory and the Cuban missile crisis, Plus Magazine (etc.)"

The real question is whether "Political game theory" or "Game theory and politics" or whatever similar name for the general topic (not just Cuba 1962) should be a standalone article. The topic is doubtlessly notable enough, but why not start at Game Theory#Political science and split it later if the need occurs? Tigraan ( talk) 12:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

If the information is encyclopaedic, then the correct way forward is neither delete nor redirect. Deleting on the basis that it "is not a mine of valuable information that editors would take ages to gather again" is not an acceptable rationale. Encyclopaedic information should never be deleted per WP:PRESERVE. On top of that, if it is true, as claimed, that the Cuban missile crisis was the inspiration for developing political game theory (it needs citing of course) then that is encyclopaedic information of the highest importance and definitely belongs on Wikipedia. Spinning Spark 11:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

"Article too short, little information" is certainly not a reason to delete, I agree with you on that. I also agree that Cuba 1962 being an instance of game theory is notable ("encyclopaedic") information. But at any rate WP:PRESERVE is never an argument to keep articles, it is an argument to retain information, so the question is whether a standalone article is warranted when there is a parent article.

I changed my !vote to merge since this is technically better; my point about the shortness of the article was that there is one whole sentence to merge, so not much too start with. But that is better than nothing, sure. Tigraan ( talk) 10:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep As mentioned in my comment above, there exist in depth reliable references that discuss the topic of political game theory, so the topic looks notable. The article is poor, the barest stub, but sources are there to develop the article; it has WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. Reading some of the book I referenced, it is clear to me that political game theory is more that just a textbook application of game theory to political science; there are particular issues with application that have in part caused this to develop into an interdisciplinary field. In the same way the Physical chemistry is more the Chemistry#physics this topic, albeit much newer and less developed, is more than Game_theory#Political_science. In the interest of consensus, I would not be opposed to a merge, but the source materials for a standalone article are there. -- Mark viking ( talk) 18:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I support a merge, but i agree that the source materials are probably there for a standalone. At such time when the section in game theory becomes well fleshed out, it can be split quite easily. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I see two claims in your comment: (1) there is enough sourcing in terms of notability for a standalone-article, and (2) PGT is more than a mere subfield of game theory. While I agree with (1), it is not in itself an argument against dealing with the topic on the parent page: per WP:N's introduction, even if a topic is presumed notable "this is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." I would support editing the parent page until it becomes too big and needs a split on that base. As for 2, well, that is a claim needing a source for that specific point (not just general sources on PGT). Even if true, that is probably not an easy task, but maybe there are review papers of the PGT field that give some difference between PGT and GT? Tigraan ( talk) 10:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Vipinhari || talk 19:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Lin Liangming

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Has not played in a pro-league. So he is not notable.~~ Kante4 ( talk) 17:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Now that i read the other nomination, it was already discussed. My fault for not seeing it... :( Kante4 ( talk) 17:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Amschel Rothschild#Personal life. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Kate Rothschild

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There appears to be no independent notability outside of her family name (and notability is not inherited). The majority of the material in the article was removed as being gossip sourced to tabloids contrary to WP:BLPSOURCES. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Amschel Rothschild#Personal life. Same policy as the nominator, but we tend to do redirects. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP, subject could be a valid search term but doesn't warrant own article. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 04:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note As nominator I would be perfectly satisfied with a protected redirect.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax. utcursch | talk 19:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Subrin Groups of Companies

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Over the last few days a number of SPAs have been posting articles about Subham Sahu (at AfD here) and his companies. If this article is to be believed, the group, founded last year, has expanded enormously in all directions; but any solid evidence of this is hard to find. The first reference in this article is the "about-us" page on the supposed company website, which is a deadlink. The parent page http://www.subrin.website seems to be available but not in use. The other two refs are a directory entry, and a picture of a factory; the "created by" link for the picture leads back to the company's Facebook page.

Google finds the Facebook page which has very little information, and links to the same website. It is beyond belief that so large an empire as is claimed has so little internet footprint: it appears to be a hoax, or at best an attempt to use Wikipedia to make a non-notable startup look vastly bigger and more important than it is.

I have included Subrin Rintel Ltd, one of the subsidiaries, whose references are once again to the group's non-website and to entries in WP lists placed by the SPA authors. JohnCD ( talk) 16:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete -There doesn't seem to be anything about these companies at all except for facebook and these entries. They can not be Notable ( WP:GNG) with no online footprint ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 17:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Non notable, in all probability an exercise in self promotion but may even be a hoax. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Self-promotion of non-notable entities. Elaenia ( talk) 06:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Do Not DeleteI have seen this company's MD Interview on NDTV India. On 26th January 2016, Narendra Modi has awarded Subrin Groups of Companies as an upcoming brand of India. Even i was trying to find the source for this company but was not getting any reliable source. Since it's very hard to believe that this vast expanded company with too few social network out print but will suggest to keep this article going as i can bet the company presence. http://yellowpages.sulekha.com/bangalore/subrin-mapfre-insurance-company-ltd-whitefield-bangalore_contact-address http://subrin-groups-of-companies.shopclues.com/ http://www.indiamart.com/subrin-publications/ http://www.indiamart.com/subrin-curtains/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premikpatel ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Above user is a single purpose account which has only posted 'keep' comments on related AFDs. Elaenia ( talk) 18:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Blocked as sock. utcursch | talk 18:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Wrong venue, take redirects to WP:RFD please (non-admin closure) shoy ( reactions) 20:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Russian propaganda

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary redirect combining with mendacious interwiki from the Ukrainian segment В.Галушко ( talk) 15:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ В.Галушко: if you want to nominate a redirect for deletion, you should nominate those pages at WP:RFD. An admin will likely close this discussion and ask you to re-nominate the page at WP:RFD. Best, -- Notecardforfree ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Biocider Enhancer

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term biocider enhancer yields zero external google hits. Leyo 15:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. If kept, rename to "biocide enhancer/enhancement".

While there are some "recipes" in the scientific literature to improve efficiency of biocides, there is not enough to source a standalone article. Maybe a small mention in biocide could be warranted but I failed to find independent sources (articles are WP:MILL examples of "I found that X improves Y"). Note also that current sources are all from the same research group. Tigraan ( talk) 12:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Tigraan: A small mention has already been added, but I am not really convinced. -- Leyo 13:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Neither am I, and I reverted it. I actually do not think current sourcing is enough for a mention, either. Tigraan ( talk) 10:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as advertisement with boastful hoaxes. The creator is a long-term sock: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SubhamPitambarSahu. utcursch | talk 19:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Subham Sahu

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been in conversation with author attempting to get suitable references applied. This has not been forthcoming. Tags are being removed. Seems to potentially be a hoax but certainly seems to fail WP:BIO? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. I have fixed the refs, which were all deadlinks, but none of them show notability:

1. and 6. Mazale.com: "Posted by shubham", i.e. not independent

2. and 7. Reverbnation - user-generated, not independent

3. and 8. Google+ - user-generated, not independent

4. and 5. Wikipedia is not a reliable source; article written by the same author

This is evidence of energetic self-promotion, but there is none of the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources required for WP:Notability. JohnCD ( talk) 15:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Self-promotion of non-notable person. See Subrin Groups of Companies too. Elaenia ( talk) 06:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Do Not Delete Studied some sources and come to know about Subham Sahu. Paste , I have seen this person's Interview on NDTV India. On 26th January 2016, Narendra Modi has awarded Subrin Groups of Companies as an upcoming brand of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premikpatel ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note the above user is a new single purpose account which has only commented 'keep' on related AFD pages. Elaenia ( talk) 19:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete No evidence of notability at all. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 12:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Vivah Divah

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC with no clear secondary sources. No apparent news coverage and only five Google results for the artist's name, all of them forum or social media posts. No evidence of "numerous hit songs". McGeddon ( talk) 11:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as my searches found nothing better and none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete my sweeps of African media did not find sources.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Also an unofficial sign, her YouTube video has only 130 views as of March 15 2016.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 23:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Loose Kaynon

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, perhaps WP:TOOSOON. I like to mention that Wikipedia is not facebook Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as my searches found expected coverage at News but this is still questionable overall, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lacking reliable sources. It's not even clear how this person passes WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:12, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Aviostart

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see evidence that this is a notable business, meeting either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baltic Jet Aircompany
→ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aero Charter

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Airline companies are generally notable. There is coverage online and in both English and Bulgarian (I have added a link for this at the top of the AfD) that arguably satisfies GNG in GBooks, GNews and elsewhere. This being Bulgarian, there is probably a large number of offline sources in Bulgarian libraries (NRVE). In any event, as this could be merged and redirected to List of airlines of Bulgaria, deletion would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. James500 ( talk) 18:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

"Airline companies are generally notable." Even if it's true, that's an observation, not a rule.

If a topic is notable, then it's notable regardless of the notability of topics in the same category. If a topic isn't notable, then, likewise, its lack of notability isn't affected by the notability or non-notability of topics in the same category. Therefore, the argument "This topic is in category X, and topics in category X are generally notable" isn't a valid argument in evaluating the notability of a topic.

There isn't anything special about this article or this topic such that deleting it on the grounds of failing WP:N would be any more a violation of WP:ATD or WP:PRESERVE than the deletion of every other article that is removed on the grounds of a lack of notability. WP:ATD doesn't even apply here. Its thesis is "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." A lack of notability cannot be resolved by improving a page, as it's a characteristic of the topic, not the content. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 19:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Deleting a plausible (ie non-harmful) redirect violates ATD and R. Deleting mergeable content violates ATD and PRESERVE. Without exception, whether the topic is notable or not. We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article. There is such a fanbase and publishing industry for all things aeroplane related that it is unlikely that an airline company would not receive significant coverage. I can think of an explanation of why there may be offline coverage (GBooks is, as far as I am aware, not digitising the contents of Bulgarian libraries and seems to have a pronounced bias towards America and Britain because that is where it gets books from) and in the absence of a search for paper sources in a well stocked national or university library in Bulgaria, I don't consider that presumption rebutted. James500 ( talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

We aren't talking about a redirect here so your comment about WP:R is irrelevant.

