Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 August 21 August >

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Underlight[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The single third-party source gives no indication of being reliable, as discussed previously by WPVG. Another source mentioned on the Talk page is specifically unreliable, again per WPVG. The WPVG custom Google search for both reliable and situational sources returns zero results. Woodroar (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator given additional sources below. Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I was just going to confirm that the searches had nothing, but... they did have stuff? Review from 1up.com counts, though the GameZone stuff is just press releases. It's also in this Massively visual history of MMORPGs (p. 8). This is a game from the 90s, so we have to go to print sources, but the best I could do with a quick search was an episode of Computer Chronicles. It's possible that there's more out there but I found nothing special in LexisNexis, Factiva, Newspaper Archive. I'd prefer to see this merged if anyone has any good ideas. Perhaps something to do with Lyra's Reclamation, which possibly received more coverage? – czar 23:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. I just tried the searches again and, like you said, found plenty of results. Nothing that I would consider great except for that single 1Up review. You're right that there may be print sources out there, and I'd gladly !vote to keep if anyone can find them. Woodroar (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. We have reviews from 1UP.com (above), Computer Gaming World (below), and I'd include Khabal (below), though WP:VG/RS is checking on its reliability. There is an interview with Gamespy (below) and a self-published dev entry in RPGPlanet (owned by IGN) for the development section. All the other links are unreliable, mostly personal blogs. I'd feel more comfortable if one or two more review sources were uncovered, but the aforementioned sources (in addition to the Massively and perhaps Computer Chronicles linked above) should be just enough to eke out a tiny article on the subject. (It was notable enough to be covered in multiple reliable and independent sources.) – czar 06:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Details.

Hello,

I am working with the current team who is operating the classic MMORPG Underlight. I have noticed that you have placed the page about our game on the deletion log. Could you please advise us as to what further details you need, or what needs to be clarified about this page to not remove it. I have been involved in the community of this game since early 1998, I and very many other players of this game past and present would be very disappointed that the history of the game be removed from Wikipedia. You can contact me and I would be happy to address any concerns you have. Thank you.

Some references you may have missed, that have been posted to our forums, like the original websites archived at archive.org:

I'm going to stop here, there are many many more separate pages where people had provided details about this games existence. If the page needs to have some information removed, or additional citations made, I can work on that. I am very new to Wikipedia and editing, so please be patient with me. Thank you for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KoiUnderlight (talk • contribs) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at your talk page about our general sourcing requirements. The above sources all appear to be primary and/or unreliable/self-published sources and aren't of much value to us. Woodroar (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an external reference, Computer Gaming World (August 2002), I can mail you the magazine if you want.

KoiUnderlight (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional historical reviews from other review sites that were archived for your consideration:

KoiUnderlight (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@KoiUnderlight, do you know of any other reviews in major publications (esp. magazines)? Even if you don't have copies, it would help us to know where to look. Sites we consider reliable are listed here, if you're curious. – czar 05:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar, I have yet to find a copy of the article, but I will be sure to post it when I do, but the game did receive a 2-page review in PC Gamer in late 1998 or 1999. One final note, since Underlight was first shut down by Lyra Studios LLC at the end of 2006, the players have continued to work towards it's preservation. No version of Underlight since the original Lyra Studios LLC version has ever charged any money to play. The game has been run on 100% volunteer effort and out of pocket expenses, that includes myself. Underlight was the only MMORPG that I can recall where playing an in-character persona was a requirement of playing at all times. To my knowledge, Underlight was the first MMORPG ever to have live-action FPS style combat in a 3D environment (no auto-attack exchange of numbers back and forth, real aiming & dodging). This is a very notable achievement in MMORPG history and should not be deleted just because it was obscure. Thank you for your consideration, please do not destroy an important part of MMORPG history. KoiUnderlight (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If you know around when the magazine was published, we could help look for it. Wikipedia only reports what it can verify. Anything that is unsourced in the article will end up removed unless a reliable source backs it up. We also don't host claims of original research—only claims that are backed up by reliable, secondary sources. – czar 06:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Czar. If we could find copies of PC Gamer between 1998-1999, I'm pretty certian in was in that span. One of the links I provided above was from GameSpy (interview May 2000) which does appear on WP:VG/RS as a reputable source. One other thing I should mention regarding Reclamation that you referred to above. Reclamation was planned to be the sequel to Underlight. If there were any magazines that spoke about it then it must have been from an interview with someone at Lyra Studios when they had begun development. Reclamation never made it to alpha testing, only concept art was ever released. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 06:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at my Talk page, Computer Gaming World is short but the type of source we're looking for. I feel that finding that issue of PC Gamer would satisfy the notability requirements, though we'd want to rewrite the article around the available sources at that time. I'll gladly change my !vote to keep if that happens. Woodroar (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar, I just found another article mention on another site that is on the list here, GameSpot in this case: https://web.archive.org/web/19980423224847/http://gamespot.com/features/10multi/und.html I am still looking for more mentions, but finding old archived stuff from the 90's is amazingly difficult. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar There is actual gameplay circa July '98 Computer Chronicles starting at the 20:00 mark of the video, featuring Brian Jamison, the producer of Underlight. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I had linked the video in my original post – czar 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know this isn't an approved source, but just one more link regarding underlight when it was first run on Mplayer network. https://web.archive.org/web/19990504214838/http://www1.mplayer.com/news/980513/underlight.html - KoiUnderlight (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to get a larger or higher-resolution scan of the Computer Gaming World source? We don't need the entire magazine, just the relevant parts about Underlight. Woodroar (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodroar I was able to locate the PDF scan of this entire magazine on CGW Museum here: http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/issues/cgw_217.pdf Page 92 of the PDF, Page number 80 in the magazine. Thanks for your help. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! Thanks, and cheers! Woodroar (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another reference from the Meridian 59 article: http://www.skotos.net/about/pr/03112003.html - KoiUnderlight (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Should be included simply for history. Not sure why you'd want to "Delete" it. At time of it's release, how many MMORPGS were there? Well, 1 big one (Ultima Online) Mplayer was also big - and promise of failed game (10six) -- well before EverQuest, etc. The reasons to include is because of it being reviewed in print - and online. And was one of very few MMORPGS at the time. Oogles (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned earlier that it also had a number of unique features that were firsts for the MMORPG genre such as live real-time FPS style combat and an enforced roleplay (in-character at all times) rules. Beyond that with the exception of some basic monsters, there were no NPCs, every other character and even the strongest of the monsters were played by real people. It also had a unique leveling system that required players to get quests written for them (no pre-scripted quests) by other more experienced players who had earned the title of teacher. This meant that every players experience was their own, no two people had the same experience when playing Underlight. The faction system was the first to incorporate physical in game structures that were unique to each individual faction, not just a title above your characters head to go along with the name. Also, it's server technology, the Lyra Destinations engine, could handle all of this live-action FPS combat with players using as low as 14.4kbps modem due to the compression algorithms used. From what I've been told it was also configured to form a cluster allowing for a single server instance to be handled by as many servers as needed with all players in a single world (like EVE Online). The technological achievements alone are noteworthy (albeit they won't be found in any game reviews, which focus on gameplay, user experience and the client itself). Many of these, but not all, were mentioned in the various reviews above, albeit most of those reviews were after newer games such as Dark Age of Camelot and Everquest had come out and made the game pale in comparison aesthetically. - KoiUnderlight (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vastly different system requirements, too. Pentium 90 16MB Ram. https://web.archive.org/web/19990204013821/http://www.mplayer.com/rpg/games/underlight/ Is web archives of websites acceptable as sources? The reason why I mentioned 10six, is it was one at that time that was trying to make a FPS on-line MMORPG - failed. And while I wouldn't consider Underlight solely a FPS game, it certainly was an aspect of it. Other so-called games of the type (in-character required) were just glorified graphical MUD/MUSH/IRC interfaces, or web-based. Oogles (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of improving the article, all of those claims should be attributed to vg reliable sources. (Our job is to present the sources, not to find the truth.) Archival links are fine, but can only be used for uncontroversial, descriptive claims, not something superlative like it being the best or first to do something, etc. – czar 13:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I certainly understand that, we aren't an investigatory platform to seek out sources of 'facts' that we want to find. But, for example, I'm sure I can find on-line reviews (at time of it's release) with the waybackmachine.