How seriously do you expect us to take the proposition that the deletion of thousands of articles on Wikipedia that has occurred over all these years under the clearly laid out provisions for doing so is in violation of Wikipedia's rules? Fact: We routinely delete articles for failing WP:N.

"We also accept the proposition that some things are so likely to satisfy GNG that they may be presumed to merit an article." No, we do not accept the proposition that because one person has declared something, from his own impressions, likely to meet GNG that we declare it to meet GNG whether or not it actually does.

When someone questions the notability of a topic, telling us without evidence that you just assume the topic meets GNG isn't a helpful response. A useful response is one that shares findings that demonstrate that that topic meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP.

Frankly, I don't understand the idea that any time someone with an aviation background decides to buy a couple of planes to hire out, the business is automatically notable. Is every cab driver who goes into business for himself notable? —Largo Plazo ( talk) 19:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

This is a potential redirect, so the section of ATD called ATD-R applies. R applies for the same reason. It is patent nonsense to suggest there is some kind of difference. Deleting plausible redirects or mergeable content for notability is a violation of policy. ATD, PRESERVE and R clearly say so in express and unambiguous words. If such deletions are taking place on a large scale, it indicates that there is a large WP:CIR problem. The rest of your comments are twisting my words and trying to put words into my mouth. I said nothing about my impressions, I said such topics were objectively statistically likely to satisfy GNG. I did not say that I assumed that the topic satisfied GNG. I said that the sources that come up when you search Google for "Aviostart" and its transliteration into Cyrillic script satisfy GNG (unless one subscribes to a deletionist interpretation of GNG that seeks to maximise the minimum level of coverage required), and that I assumed that there is more coverage offline (ie enough to satisfy even a more deletionist interpretation of GNG). There is no comparison between an airline company and a taxi firm due to the relative expense and rarity of airliners, and the absence of a similar fanbase for taxis. The combined cost of the aircraft listed in the article is something like £11 million (at 1981 prices of an aircraft produced till 2002) plus $8 million. That isn't considering all the other costs, such as enormous quantities of fuel. Running an airline is the preserve of the super rich. Any middle class person could by one taxi. Even a sizeable fleet of taxis wouldn't cost anything approaching that figure. How many cab drivers have twenty to thirty million dollars or more to buy vehicles for a business? (I may be seriously underestimating that because some of the figures I have don't account for inflation). I can see a particularly large fleet of 105 taxis (including vans and mini buses) on sale for £750k right now. You would not get one airliner for that. And there is, as I say, little interest in taxis. Massive jet aircraft like airliners are as glamorous as Hollywood. Taxis are not glamorous at all, probably because most people own cars. There is no comparison. James500 ( talk) 22:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Again, you should give your interpretation of particular guidelines some reconsideration when it leads to the conclusion that gross violations occur routinely, that every person who has ever enacted the deletion of an article on Wikipedia is guilty of them, and that, somehow, you are the only person to be aware of it after all this time. The fact that there is a deletion procedure that this discussion is part of ought to make it clear, behind any possibility of confusion for you, that deletion of an article is a legitimate outcome of this process. If your interpretation is correct, well, hundreds of deletion discussions are active at this minute, so you might want to run and object to every one of them on the grounds that they are all a violation of the rules. Or else sound the alarm at an appropriate noticeboard that there is a whole operation going on in secret on Wikipedia that deletes hundreds of articles a day in violation of the guidelines, and that the creation of WP:AFD must have been an act of vandalism and that it must be expunged.

It is patent nonsense to note that guidelines on redirects apply specifically to redirects? What else? Do all the rules about biographies of living person also apply to office buildings? Do all the rules about lists apply also to articles that aren't lists? I guess everything is about everything, and all the qualifying language we see in the guidelines was put there just to perplex us.

"... and that I assumed that there is more coverage offline": Again, your assumptions aren't relevant. Coverage doesn't exist because James500 assumes that it does. If there is coverage, identify it.

I see no provisions anywhere in the guidelines that something is notable because lots of money is involved. Multi-million dollar transactions and operations seem to make a great impression on you, but they are routine and occur all the time without anyone taking note of them or even being aware of them. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Except that isn't what I actually said to you. Having given careful consideration to all your arguments for deletion, I find them all to be invalid in this particular case. James500 ( talk) 15:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The argument that this article is a potential redirect to a list article is absurd, it's "not even wrong"; if accepted it would apply to every article on Wikipedia and we could never AfD anything. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Completely ignoring ATD would be WP:RANDYish. That said, there are many things that cannot be redirected, such as duplicate articles at implausible titles. If someone was to create a second article at, say, "Aviosmarty" we could not redirect it to the list, because there is no airline in Bulgaria with that name. Even a real thing might have no plausible target for redirection. There is no list of blades of grass to which someone could redirect every blade of grass in his garden. Likewise, some content is not mergeable (such as unverifiable content or content that violates NOT). So there is plenty of scope for deletion even if we follow ATD to the letter. The point is that since this topic is already included in the informational list, and is clearly due weight there, and generally satisfies the criteria of R, it is reasonable, and indeed compulsory under ATD, to redirect it, merging such content as is suitable. James500 ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: There appears to be no significant coverage in independent English-language media, and no reason to assume that Bulgarian sources are any more forthcoming. Multiple shallow trade listings are not adequate to demonstrate a company's notability ( WP:ORGDEPTH). — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

If an organisation satisfies GNG, it does not have to satisfy ORG. Both the introduction to N, and ORG itself, say so. ORGDEPTH is basically an incorrectly marked essay that failed to obtain consensus for inclusion in GNG itself. It only applies to topics that fail GNG but would otherwise satisfy ORG, of which there are probably none, due to the poor drafting of ORG (although it was possible for a topic to satisfy eg WP:NGO without satisfying GNG, before the wording was tampered with recently without consensus). This has been discussed many times at the appropriate venue, and there has always been clear consensus that SNG cannot restrict GNG, they can only restrict themselves. James500 ( talk) 22:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The topic also grossly fails WP:GNG, which states that '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail,'. No such sources have been provided and Google provides none either, we have to base this on the evidence provided by the sources, not on wriggling and wikilawyering. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

It is your opinion that the coverage that Google provides is not significant. I don't agree. And for the record, in view of the arguments you make below, GNG requires neither multiple sources, nor that the coverage in individual sources (where there is more than one), as opposed to the sum total of the coverage in all the sources taken together, be significant. And it is, as you put it, wriggling and wikilawyering to argue otherwise. Lots of little sources are as good as one big one. James500 ( talk) 07:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

No. I am sorry but "Lots of little sources are as good as one big one" is quite wrong. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: see arguments from James500 Arved ( talk) 08:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Please remind us how these overcome WP:GNG's requirement for multiple independent sources providing in-depth coverage. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: No indication it meets WP:GNG, seems not to be notable. - Ahunt ( talk) 17:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete: At there very least make it a stub or link it to something related Dono talk 20:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Airline companies are not intrinsically or generally notable; at any rate this is an air charter company, not an airline. YSSYguy ( talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment. Why? There are two votes based on unsubstantiated claims, five observing that it fails WP:GNG. How much greater proof of a negative do you want? — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 13:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. It's a Bulgarian company that transports cargo and occasional passengers using one of its 3 planes. It is no more inherently notable than a company that transports cargo and passengers using busses or limousines. JohnInDC ( talk) 14:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions qua notability differ, but most of the keep votes are based on the argument that the subject of the article has got reliable coverage, which is a valid policy-based argument, and I do not see a strong counter-argument in the delete votes-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Raphael Lataster

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the IP user 81.135.3.190: non notable person using unreliable sources as a form of self promotion: No third party reliable sources linked to: No evidence of impact provided: article Repeatedly deleted and reinstated. Prod inapplicable as the article had an AfD once in October 2007. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 00:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

To the administrator, if deleted please restore to my user space. There is no dispute that this is an actual person with actual publications. I have reached out to him and have knowledge that he has many more publications in the pipeline, so the requisite coverage is simply a matter of time. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 21:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I find it amusing how often I'm accused of being somebody else. Apparently this IP thinks I'm Raphael Lataster. I've been accused at Talk:MyFreeCams.com#Center section removed of being Lee Huxley. And at Talk:Pandeism/Archive 1#Original Research of being Alan Dawe. I am none of these people, but perhaps there's something about my style of putting things together which lends to this? Anyway, the IP's laundry list of complaints seems to grind a bit of an axe against the atheist community, describing one reviewer as a "pseudo-scholar" in the same breath as noting his affiliation with American Atheists, and declaring Lataster's expressed opinion of another author (a defender of the theory that Jesus existed) as libelous. What is incontrovertible is that Lataster has authored two books, one with Richard Carrier, and a bunch of articles in venues of varying verisimilitude. And incidentally, all of these books and articles are publications which came years after an earlier version of this page was deleted back in 2007. But mostly I want to clear up the implication that I'm a secret self-promoter, under any name I may be mistaken for by the overenthusiasticly accusing. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 03:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The issue is whether he is notable. The blogs are all saying he is far from a reliable scholar to put it mildly, but we do not count them. The ABC has a piece by his former teacher - see http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/12/24/4154120.htm. This also says "amazingly, his article was picked up by the Washington Post of all places. Such is the appetite for the extraordinary!". The Washington Post article is by Lataster, so presumably they invited him to write it. It looks like he will raise more hot air than new serious scholarship, but he might become notable. I do not see enough at this point, however, so delete but allow recreation if he gets more noted in reliable sources. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, this author has been reviewed in peer reviewed sources. It doesn't matter if he has a connection to his reviewers, as long as the reviews were published in peer reviewed sources. Charles Frith ( talk) 05:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, See my notes on the talk page for the article. Changlinn ( talk) 03:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep now, with thanks to Changlinn for improving the sourcing. Blessings!! Pandeist ( talk) 21:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Publishing books and having amazon book references or zero impact factor journals referenced does not establish notability. Aeonx ( talk) 07:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep. Some people write one book their whole life and are notable for that, so it's not the amount written or where published, but the notice taken of it. This guy's been written about by Michael Bird who is an expert in the field, and has been reviewed in sources that do establish enough level of notability. Torquemama007 ( talk) 12:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep: Sources do establish notability of Lataster. MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 06:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Mathias Jakobsen