Just not sure if that's valid as a source, if the original is gone. I did an example above, on MPlayer.

In addition to a lot of other stuff that has been removed. I agree saying 'first' to do something is hard - but this is a talk page, not the article, I wouldn't put that in the article. But I think we can all agree the total number of MMORPGS at time of it's release was amazingly less than now. Oogles (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Maurya[edit]

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

URLs used for References are bare URLs and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia. So I'm requesting to delete these kind of pages from Wikipedia. Josu4u (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. See my comments at the similar AFD for an article by the same creator. Links to Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, and The Hindu had the potential to establish notability, but instead, the linked articles universally fail to mention the named subject whatsoever. I'm unable to reach any conclusion except reference abuse. 21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there's not much to suggest solid notability or even better sources for that matter. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Kavalam[edit]

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

URLs used for References are bare URLs and there's no importance of the article. The Page creator is creating pages by submitting invalid URLs to confuse the Wikipedia. Josu4u (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. I was really prepared to support retention here. There's no requirement for references to be properly formatted at the inclusion level, and the article has a suite of links to The Hindu... but the putative article subject is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. Accordingly, I don't see any choice but to consider this article an example of reference abuse. An audit of the creator's other contributions is probably warranted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe that a page being referenced with bare URLs is grounds for deletion. See AfD is not cleanup - the URLs are valid, you could fix the links if they're undesirable to you. Someone already did, in fact. That being said, Josu4u is right: none of the references provided even mention this person at all, unless the one which is in Tamil does, but I'm pretty sure that's an article about remodeling a house. I searched and found the standard set of IMdB-style content farms and fanblogs, but not any reliable source coverage at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've removed the nonsense references (which amounted to removing all of the references) and tagged with {{BLP unreferenced}}. Eds can review the refs in the edit history if desired. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Whitehill Welfare F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Whitehill Welfare F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article offers no more content or context than available at Whitehill Welfare F.C. Exxy (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Threave Rovers F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Threave Rovers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article offers no more content or context than available at Threave Rovers F.C. Exxy (talk) 21:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Selkirk F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Selkirk F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article offers no more content or context than available at Selkirk F.C. Exxy (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NSEASONS no where near a high enough level to be considered a "top professional league". No indication at the moment that there is sufficient, significant coverage from reliable third party sources to allow an article consisting mainly of sourced prose to be created. Perhaps there will be at the end of the season, in which case the article can be recreated. Fenix down (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Gretna 2008 F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Gretna 2008 F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article offers no more content or context than available at Gretna 2008 F.C. Exxy (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Edinburgh City F.C. season[edit]

2015–16 Edinburgh City F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article offers no more content or context than available at Edinburgh City F.C. Exxy (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmine Cashmere[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable pornographic actress. Quis separabit? 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) Quis separabit? 21:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fdewaele:, a primary reason this short-lived and already defunct award fails the standard is that, as I originally wrote elsewhere, The Urban X ceremony is a coatrack of an event, meant mostly as an excuse to sell tickets to an event to "civilians," not a bona fide honor. It is neither well-known, nor significant. nor an industry award. It is certainly not "well-known"; the article on the award itself has no independent, reliable sourcing, and neither GNews nor GBooks searching turns up any substantive coverage. It is not an industry award; it is not sponsored by any industry group or organization. Instead, it is a personal moneymaking project of one Giana Taylor, a non-notable Suze Randall model and one-time Playboy Cyber Girl. Its lack of significance can be measured not only the constantly shifting of awards categories, reflecting the promotional needs of each year's ceremony's paying sponsors, not only by the fact that award categories were up for sale, so that paying sponsors could be assured of awards categories that only their productions were eligible for, not only by the fact that the awards were (said to be) based on a website poll where anyone could vote an unlimited number of times, but by the fact that in the award's five years of existence, a whopping 36 awards have gone to one Alexander Devoe, the husband of award founder Giana Taylor and his production company,[1] with at least another dozen going to Taylor's producing partner, Brian Pumper. This award is barely more significant than Pathmark's "Cheese of the Month", or McDonald's naming the Big Mac "Hamburger of the Year". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whatever one thinks of the Urban X Awards, the "Best Anal Performer" Award is not a "significant industry award" category at all. Not all the specific awards that the various adult film industry award ceremonies give out are considered to be major awards. Guy1890 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's thorough reasoning above. Finnegas (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Solution is to find GNG worthy sources, not to twist every routine or marginal award to retain inadequately sourced BLPs. Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above, non notable award. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails PORNBIO, the award is an already defunct in-trade hand-out (as to "well known", I've never heard about it before), no indication of notability Kraxler (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hartford[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. Subject does not meet notability guidelines for either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Works and roles are minor. The article's only source is IMDB Scr★pIronIV 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as there's simply nothing to suggest addition or improvement (my searches found nothing good) and not only is Wikipedia not IMDb but IMDb summarizes everything that is needed to know; this is also vulnerable to BLP issues and it seems obvious Ryan Hartford is not a major actor (not breakthrough or significant roles) so he's probably getting a paycheck elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of significance, two of the four listed production titles don't have their own articles, and those with articles, Ryan Hartford is either uncredited or an extra (unless Pedestrian is a major role). This, coupled with the lack of citations and any indication of notability makes this an easy deletion decision in my opinion. Upjav (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG for not being notable yet. Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Given the backlog of discussions, I recommend that this matter be resolved as a 'snow delete' situation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Žilović[edit]