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems not to live up to wikipedia guidelines for notability - the two articles in english publications are not profile stories about the subject.. Furthermore it seems there might be a conflict of interest with the main contributors of this article ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/MM09MV & /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/Prest.beat.stevens). The two users have not made contributions to any other articles and have cited sources only available in print from both big and small newspapers in Denmark. Thelle Kristensen 10:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as my searches found nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nominator. No reliable sources able to prove notability. MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. will relist properly DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Clinical Development Services Agency

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DGG ( talk ) 08:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: No reason for AfD has been entered. Nordic Dragon 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep Per WP:SKCRIT AusLondonder ( talk) 13:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW unanimous deletion, and ALSO per WP:CSD#G3. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ouch my toes are burining

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was created by the original author claiming it is a mixed drink. A web search threw up zero links for the article title as a drink. Post this, I nominated this article under the A11 criteria as the web search results combined with a plain reading of the article indicated to me that the so-named drink may have been discovered or invented by the author in a pub (say). The A11 criteria mentions that the tag can be placed on an article that "plainly indicates"^[1] that the author or someone close to him "discovered" this topic (the policy also links to the fact that such discoveries may be made in "pubs"). The CSD was removed and a Prod put by McGeddon, claiming that there was no evidence that the creator invented the cocktail. I removed the Prod and provided the web search reasoning for the speedy delete nomination. I provided further reasoning to McGeddon on my talk page, writing that the A11 policy extended to "discoveries" in "pubs" too, as per the exact wordings in the policy. Post that, an administrator JohnCD again reverted me and replaced the removed Prod back on the article mentioning that A11 requires evidence that the author made it up.

I have read A11 deeply and have not found the mention of explicit evidence requirement of the author making up the topic. Perhaps the words "plainly indicates" in the A11 policy alludes to the same (I am not sure). Nevertheless, while I notified the administrator that his move went against established PROD policy (that a removed Prod may not be placed back), I am moving ahead and nominating this article for deletion through this discussion. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

References

^ As per policy: "CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game..."

Delete as unsourced. Reading it again it seems to be a Bloody Mary with a little curry powder, but not a sufficiently notable variant to be worth a merge (nearest I could find getting secondary source coverage was a "Bloody Maharani" with curry powder, and gin instead of vodka). -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as not notable - no sources supplied, none found.

Comment on the procedures involved here:

The policy for A11 deletions is defined by the actual words of WP:CSD#A11, which are "This applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and does not credibly indicate why its subject is important or significant" (my emphasis). There is no such indication in this article, so A11 does not apply and was correctly declined. Just being something made up one day is not enough for speedy.
The rule against replacing a PROD "excludes removals that are clearly not an objection to deletion" (see WP:DEPROD). Replacing a PROD by a speedy is evidently not an objection to deletion, so if the speedy is then declined it is allowable to replace the PROD.

JohnCD ( talk) 12:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks JohnCD for the patient clarification. (As I mentioned on your talk page, it's been a learning experience for me to understand the nuances involved in A11 and in the related Prod tag. This will assist me in the future.) Xender Lourdes ( talk) 04:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. This article has no place in Wikipedia, per, along with the policies mentioned by JohnCD, WP:GNG, WP:CS, and general common sense. Colonel Wilhelm Klink ( Complaints| Mistakes) 01:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. No sources are provided, and I would be surprised if any sources even exist. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete -- I dug around on Google for sources, and I did find the Bloody Maharani (as well as several other mentions of Bloody Mary with curry powder, such as this and this), but "Ouch my toes are burning" does not seem to be notable, as for that I only found Wikipedia. ♫ ekips39 (talk)❀ 22:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence this even exists... Elaenia ( talk) 07:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails notability. I also could find no references at all. Nothing more than a drink recipe, the article reads like something made up.The misspelled title makes me wonder of the article creator might have had one too many of the drinks. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A clear consensus to delete. GraysonAlexander93 and his manager/publicist should refrain from creating or editing a page about Mr Alexander due to a conflict of interest. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:37, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Grayson Alexander

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Has only played minor roles on relatively small productions -- no major roles sufficient to indicate notability. I also can't find reliable sources that indicate that he actually played the roles listed in this article. (also appears to be an autobiography). IagoQnsi ( talk) 03:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

An email was sent to me regarding this page suggesting multiple issues including: no references; before any valid reference could be attached. Since the original email was sent, reference and links were attached to the shows noted on the page and will continue to be added has my career grows. Since my agent feels my credits are enough to warrant an Imdb page, one has been created and a link provided on the page. Yes the page was created today, however, the credits are still valid and will appear on the Imdb page within 72 hours. Furthermore, each show i have been on as its own Wikipedia page and a link provided suggesting that those shows can be considered a Major Production. Yes, i have edited my page with the initial details of my life but my manager/ publicist has continued to include additional information such as: my credits and additional photos. He will continue to work on this page to provide the necessary valid resources to exempt this page from deletion. In addition, I have found actors such as Eliana Jones, Wikipedia pages with less credits and less references whos pages are allowed to remain. If anyone can provide me with information regarding how to keep my page from being deleted please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GraysonAlexander93 ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: GraysonAlexander93 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete - So, if I'm following this correctly, @ GraysonAlexander93: has created and posted an autobiography against policy, then when references weren't available had his agent @ WLMJR: create some on IMDB and add those to the article in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation terms of use regarding paid editing. This is exactly why IMDB is considered a questionable source, by the way. While the author/subject has probably been in the productions cited, notability is not inherited and the mere participation in those productions is not notable. Author/subject's only real argument for inclusion is that other articles exist. Additionally, the author/subject and his agent should immediately stop editing this article per Wikipedia Conflict of Interest policies and the aforementioned policy regarding paid editing. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - Doesn't meet notability guidelines for actors. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- Drm310 ( talk) 15:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete The very textbook definition of WP:RESUME. WP:NACTOR hardly met. Nate • ( chatter) 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as nothing convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Self-promotion of non-notable individual. Elaenia ( talk) 06:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 01:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Uddipana Goswami

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no significan coverage -- merely mentioned in the Times article DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Searches found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment - To be fair, I did find some sources where she has been mentioned. She seems to be an expert on Assam related topics. See links [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. I'm however not sure if she is notable enough. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete doesn't meet GNG, and doesn't have enough publications, or publications in any significant sources, to meet WP:PROF either. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps also redirect, but that's an editorial decision. Sandstein 08:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ray Narvaez, Jr.

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be known for one event. See WP:BLP1E. No real encyclopedic value. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete or Protected redirect - I am the editor Kyle1278 ( talk · contribs) that previously proposed this artical for deletion, it was was contested by EoRdE6 ( talk · contribs). This article does not meet Biographies of living persons. The First two reference is about Ray Narvaez, Jr. leaving the company Rooster Teeth to steam games via Twitch. The third is about Twitch and asks him about how people make money on the website. It is more generalized about making money not about Ray Narvaez, Jr. himself. I support either this article being deleted or Redirected with protection from recreation to Rooster Teeth. Kyle1278 ^(talk) ^(Ctb) ^(log) 00:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Popularity (or income, the 20,000 pay for first Twitch broadcast is rather odd) is not enough to have an article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment in support of keeping. First of all, to address a misconception brought up by Soetermans, popularity actually does confer notability for entertainers, to a degree. See WP:ENT, which states "2. Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following." shows likely notability. Keep in mind that a lot of the sources likely to discuss Mr. Narvaez are primarily online publications, which have a quick decay in terms of search engine findings. Here's several sources that seem to either meet or come very close to meeting GNG, in my opinion: [53] [54] [55] (first three are the ones presently in the article), [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. Given the assumption of notability provided by WP:ENT based on a clear "cult following" as well as the above evidence suggesting GNG is possible to meet, especially if I had access to local offline sources, I believe this should be kept. I'm not directly placing a keep vote myself because I happen to be a fan, but I encourage other editors to consider the sources I've supplied and the entertainer notability guidelines. Pinging Robert McClenon and Kyle1278 to ensure they see the entertainer guideline. ~ Rob^Talk 15:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- I have to disagree, @ BU Rob13:, to me that seems like a WP:ITSPOPULAR-reading of WP:ENT. Narvaez, Jr.'s popularity still needs to be proven by reliable sources, which WP:VG/RS do not. Using the custom Google search engine, I got one result using his real name, while the monniker "BrownMan" just mention him in passing. The other day I found articles announcing a video game that was cancelled from eleven years ago, so I don't see understand why you would think "quick decay" is an issue. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  - @ Soetermans: Using the video game custom search is a bit odd, since Ray Narvaez isn't a video game or a developer. He's an entertainer, and will be featured primarily on entertainment news sites, not video game sites. Playing video games as entertainment generally doesn't result in coverage on video game media, with the sometimes exception of competitive e-sports. I've supplied sources above that clearly show he has received coverage in entertainment, and sources that support his Twitch earnings clearly show he's popular in a non-subjective way. Note that WP:ITSPOPULAR specifically decries time-bound fame, not actual national or international fame, which the sources regarding viewership and donations clearly support Ray Narvaez having. Where sources support national or international fame, that absolutely can show notability because of the sources themselves establishing it. We get into trouble when we start thinking "I know he's famous, ergo he's notable", but that's not what's happening here. ~ Rob^Talk 15:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    - @ BU Rob13:, why would that be odd? WP/VG covers more than video games and video game developers alone, and so do the sources used. If I look up YouTube personality PewDiePie, I get over 3 million hits. There's an entire article on Twitch Plays Pokémon. So Let's Play and game streaming videos get plenty of coverage. Regardless, Narvaez worked with Rooster Teeth on the Achievement Hunter division and currently makes Twitch.tv streaming videos. Those are all very much related to video games, yet Narvaez isn't mentioned in WP:VG/RS. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 17:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      - @ Soetermans: That doesn't change the fact that he has reliable coverage in entertainment. VG/RS is a great tool to establish notability quickly for things very directly related to video games, but it does not establish lack of notability where reliable sources outside of their filters provide coverage. ~ Rob^Talk 17:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        @ BU Rob13: I completely agree with Soetermans, WP:ITSPOPULAR the only two things he has been popular for is leaving Achievement Hunter and Twitch stream that made $20,000. They are non notable popular events but not notable for the over all article. I have read VG/RS several times before he does not meet the guideline, VG/RS for notability of a person you need to follow the guidelines for people not video game sourcing. When it comes to Biographies of living persons, WP:GNG. Kyle1278 ^(talk) ^(Ctb) ^(log) 19:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        
        Also "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." he does not meet this, the Achievement Hunter article already covers his leave mining it into this article is redundant."Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." He has had a following from joining Achievement hunter, most that watch him now come from that following. So you would need a source showing the following back to when ray was still employed by them. "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Note that its plural, he has not made any notable changes, earning money on twitch would just automatically file it under WP:ITSPOPULAR or WP:NOTNEWS he is know from Achievement Hunter. So a mention of him leaving Achievement Hunter belongs on the Achievement hunter page not a separate article. As you can see it's all is all about Achievement hunter fans. As well he fall onto WP:BLP2E which is the twitch stream, leaving a company is not notable when he has gains fans for working with AH, not leaving. Kyle1278 ^(talk) ^(Ctb) ^(log) 13:31, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC) reply