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

This person fails WP:GNG. He has not played in any fully proffesional league, so he also fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as an unambiguously promotional article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Augustine[edit]

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

has many claims in the article so not speedy. But not inline with the WP:BLP. Peppy Paneer (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. The title is now redirected to the disambiguation page at A Twist in the Tale#TV. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Twist in the Tale (TV series)[edit]

A Twist in the Tale (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Withdraw nomination - found an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - only claims to notability are appearing as a guest on one tv episode, and a (borderline notable) game. While some information does exist about him online, most of these appear to be attack pieces, so I'm personally not comfortable using these as references nor to judge notability. certainly, very little reliable and neutral(ish) material seems to exist. Mdann52 (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Several books published by "Silas Green" which seems to have published only those books - ever. In short - screaming example of a self-published writer, hence fails GNG as a writer. Not a noted academic either. One appearance on "What's My Line?" (producer Franklin Heller) puts him in a non-notable galaxy of over 1700 people (876 shows times 2+ per show). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals requires more than a self-published oeuvre which has not gotten any significant reviews. "Illuninati 2" - no major reviews I can find (" Makow goes where most fear to venture." --David Icke" does not meet that requirement.) "Illuminati 3" - zero "editorial reviews" at all per Amazon. "Illuminati" zero actual reviews per Amazon. "Cruel Hoax" - zero reviews unless you count Jeff Rense from rense.com. Some opine that writing a successful game meets GNG, but I fail to find that compelling at all. Nor does Makow appear to be connected to any later versions of the game. High Game Enterprises no longer has rights to the game - though in 2013 they announced Makow [2] (?) would produce a new version ... someday after they get trademark and copyright back. I doubt Parker Brothers/Hasbro cares as the game is #6969 on Amazon in "board games" - so much for "inventor of successful board game" alas. We no longer use "he is on Google Books" as a measure of notability - especially for a self-published non-notable person. Nor is "he has weird opinions we should make sure readers know about" a substitute for notability. Collect (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd have to agree. He isn't notable enough for Wikipedia based on the sources available.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He received a fair amount of coverage relating to his column in the 60's and into, at least, the 70's. I have not trolled through all of the coverage yet but he seems to be notable for being a popular, and very young, regular columnist. This search on newspapers.com returns quite a number of articles. Most seem to be written by him but several are about him. This, plus the more recent coverage, would seem to get him over the low bar GNG seems to have become. As Collect notes his later life and academic life do not seem to rate an article but his early life and/or the totality of material reported about him might. JbhTalk 01:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a kind of destructive activity where first the page is stripped of content until it’s just a stub, then the attacker says there is nothing significant left, so it can be deleted. Most of the material on the page that survived the first three nominations for deletion has been scrubbed. IMO the page should be reinstated to its previous amplitude.