First, I'd like to note that WP:ITSPOPULAR is an essay with no standing other than being an opinion of the editor that wrote it. Having said that, I fully agree with the essay. The differences between an "It's popular" argument and an "It's achieved a large following/cult status" argument is that the latter is backed up by actual facts in reliable sources. It's a reliably sourced fact that Mr. Narvaez has a large following. WP:ENT is a specific notability guideline. WP:GNG must be met, yes, but it's general practice that you assume notability when specific notability criteria have been met unless there is a very good reason to believe it's not notable. You only need to meet a single one of the listed criteria to be "likely notable". The criteria I've focused on is only "Has a large fan base or a significant cult following". Your argument suggesting that the following isn't proven to exist if I can't show it's source reliably is suspect; the criteria only requires the existence of a large following, not an origin story. Whatever the origin of the following, he now has a large cult following on work independent of RoosterTeeth, as evidence by his Twitch viewership and donations. And I don't believe anyone has addressed my effort to show he actually does meet GNG. I provided eight sources that discuss him, his following, and his work. Many center around his leaving RoosterTeeth, but not all of them, by any means, so this isn't a simple case of BLP1E. ~ Rob^Talk 23:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
- I understand where you coming from, but only a note worthy one time event does not meet WP:GNG. An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. The event of "$20,000 from Twitch does not meet notability guideline for Wikipedia:Notability (events). Under other circumstances People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS are in play here. He meets one criteria of one WP:ENT, this does not mean that an article can be based entirely off that point, let alone a event with little coverage. Soured info that lack WP:ENT. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. WP:RS WP:NEWSORG With news media, and BLP the references have to be proved reliably. The one's you stated above about him leaving should be mentioned Achievement hunter. The web animation is part of rooster Teeth and should be added to the section X-Ray and Vav, since it is more broad about the web animation and talks abouts it's debut at the convention RTX (event) in 2014, it mentions both Gavin Free and Ray Narvaez, Jr. being voice actors. the a references to Tubefilter which is questionable as WP:RS. Both the Austin Chronicle and vavel references are not about Ray himself. The Chronicle only mentions him in a image, while vacel(very bad for WP:RS) mentions him helping the return of to the machinima series The Stranger Hood which should be posted on the Rooster Teeth article like X-Ray and Vav. It was a stretch goal for the moive Lazer Team announced by Burnie Burns. As well TwitchCon should be mentioned on the Twitch.tv articular. The articles that actually cover a major event for him fall into WP:BLP1E, it is not a long lasting event nor globally significant. This information would be better used on the other articles due to the lack of notability for a Person. Kyle1278 ^(talk) ^(Ctb) ^(log) 06:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete and Redirect if needed because none of this establishes solid independent notability for his own article. SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) {{#tag:ref| 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep-ish I feel like there is enough notability, although the article doesn't do a very good job of representing it... I can see arguments both ways here however, I knew on creation this would be very borderline. EoRdE6^{(
Come Talk to Me!)} 20:26, 27 February 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 // 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 04:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I would like to note that my long comment/discussion above in support of keeping this article should not be weighed as an editor supporting a keep without considering my stated partiality regarding this subject. While I think my arguments are good (as I usually do), if no-one else has found them convincing, there is almost certainly consensus to delete here. A close as no consensus based solely on my previous comment would be inappropriate in light of my bias, in my opinion. ~ Rob^Talk 19:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Rooster Teeth, where there can be a brief bio/description. It's clear from the sources used that Narvaez's notability derives from Rooster Teeth (mostly mentions in articles about the company) and only appropriate that his own bio article would expand out when (reliable) sources begin to cover him on his own. Right now there's the announcement that he's leaving and his use as an example in PopSci—it's just shy of significant coverage for his own article. Eventually, perhaps, but not now. (Not crazy about the reliability/applicability of the other sources listed above.) czar 15:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete due to even the allegation of notability. Not all Internet celebs are automatically notable. If better sources were found, there could be an argument for general notability, but I'm not getting it. Bearian ( talk) 17:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Populism#Latin America. And merge from history as appropriate. Sandstein 20:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Neo-populism

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism not widely used. Dentren | ^Talk 12:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

To complicate matters it appears to be a genuine albeit niche term from early-2000s academia that has been co-opted by a lawyer called Erick Kaardal, who has an interesting history. He was recently sanctioned over a quarter of a million dollars for a batty lawsuit. He has also published a book about neopopulism. A cynical editor might draw a negative conclusion from this. Of course, I understand that we have to assume good faith, so I suggest that the article should be redirected to populism - the term appears to have no life except as a footnote. - Ashley Pomeroy ( talk) 18:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 17:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC) reply

A redirect could be fine. Any content of this matter should of course be sourced after the redirect. I got the feeling that the article or term was created as a pun on Neoliberalism and populism, to label detractors of "neoliberaism" as "neopopulists". Dentren | ^Talk 12:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Populism per comments of Ashley Pomeroy.-- Ddcm8991 ( talk) 21:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge Populism has a large section for Latin America where neopopulism is mentioned once under Latin America#Populist Socialism. It can be expanded upon there. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 11:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

My specific suggestion is a section titled Populism#Latin America#Neopopulism. -- Mr. Magoo ( talk) 12:10, 21 February 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 // 19:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete "populism" is one of the squishiest, fuzziest terms in political writing. This article offers is useless because it offers no definition and no sources for the undefined "neo-populism" it promotes. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge into populism, per above. The Populism#Latin America#Neopopulism suggestion sounds best to me. Ajraddatz ( talk) 02:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Artur Samarin

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Otherwise non-notable living person known only for being charged with a crime - see WP:BLPCRIME Pam D 20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. The story got a fair bit of trivial news coverage because it was whacky and odd, not because there was anything particularly notable about it. - IagoQnsi ( talk) 23:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 01:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. He fails WP:PERP and is hardly the first to perpetrate this type of deception, as these eight prior examples show. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep See WP:PERP on notability of criminal acts: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." News coverage has been steady since it was first reported two weeks ago -- new details are being uncovered every day. While it's true that he wasn't the first person to pose as high school student, his story was unusual because his motivation was finding a way to stay in the U.S. Moreover, there is no other article that could incorporate material related to this person. His academic success and relatively high profile within local community add to the uniqueness of the story. The notability of this person is at least as high as that of Treva Throneberry. Convex hull ( talk) 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - Per WP:PERP. Is the victim of the crime a "renowned national or international figure"? No. Is the crime "considered noteworthy — such that it is a well-documented historic event"? I also believe that the answer is no. This is not a crime that has been the center of significant coverage by national or international news or articles, and doesn't appear to have made a significant impact to national or international culture, history, or society (such as perpetrators like Mark David Chapman, Lee Harvey Oswald, or Bernard Madoff). Hence, I believe that this article fails WP:PERP. ~Oshwah~^{(talk)
(contribs)} 20:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Redacting vote for now, as more coverage is being added and the story appears to be ongoing. ~Oshwah~^{(talk)
(contribs)} 07:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment - Please wait for additional coverage to appear.
- " Ukrainian Who Posed as Teen in US Faces Sex Assault Charge." Associated Press at The New York Times. February 26, 2016.
- Chokshi, Niraj. " Impressive teen was actually a 23-year-old impostor who slept with student, police say." Washington Post. February 29, 2016.
- Scolforio, Mark. " Lawyer of Ukrainian 'Asher Potts' says client wanted 'to take part in the American dream'." Associated Press at The Morning Call. March 4, 2016.
- Christie, Joel. " Twenty-three-year-old who passed himself off as a high school student was sleeping with a 15-year-old classmate, police say." The Daily Mail. February 26, 2016. Updated February 27, 2016.
The coverage appears to be ongoing, and if coverage continues than any characterizations of it being "not significant coverage" are wrong. Also we already have "national or international news or articles" (Washington Post, AP at NYT, UK Daily Mail)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- Keep - Coverage ongoing WhisperToMe ( talk) 06:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - substantive, international coverage of this unusual con artist, sex criminal [61] makes it notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep - plenty of coverage. good sourcing. WP:GNG. BabbaQ ( talk) 10:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep per sources found by WhisperToMe. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Living Meme

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed without addressing any issues by an IP with no other edits, no edits or response by the article creator in three weeks, so taking it to AFD.

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, WP:NOT#DICT, WP:NOT#OR

Seems to be a content fork from Internet meme to define the creator's invented term "living meme". No sources found that actually use the term "living meme" in the sense of an internet meme that is currently in use. The term "living meme" does see limited use, but only in social media in the sense of people who are themselves "living memes", so this does not even seem appropriate for a redirect to Internet meme. I wasn't sure if this was an obvious enough an invention of the article creator for a speedy "Obviously invented". The article's sources consist of two dead dead links, one copied from Internet meme (the first source in the article, complete with the 2007 access date!) and a broken link to a recent article about 4chan. It appears the broken link should actually be http://nms.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/10/07/1461444815609313.abstract , but the abstract does not mention "living meme" and I'm not going to pay the hefty pay wall price to check further. Meters ( talk) 01:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note that there are also sources which use the term "living meme" with still other meanings, such as "Living+Meme"&dq="Living+Meme"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwpO-F_a_LAhUCLmMKHQ4kBF8Q6AEIKzAD this. Meters ( talk) 01:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, for great justice. -- Gimubrc ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Seems to be a hoax or invented by the article creator. Natg 19 ( talk) 01:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 19:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Clayton Valley Presbyterian Church

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local church. Searches of the usual types located this sentence about the founding of the church, and routine announcements such as found in the "religious notices" section of any local paper. Nothing that is the result of independent academic research or journalism, nothing that sets this church apart from any other or documents a significant effect it has had. Fails to meet WP:ORGSIG, WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:AUD, and WP:ORG. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Churches are generally not notable, and this is a run-of-the mill one. No coverage in books, national news sources, etc. St Anselm ( talk) 02:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Ordinary modern church. Nothing to recommend it historically or architecturally. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete -- A not very good article on a NN local church, as far as I can tell. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non-notable contemporary church. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Carrite ( talk) 06:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 AFD seems to have attracted a lot of outside attention, and while we are happy to consider evidence the article passes the criteria for inclusion, these new, single purpose accounts fail to understand the criteria, as demonstrated by their arguments. In contrast, the delete voters cite BLP1E, which is not successfully challenged using our policies. In the end, we have a lot of passionate pleas to keep and a lot of logic to delete, which cites actual policy reasons. There was some mention of redirecting, but consensus isn't clear and scant discussion was had on this idea. This close shouldn't not be a bar to someone being bold and creating a redirect after delete if they have reason to believe it would truly be useful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Ed Bolian

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

The subject of this article is known for a single event only, that of driving across the country in 28 hours. Apart from this one action, the subject fails WP:Notability. In addition, the article is extremely misleading stating that Bolian broke a "record". His drive across the US was not sanctioned by any official record agency and was in fact deemed a criminal act by several states and counties. There is in fact currently an open investigation in New Mexico where Bolian's vehicle was tracked at 158+ mph. - O.R.^Comms 23:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: While this article is centered around a single event, there are multiple articles of other people attempting and accomplishing the same record, documented here: Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash. The legacy of such an event should be recognized. The subject has also recently participated in the The 2904, which is another coast-to-coast endurance race [62]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CEE:7080:24AF:AD40:C825:B7B6 ( talk) 16:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — 2602:30A:2CEE:7080:24AF:AD40:C825:B7B6 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2602:30A:2CEE:7080:24AF:AD40:C825:B7B6 (UTC). reply
Comment: This page is actually about me. As mentioned, there were a few things mentioned that had not been added that may be useful in establishing notoriety. it appears that those have been added although some further edits may be required. I won the 2015 running of a cross country driving event called The 2904. That event has a page here but it has not included the 2015 results. I have a book set to be released this year regarding the 2013 record and hope to do a few more interesting things in the future. I am past the statutes of limitation for all states and there will be no legal repercussions for any of the drives. I appreciated having the page added and I hope it can stay. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edbolian ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Edbolian ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

I have updated this page with more information related to Ed as a car persona. The Cannonball Run and other endurance races have deep roots in car culture and the community is incredibly interested in the people who challenge it. -- Mmp7700 ( talk) 17:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Mmp7700 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

With all respect to the above comments, which I do believe are in good faith, they all appear to be single purpose accounts created solely to comment on this AfD and there is quite possibly a violation of WP:MEAT if different people were advised to come to this AfD and post uplifting comments. Also, with respect to the person claiming to be the article's subject, Wikipedia has a general rule to Ignore credentials so the original problem of the article, lacking notability, stands as a reason to delete. - O.R.^Comms 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

WP:IAC is simply an essay. It's not correct to claim it is a wikipedia rule. We do have a conflict of interest guideline, however, and that one applies to the above account claiming to be the article's subject. T v x1 21:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: Subject is listed in the legacy section of the page for the Cannonball Baker Sea to Shining Sea Memorial Trophy Dash but as the drive was not part of their events, the last of which was in 1979, it makes sense as a reference there and to have its own page. There are over 10,000 mentions of the record throughout the internet including virtually every mainstream media source. It was discussed on television over 500 times and it was the most read story on CNN.com internationally during the first day it was released with over 4 million views and 7,000 comments. That should justify the notability standard and the additional objection of be a singular interesting talking point seems to have been overcome by the additions made to the page (MTV show, 2904 victory, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edbolian ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC) — Edbolian ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Edbolian ( talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. reply
Comment: The notion that there must be an officiating body to hold a record not only is an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, but it begs the question since who officiates the officiator? Guinness refused to award Bolian the "record" because what he was doing involved the illegal activity of speeding. The notion that it was unlawful does not imply in any capacity that the activity was not a record. There are articles on persons like John Wise and Thaddeus Lowe who may or may not have actually contributed to the first transatlantic flight; however, they are seldom discussed even in the history books. Bolian made national news which is why I heard of him to begin with and continues to make news in the car enthusiast realms. As personal experience in aircraft/supercar deals which I conduct in Atlanta as I travel there frequently, Bolian's record has been brought up more than on occasion. Alex Roy is another person with more exposure but few actual accomplishments. The details of his record are dubious, yet his page is not marked for deletion. Consider long and hard before you actually delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:40.131.227.42 ( talk • contribs) — 40.131.227.42 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 40.131.227.42 (UTC).
Delete - as nom. I am adding this delete statement for the purpose of affirming the nominator has not withdrawn the nomination for deletion and also that the only comments or votes made to this Afd so far have been SPA accounts who are possibly engaged in meat puppetry. The Afd might need to be protected if it continues to be filled with comments from SPA ip addresses, but that is above my level. - O.R.^Comms 20:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep: This came across my purview and I see this as a significant human achievement that has not been duplicated, nor replicated. For the posterity of amazing human achievements, this is worth noting. If the previous arguments against this hold water, then any single human triumph of this type of notability would not be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CEE:7080:79FF:BF79:E257:E77C ( talk) 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — 2602:30A:2CEE:7080:79FF:BF79:E257:E77C ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2602:30A:2CEE:7080:79FF:BF79:E257:E77C (UTC). reply

Please note that the above account appears to be the same user as User:2602:30A:2CEE:7080:24AF:AD40:C825:B7B6 which commented above. Ip addresses are identical. - O.R.^Comms 20:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as a WP:BLP1E, and a dubious one at that. Scr★pIron^IV 20:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom as a WP:BLP1E. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 21:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~. Classic example of WP:BLP1E. There are four reliable sources and one blog about his 29-hour drive; that's the notable event. There is one blog story and no reliable sources about the 2904 race. No sources for biographical information, such as college and former job. The article claims that he was "a personality featured" in an episode of True Life called "I'm Rallying to LA", but the information about that episode at sources like IMDb and tv.com does not mention him, and other references like this and this suggest that he was merely one of "dozens" of people featured in the episode. -- MelanieN ( talk) 21:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Actually, instead of "Delete" I recommend Redirect to Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash, where there is already a decently sourced paragraph about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MelanieN ( talk • contribs) 21:08, 16 March 2016

~~Delete~~ - Single event that's questionable. The other content added does not really seem to make it notable. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply
- Redirect to Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash#Legacy seems more appropriate. -- The Voidwalker ^Discuss 21:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 05:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The Gryphon

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A local student newspaper, without evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are not substantial coverage of the subject. (A PROD was removed without any explanation.) The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 21:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 23:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(
talk) 08:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. A well established student newspaper that has won several UK national media awards. A threatened closure in 2014 was covered in several national newspapers as well as specialist press like the Press Gazette. Nthep ( talk) 14:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Has coverage in national media and other good sources referenced to the article, and has won significant awards, beating the Oxbridge elite, the article has RS and I therefore think that WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 20:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Spa Elaine

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax; see creator's contributions ( Revdrphd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) Cavrdg ( talk) 12:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

To expand on my original nomination, the creator's initial contributions before creating this article included

adding and O'Spaelain families to Cork
changing Kennedy and O'Brien families. to Kennedy, O’Brein and O’Spaine families. in Annals of Nenagh
changing Robert Marshal to Thomas Jr Spaine in Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency)
changing Sir Henry Vane to Thos. Spaine the Younger, Sir Henry Vane in Third Protectorate Parliament

The only mention I can find of the village apart from mirrors is here which looks like a straight lift from the article. O'SPAELAIN, as a name, appears in a thread on boards.ancestry.com. Other mentions look to be from the creator's edits on WP. -- Cavrdg ( talk) 11:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

DElete -- Unless this is an archaeological site that has become a tourist attraction, I can see no substantive content other than that a NN village existed. I am not sure that there is anything worth merging to Skibbereen, which might be a possibility. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete I cannot see a case for notability here. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Antoine Saout

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No title WSOP, WPT and EPT. Melty1234 ( talk) 07:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 22. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 10:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. The consensus is that Andrad has no notability apart from the band, so the decision to delete the article about him seems clear. Consensus also favors the deletion of the band's article, but I will userfy it on request if anyone wants to work on it or thinks that better, independent sources may become available in the future. Deor ( talk) 15:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Uncrowned

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Articles about a band and its lead guitarist, neither of which have any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Both articles are written far more like advertorial public relations profiles than encyclopedia articles, Andrad's BLP is completely unsourced and the band article is sourced only to dead links. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band or its individual members are entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — reliable source coverage, attesting that they meet one or more of our notability criteria, must be present to support the article, but neither of these has that at all. Colour me not surprised, as well, that the band article (which has been around for a while) has been edited by User:UNCROWNED, while Andrad's article (a new creation within the past week) was created by User:Jackandrad — insert reference to our conflict of interest rules against WP:AUTOBIOs here. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 03:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

There are several links from outside sources to support this band and the musicians in it, here is an example from the official Spin magazine website

http://www.spin.com/2014/02/art-of-hustle-uncrowned-sxsw-2007-charles-aaron/ Another example from the official Gibson guitars website: http://archive.gibson.com/absolutenm/templates/FeatureTemplate.aspx?articleid=338 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.98.157 ( talk) 05:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

The "official Gibson guitars" website does not represent media coverage about them — it's a Q&A interview on the website of a directly affiliated company, which means it cannot support notability. The Spin article is good, but one good article about a band is not enough to get them into Wikipedia by itself if it's the only acceptable source — we require several articles of that caliber before a band gets in here, not just one. Reliable sourcing for a Wikipedia article is not "any website at all that supports the content, even if it's just the band's own self-published website" — it's real media (newspapers, magazines, books, etc.) which are fully independent of the topic, and nothing else. Bearcat ( talk) 17:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as I found nothing better convincing than one link at Blabbermouth. SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Some links have been updated, the page is informative about the band. Do not delete The Page about Jack Andrad also has substantiated links and information about the person. Dot not delete.

Neither a band nor a musician is entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because their own self-published website verifies that they exist — either class of topic must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to earn a Wikipedia article. Neither article, however, contains any sourcing but their own website and their record label's website, and that's not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a band in here. Bearcat ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC

Here are 4 more articles from different websites on the band:

http://tourbusmusicshow.com/2012/10/16/the-tour-bus-music-show-episode36-an-interview-and-music-with-jack-andrad-from-uncrowned/

http://msbrandyrock.blogspot.com/2011/01/jack-andrad-uncrowned-random-questions.html

http://musicincider.com/index.php?action=interview&sub=article&id=601

http://www.musicincider.com/index.php?action=interview&sub=article&id=262

Blogspot blogs and podcasts don't count as reliable sources. As I already pointed out above, reliable sources are things like newspapers, magazines, books — not just any website at all that you can find that supports the content you want to source. And none of these links meet the criteria necessary to be considered a reliable source. Bearcat ( talk) 22:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Below are 10 more links with uncrowned including actual print magazine publications and more related to uncrowned and the American Music Awards, CMJ and Dick Clark and more. http://www.redrocker.com/news/atlantas-uncrowned-wins-national-rock-competition

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/atlanta-s-uncrowned-wins-national-rock-competition/

http://525powertracks.com/Featured-Band/Uncrowned.htm

http://www.idolator.com/269234/rock-critically-correct-spin-parties-like-a-rock-star

http://clatl.com/atlanta/the-venue-closing-blues/Content?oid=1262383

From Amarican Music Awards: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/and-then-there-were-10the-american-music-awardsr-presents-the-coca-cola-new-music-award-semi-finalists-70984727.html http://hitsdailydouble.com/news&id=276829

http://www.atlantamusicguide.com/newsletter_06032005.htm

From the Creative Loafing (Atlanta Print publication) http://clatl.com/atlanta/locals/Content?oid=1236706

http://www.mi2n.com/print.php3?id=42590

https://books.google.com/books?id=atUYm-gM0KEC&pg=PT9&lpg=PT9&dq=uncrowned+%22dick+clark%22&source=bl&ots=_xMpYOyhDO&sig=RnR5xvAoDSRNb02z_uINFqkmDME&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFodHghY_LAhVBPCYKHa_7AMkQ6AEIPjAJ#v=onepage&q=uncrowned%20%22dick%20clark%22&f=false

http://newmusiclab.blogspot.com/2006/01/headbangers-lab-jan8th-2006.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.177.186.9 ( talk) 00:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Article on World News: http://article.wn.com/view/2011/03/18/Uncrowned_Guitarist_Jack_Andrad_You_Have_to_Think_of_This_as/
FMQB hits article on radio song additions: http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=491759
More online content here: http://hardrockhideout.com/2009/07/page/3/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.177.186.9 ( talk) 00:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

You're not getting how this works. Those are almost all still blogs and press releases, and the only one that is neither of those things is a news aggregator picking up a blurb from a user-generated content site to which anybody can submit any "news" they want — which means it's not a real or notability-conferring media outlet. So you still have not shown a single reliable source besides the one that we already had. Read again what I said about what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't — because if you keep throwing more unreliable sources at this discussion, you're going to be running a very real risk of getting editblocked for being disruptive. If you want to save the articles, you need to find good sourcing — which is, again, not the same thing as "any page at all that you can find on the web with their names in it". Bearcat ( talk) 01:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion here, Uncrowned and Jack Andrad.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete both. The Spin article is good, but that seems to be the extent of the in-depth coverage they got in reliable sources. The remainder are blogs and trivial mentions. I don't see how Andrad has notability independent of the band. If the band's article is kept, then we can redirect Andrad's article to it. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep and do not Delete both. Seems to me there's enough content to let the pages be, based on the links I saw above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.177.187.205 ( talk) 19:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Exactly zero of the links listed above represent reliable source coverage — they're all blogs and/or primary sources. Bearcat ( talk) 16:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Weak keep for the band, and only if so, redirect Andrad to the band's article. The Spin article is indeed nice, but the whole, er, "spin" of it militates against a finding of notability on close reading. In no event do I see independent notability for Mr. Andrad, particularly versus any other member of the band. I suspect the IPs monitoring/commenting on this discussion have connections to the band; I wish the band well even if they fall short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and urge their proponents to channel their marketing energy elsewhere in hopes of helping the band gain that notability, rather than discrediting its credibility through misguided self-advocacy. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. MrWooHoo ( talk) 21:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Aaron, Charles (June 2007). "The Art of the Hustle". Spin. pp. 80–87. Archived from the original on 2016-03-20. Retrieved 2016-03-20.
  The article summary notes:
  Uncrowned have a slick sound, endorsement deals, a potential monster hit, and major-label dreams. Charles Aaron pounds the pavement with rock's hungriest unsigned band to find out why talent and determination may no longer be enough. Photographs by Misty Keasler.
  Here is a quote from the first page:
  "I'd rather drag my penis through ten miles of gravel than be here," says Stephen Bazzell, lead singer of the unsigned Atlanta modern-rock band Uncrowned. He slumps down in a plush chair, scowling from beneath a baseball cap pulled tight over a red do-rag. Bazzell and his bandmates are killing time while their manager, Bret Bassi, is on a sofa across the way chatting with a (seemingly sloshed) publishing exec from Universal Records and a certain songwriter-for-hire.
  "It's some guy who helped develop a band I fucking hate," spits Bazzell. He won't elaborate, but later I discover it's the mastermind behind the Oklahoma band Hinder, the most commercially successful new rock act of the past year. Hinder's shtick as a sleazier Nickelback is pretty crass, but they did record the most undeniable power ballad of 2006, "Lips of an Angel" (also a country hit for Jack Ingram), cowritten by the man on the sofa, Brian Howes. Uncrowned, who are in the midst of recording songs they hope will lead to a major-label deal, have already met with a couple of cowriters—most notably Lee Miles, who worked on one of last year's surprise rock breakthroughs, the debut album by emo-ish Florida pretty boys the Red Jumpsuit Apparatus, and who recently toiled on the latest for the neo-grunge lifers Puddle of Mudd.
  But as the members of Uncrowned gain more faith in their own abilities, they feel increasingly uneasy about the cowriting gambit, a driving force behind mof of today's rock hits than anyone cares to admit. They're trying to forge their own sound, but they also want to succeed, or least make a living as a band, especially since Bazzell and headstrong guitarist Jack Andrad have been writing music together since 2001 and touring the Southeast with different lineups since 2003.
2. Tattersall, Pete (2004-07-15). "Bands in Battle - Rock Groups Compete at Palace Casino's Z Club". Sun Herald. Archived from the original on 2016-03-20. Retrieved 2016-03-20.
  The article notes:
  Last Thursday, three bands slugged it out for 30 minutes each. Uncrowned, a band that road-tripped from Atlanta to participate, came out on top after battling Before 9, a Lucedale band, and Waiting for Brantley, which hails from Laurel. Uncrowned will now compete in the regional finals on July 29, in the hopes of eventually reaching the national finals.
3. "Gig Guide". The Telegraph. 2007-01-05. Archived from the original on 2016-03-20. Retrieved 2016-03-20.
  The article notes:
  Uncrowned
  Jack Andrad, guitarist for this Atlanta "modern edge rock" band, says he chose his life path after seeing a Judas Priest concert at age 12 or 13. This led to lots of hard rockin' and hard livin' - once in Mexico Andrad took beer-chugging lessons from Nickelback's Chad Koeger. But he and his band stayed sober long enough to win a Hard Rock Cafvìé band competition in 2004. Uncrowned makes aggressive metalesque music a la Linkin Park and Velvet Revolver.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Uncrowned to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 00:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge/redirect the Jack Andrad to Uncrowned. Cunard ( talk) 00:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete The extent of the in-depth coverage are not from reliable sources. Majority of them are tabloids, which cannot be considered fully independent. Nik.gourley ( talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage, of a non-primary nature, in independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Weak Delete on Uncrowned. The Spin article is actually an article about how hard it is in the music industry right now. The writer's editor likely said, "Go find a talented but unknown band and tell their story as a way to illustrate and put a human face on what's going on in the biz right now." I'm not sure that can be used to prove notability. On Andrad, definitely delete, or if we keep Uncrowned, merge. valereee ( talk) 13:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be going nowhere. A quick search revealed some more sources so it is possible to improve the article. Closing now. Tone 09:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Archaeological Society of Slovenia

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded by Eleassar. The article's subject fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete There are absolutely no citations indicating this entity has been significantly covered in multiple secondary sources, and a very cursory Google search of the exact name produces Wiki-mirrors for me. If there are Slovenian media sources regarding the organization, the article creators are encouraged to add them. If not, this is presumed to be a non-notable organization that does not follow Wikipedia's guidelines. - Markeer 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep; the society's activities are regularly reported by national media, especially the award ceremonies ( [63], [64]), then there is a mention of symposium on bronze age in a scientific monograph published by the national academy ( [65]), proving that the society is an important organizer of archaeology in Slovenia. The text in this Wikipedia article was previously published on the national portal Culture.si ( [66]) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment and Concern: Valid links are great. As I had mentioned this article needs them added to pass GNG. But your last comment here is extremely concerning, that the entire text of this article was previously published elsewhere, as that strikes me as a copyright violation. That Culture.si page seems to follow Wikipedia's standard format so I would have presumed that it was a mirror site. Yerpo, can you confirm which website this text appeared on first (preferably with some evidence)? I'm seeing the Wiki article was created on April 10, 2011 whereas the first snapshot of Culture.si taken by the Wayback Machine is September 23, 2011...but of course the Wayback Machine is far from infallible. - Markeer 20:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Markeer: why is it concerning? As I said, the text is published under a Wikipedia-compatible license. What's more, Culture.si terms of use expressly encourage copying to Wikipedia. There is only a matter of attribution, which, admittedly, was lacking until now. But yes, the Culture.si version was published earlier, according to that wiki's history. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

It would be helpful to anyone who wants to look for sources to know the name of this society in Slovenian. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

OK, I see that it seems to be Slovensko arheološko društvo. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 22:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep -- WP is often dubious as to the notability of academic societies. One of the difficulties is that the main source of information is usually an internal one. I would suggest that this one is WP-notable, as it is the national society in its field, publishing an academic journal. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. There were a couple of suggestions to userfy, but nobody so far as come forth and said they would take it. If anybody wants to work on this (by which I mean, hold on to it until he meets notability), just ask me or any admin to restore and userfy it for you (or move to draft). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Mickey Gall

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to satisfy WP:NMMA. He has only fought 1 fight in a major organization, not the 3 required by the guidelines. Rockchalk 717 17:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete As per nominator. Peter Rehse ( talk) 19:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. No objections to userfying article until he becomes notable. Mdtemp ( talk) 15:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Fails WP:NMMA, but I think passes WP:GNG. The main reason is that he is the fighter that is supposed to fight CM Punk in his MMA debut. CM Punk's debut is gaining a lot of coverage and makes sense considering the links between MMA and WWE. This goes beyond WP:INHERENT since his proposed opponent, Gall, is gaining coverage in of himself due to being the proposed opponent. Here are some examples - [67], [68], [69], [70], and [71]. I think these go beyond WP:ROUTINE because they don't just give a fight recap, talk about "fights to make next", etc. They go into detail about Gall, how his fights impact the debut of CM Punk, and go into far more detail than a fighter that didn't even make TV of a UFC Fight Night card. Also, Gill has gained coverage not normal to a guy - his lone fight was covered in detail abroad (see [72]) - nor normal coverage for MMA - financial implications are covered by Forbes (see [73]). Also, the proposed fight appears delayed. Rare for a guy with one fight that wasn't even on TV to have joke top ten lists on who he should fight next (see [74]). Special case here, but I do think he meets GNG, therefore keep. RonSigPi ( talk) 04:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC) reply

There has been a lot of hype for a fight that hasn't happened. It's worthy of pro wrestling. It seems like there are elements of WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:BLP1E involved. It may well be that Gall will be a notable MMA fighter, but right now he's not there and I don't think all the coverage for an fight that may not happen is a guarantee of notability. Papaursa ( talk) 00:23, 28 February 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 // 19:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Fails the narrow MMA test, passes the broader GNG. Punk's made him mainstream famous for at least fifteen minutes. The MMA one is only for fighters nobody's really talking about. Not sure which impossible standard we use for undefeated televised champion Justin Gaethje, but Gall's another story. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't see how his "15 mintues of fame" constitutes notability, which is not considered temporary, or how this is not a case of WP:BLP1E. As for Gaethje, he doesn't have an article because he has never fought at the highest level and appearing on television is not a guarantor of notability. The new proposed notability criteria for MMA being discussed at WT:NSPORT#MMA fighter notability proposal would include him, so if you feel his omission is an injustice feel free to comment there. Papaursa ( talk) 03:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Nick Newell's 15 minutes are up, and you figured he passed, before he'd even had his shot at Gaethje's belt. Mainstream sources generally find the unusual notable, same as here. Gall's had two notable fights, so 1E doesn't apply. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment If I had to vote to keep or delete, I'd vote to delete because so far I don't think the case has been made yet for notability. Fortunately, I don't have to make that choice. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG because of a pro wrestling style feud that smacks of BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I do think the odds are in his favor that we will eventually meet WP:NMMA, but he's not there yet and there's no guarantee that he will make it. My choice would be to userfy the article until such time as he meets WP:NMMA so that the article doesn't have to be recreated from scratch. Papaursa ( talk) 00:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete This is a particularly interesting situation. It's clear the fight received additional coverage from WP:ROUTINE. The stories are more about the fight than the fighter. If we look at the fighter alone, they are essentially WP:BLP1E -- the other fights are not notable. They're from very small or amateur promotions. In both cases, we fundamentally have to look at WP:LASTING to which I doubt there is any. As such, I don't think we should have an article because there was hype about one event. We should have articles on athletes of accomplishment and their career and coverage of it as a whole is not there. Mkdw ^talk 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The news covered both of his pro fights. A notable debut, a notable set-up bout and (eventually) one of the most notable matches in UFC history. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

While I know its a different situation regarding scope, the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao fight had an article 2 years before the actual fight and well before anyone thought the fight would actually happen. The prospect of that fight was lasting, even if it had never taken place. Also, wikipedia covers what is notable, not just what is accomplished. As I have said before, being good is not the same as being notable. Eddie the Eagle was notable not for being good, but for being not good. I understand the WP:BLP1E concerns, but its really two events - his first UFC fight and the proposed fight against CM Punk. That is two events, even if one is only proposed. The coverage was about the fight, but detailed the fighter as well. I agree its a specific situation, but I think that goes toward keep based on the coverage. RonSigPi ( talk) 04:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Consolidated Media Associates. As an apparent duplicate. No consensus as to whether the subject is notable; that could be determined by an AfD of Consolidated Media Associates. Sandstein 13:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

CMA Group

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I'm not seeing enough evidence of notability. Although I found one or two sources about its founder and that's not an evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 20:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as questionably solid enough for the applicable solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. I could not find any reliable sources covering the subject too. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 08:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. We wouldn't dream of claiming that one of the biggest media conglomerates in a smaller country that happened to be Western and anglophone was not notable, so why should we do so for an equivalent company in the world's 7th most populous country? 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep and Merge with Consolidated Media Associates, which is clearly the same organization. There seems to be a number of potential cites that validate the article, but I'm not qualified to pass judgment on Nigerian media for WP:SECONDARY. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Well spotted. Of course the articles should be merged. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:50, 29 February 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 // 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Weak delete: Many mentions (About 17 articles from RS), but little coverage. Esquivalience ^t 02:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Please Look Again: I found a number of press articles that discuss the company. There's almost nothing under "CMA Group" but a decent number of seemingly credible articles under "Consolidated Media Associates". Fiachra10003 ( talk) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Article could do with more cleanup, though. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

User:Esquivalience didn't make any comment about the argument for merging above, so it seems that, as seems to be standard practice in these deletion discussions, that comment took no account of the discussion that had taken place before. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. Sandstein 13:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Michele Gonzales

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find no references for this character. she simply exists in the spiderman comic series, but has had no discussion outside obscure fan sites. can be recreated if and when its confirmed she is the new character in the upcoming spiderman film. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 00:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep - comics are hard to 'source' since we can't link them directly due to copyright restrictions.. I remember reading one comic where her character was present so is notable (by comics standard) and since the news broke of Zendaya being cast as "Michelle", this article has received nearly 10,000 views...-- Ste moc 03:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: G. The character isn't independently notable, but is notable within Marvel Comics. If the character does appear in a film, any new sources discussing it will probably fit just fine in the cast section of the movie article. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge The character seems important enough that we should cover her, but not enough to have a standalone article. Merge per User:Argento Surfer, until sufficient notability for a standalone article has been demonstrated. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 04:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Skiff. Or elsewhere as subsequent discussion may determine; where to merge which content (if any) may likewise need more discussion. Sandstein 13:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Skiff (sailing)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is little edited and just duplicates content still existing on the main skiff page. May as well go... 212.159.44.170 (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC) [Completing a nomination on behalf of IP 212.159.44.170 Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 17:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Pointless duplication of info already on the main page. Clarityfiend ( talk) 03:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Skiff. -- Reinoutr ( talk) 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Merge and redirect to Skiff. There is in principle no reason why one could not build an article on sailing skiffs; a quick search shows the subject is notable, with a good history of this sort of boat. But this article is largely redundant with the main skiff page, so a merge back in seems appropriate until someone decides to write a well-sourced main article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 22:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge and redirect to Dinghy sailing. Sailing skiffs seem to be a specific subset of sailing dinghies native to Australia and New Zealand. Further, I think the skiff sailboats are relatively unrelated to a traditional skiff. I would additionally favor moving the Racing sailing boats section of the skiff article to the dinghy sailing article. Mindfrieze ( talk) 16:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The Mud Connector

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. ( ?) It has only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to the main MUD article or a MUD community section could suffice. czar 03:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 03:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, only mentioned in passing. Not notable for its own article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep. Characterization of the existing Yahoo! Wild Web Rides cite as a passing mention is inaccurate, and the topic has so much activity in Google Books (much moreso than in the WP/VG:RS search) that it seems unlikely that that's the only significant coverage available. I'll try to get additional notability-establishing citations actually added to the article, and will update here if I'm able to follow through on that. —chaos5023 ( talk) 18:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Edit— the article now has four notability-demonstrating citations, passing the GNG by a very comfortable margin. No reason not to upgrade my opinion to a strong keep. —chaos5023 ( talk) 01:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
There is quite literally not enough source material as given to write more than a short paragraph. That's what happens when we are left to string together passing mentions. czar 13:56, 29 February 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) 06:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: I've added three new book citations with substantive discussion of the nature of the topic (ignoring all of the passing mentions that just refer the reader to the site as an authoritative source, or the authoritative source). Please review. —chaos5023 ( talk) 17:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
If this is the bottom of the barrel, we're still better off having a paragraph on this site within some larger section (e.g., the MUD community/scene section mentioned above) rather than this sole paragraph on its own page. czar 23:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Okay, but you're now arguing for deletion on the basis of aesthetics, not the GNG. —chaos5023 ( talk) 00:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Not true. My stance is that a few culled sentences that mention the website's name in passing together do not constitute significant coverage (the essence of the GNG). That the website is not the subject of in-depth coverage is the reason why I can say there's not enough for a dedicated article. czar 03:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It's certainly the case that "a few culled sentences that mention the website's name in passing" would not meet the GNG, but it's unclear why you would mention it in this connection, as there are four known sources that discuss the subject at paragraph length or more — "directly and in detail", as the point of reference you invoked in generating the AfD articulates as a standard. The level of detail in some of these sources seems bizarre — why readers of a book would care exactly what data fields a MUD listing contains escapes me — but it's certainly detail, and bears no resemblance to the literally dozens of actual passing mentions of this site in Google Books that I haven't bothered compiling, nor to the examples of passing mentions available in consensus-established guidelines. —chaos5023 ( talk) 15:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone familiar with AfD would consider these circumstances unclear. If the sourced text is the best we can do, we've proved that everything that could need to be said about this topic would be better said within a parent section—that is the GNG and the rest is commentary. Nothing else to add here. czar 19:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I wish you'd justify considering these clearly addressing-the-topic-directly-and-in-detail citations to be "passing mentions" when they clearly don't match the criteria established by consensus for that categorization. You seem to be just waving your hands at them and going WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I don't think a supercilous appeal to being "familiar with AfD" sufficiently supports that. —chaos5023 ( talk) 19:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete at best as searches found nothing better and none of this is better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Please provide justification as to why the four (4) source citations discussing the subject of the article at paragraph or greater length, with specific details about the subject, do not qualify as addressing the subject "directly and in detail", thereby easily passing the GNG. Thanks. —chaos5023 ( talk) 15:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep. MUDs are a niche subject, but the Mud Connector is certainly notable, and it has been mentioned in many publications in the field. See also WP:NEXIST; a number of additional sources have been provided since the AfD was generated. KaVir ( talk) 23:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
And? They've shown that we don't have more than a few sentences of sourced content in the most esoteric of references. The sources for this discussion do not focus in any way on this website, but describe it as a blurb in the context of the MUD community. These specific mentions do not go into any great depth on the singular importance of this website apart than that it exists and perhaps has some import in the MUD community—there's nothing barring such an inclusion in a MUD community section of another article but we're not nearly at significant coverage for compiling every mention in every extant source. czar 14:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
You keep saying "a few sentences" as if it were damning, but a few sentences that address the topic directly and in detail meet the GNG as written. —chaos5023 ( talk) 20:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
It's not just "a few sentences", either. One of the sources I found after five minutes digging is an entire article in a published magazine that explains how to find the right MUD using The Mud Connector, going into detail about using the available search critera, the importance of reading the reviews, and so on. KaVir ( talk) 21:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
~~This is your only edit to the page and the only citations added are primary sources... The Mud Connector does not prove notability for The Mud Connector.~~ "A few sentences" is damning—if the sources added to the article in this AfD are the best we can do on the subject, then we've proved that there is no way forward for this article's expansion, so we either agree to keep it a permastub composed of mentions, or to merge the content into a home with similar content, such as a section or page on the MUD community. Either way, no, these mentions do not together constitute significant coverage for the GNG. At the risk of repeating myself, I won't be responding unless there new sources are unearthed for discussion. czar 00:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Why do you consider the Mud Companion magazine to be a primary source for the Mud Connector website? KaVir ( talk) 01:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply
My error—I misread Companion as Connector—but while not primary, the Companion magazine is a hobbyist and unreliable source. It has no hallmarks of editorial quality or reputation for fact-checking. czar 15:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what you mean by "hobbyist", but it was a commercial magazine that was sold both online and in physical stores. In terms of editorial oversight, the magazine lists a team of editors in the credits. The link you provided explicitly states "Other reliable sources include: ... Magazines", so I'm not quite sure why you consider this one unreliable. Could you please elaborate? KaVir ( talk) 21:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Hobbyist as in not professional. I too can distribute my zine to three local comic book stores—being a "magazine" doesn't make my content reputable. That would require either editorial or content backgrounds on the part of the editors, or some other hallmark of quality. This is all the time I have for the subject but the folks at the reliable sources noticeboard would be happy to walk through why the Companion is not a good source for proving the wide notability of a subject. czar 22:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Czar, you keep doing this thing where you segue smoothly from talking about the GNG to using some private standard of your own that I'm not sure you understand isn't the GNG. There is nothing in the GNG requiring that the GNG-satisfying references comprise enough material to write an article comparable in scope, depth and wikigroaning exploitability to Emperor Palpatine. The standard for significant coverage is that the sources address the topic "directly and in detail", which these sources do. When you start talking about permastubs, not only are you arguing from your personal esthetics rather than standards, your logic is just wrong; even if the GNG-satisfying sources would only provide material for a stub, once you have GNG-satisfying sources (y'know, like the ones we have in this case), you can build the actual article out of a much broader array of sources than those, because the actual text in the article only needs to satisfy WP:V, not WP:GNG. —chaos5023 ( talk) 00:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep per the provided references satisfying the WP:GNG. I am cognizant that this may be a permastub, but I am also skeptical that there is a good merge target (else that would be my !vote); if that's a desired outcome, perhaps Czar can provide his preferred target? -- Izno ( talk) 14:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Izno: I suggest MUD#Community. (I've already merged any content worth merging there. The rest was passing mentions from guide books or original research from newsgroups. ...there really is nothing substantive written about this site other than that it exists. The sources are all overlaps.) czar 14:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Izno czar 14:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I think the content there looks okay but less sparse than it should be. I'll keep my keep above, however, since the keep wasn't contingent on the "find a place to put this". -- Izno ( talk) 16:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Due to the current sourcing provided for the article, the article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

OKComrade

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is promotion of project of questionable notability Jes5199 ( talk) 18:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep covered in the Guardian and Telegraph SatansFeminist ( talk) 19:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity ( talk) 01:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete and draft and userfy instead because my searches found a few extra links many of which were actually listed here to begin with. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. The article has coverage in Critical Theory, The Telegraph and Digital Journal for one quotation each. The reminder of the sources are Facebook mostly, with one buzzfeed, one Twitter and one Huffington Post source, all which are sources to avoid, especially the Huffington Post one. As for the contents, it generally lacks core contents. Everything in it is either anti-OkCupid content or trivia that can only complement core material. In general, there is an absence of notability and content. Best regards, Codename Lisa ( talk) 14:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep, sources to full articles about the subject in The Telegraph, Digital Journal, The Daily Dot, and The Huffington Post. Antrocent ( ♫♬) 22:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and, in particular, Codename Lisa's note above on the poor quality of the sources. Besides, we don't need a page for every internet startup, however amusing. -- Gimubrc ( talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete no justification of long term significance or impact - has no established impact on online dating. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS -- Callinus ( talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC) reply
'Keep' The soucrces are there so it meets WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 ( talk) 05:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) reply

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

[1] "A Cleavage-potentiated Fragment of Tear Lacritin Is Bactericidal". Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[2] "Company Overview of TearSolutions, LLC". Bloomberg Business.

[3] "TearSolutions". Crunchbase.

[4] As per policy: "CSD A11 is for topics that were or may have been actually created and are real, but have no notice or significance except among a small group of people, e.g. a newly invented drinking game..."

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]