As regards self-published books, this has little to do with significance. More important is whether anyone wants to buy and read the book, and Makow’s Illuminati books do have a wide following.

The fact that he is able not only to write a manuscript, but also is able to master the art of publishing, actually adds to his significance. If he didn’t know how to publish, he would find very willing publishers, given the popularity of his writings. However, by publishing himself, he earns more from the sales of his book.

Note that in the first nomination for deletion it was claimed that Makow’s books were published by a “vanity press” -- that he was paying a publisher rather than earning from his books -- and therefore lacking significance. Now the story is diametrically reversed, but the conclusion remains the same. Of course, if someone wants to delete an article, any pretext is a good one.

The first nomination concluded sensibly that Makow has sufficient notoriety to be notable. Presumably, those who have attacked him wouldn't have bothered if they thought he was not notable.

The second nomination to delete appeared when Makow had written only two books, and the comment was made that the books have not sold. He now has written three more books which have sold a good deal better than the first two.

As regards “real reviews” and “editorial reviews,” one should keep in mind the current situation with the book review business, in that most review journals are forced to ask for sponsorship fees for their reviews. So if we ask what reviews are “real,” those written by ordinary people who have read his books are going to be more candid and spontaneous than editorial reviews.

Let’s look at his books on Amazon.

Illuminati 1 (The Cult that Hijacked the World) has 60 customer reviews. That is a lot. It also has a sales rank at the moment of #199,054. That is very good for a book that has been on the market for 6 years.

Illuminati 2 (Deceit and Seduction ) has 37 reviews, of which 73% give 5 stars. Sales rank of #145,978, also very respectable for a book published 5 years ago.

Illuminati 3: Satanic Possession was published last year. It already has 40 reviews (75% five-star) and a pretty enviable sales rank of #70,158 at the moment.

So where do you get zero reviews of this book?

Search argument "henry makow" gets 283,000 results on Google.

Makow has 5209 followers on Twitter.

In conclusion -- Notoriously notable. JPLeonard (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) User:JPLeonard is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

@JPLeonard: can I suggest reading WP:ATA? We don't use user reviews, sales ranks nor googlehits/twitter followers to decide notability. Mdann52 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those !voting to delete do not do so as a "destructive activity" but out of following Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am amused that you find "Amazon reviews" to be extremely reliable considering the fact that they are deprecated pretty much universally (see the article on Amazon.com controversies, for starters).
    • I find the suggestion that the reviews in Kirkus, WaPo, New York Times etc. are somehow impure and paid for by publishers because the reviewers want money to be interesting. Wikipedia has changed over the years - "self published books" are generally considered to be a lesser category, and the fact Makow has a loyal following in his tiny(?) genre does not make him "notable" as "notability" is generally now considered. "Twitter followers" are advertised online for 20,000 for $10 - I doubt his 5K followers is a strong argument that he is "notable."
    • Then try counting actual substantive Google hits - [3] states "Page 22 of about 206 results (0.31 seconds)" which is a teensy bit less than 284,000 web page hits, by a tad. The best part is the suggestion that people who self publish are more notable because they have "master(ed) the art of publishing". Sorry - Maybe Wikipedia is too careful about notability now, maybe not, but assailing those who find Makow to be "non-notable" is not going to sway my !vote here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Barandiaran[edit]

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

The article is quite detailed...except there's nothing to confirm this (much less notability) and my searches found absolutely nothing. Especially as recent a death in 1999, there would've been some coverage if notable. At best the author's name suggests this was a family history page and this article has gotten no significant edits since inception in June 2007. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Good work, @SwisterTwister. I did a cursory google check -- only mirror sites reflecting the Wikipedia extract. NO RELIABLE OR ORIGINAL SOURCES located. Kill this article. Quis separabit? 22:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although birth and death dates are corroborated here, and there is a tribute posted by her son at Deviant Art, this needs reliable sources written by a third party describing what she has done that is significant to stay up. --Djembayz (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - good job finding this one SwisterTwister - no sources at all beyond the usual geni.com etc —МандичкаYO 😜 09:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Philippine Orthodontists[edit]

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

This orphaned article may be in better condition than others but what concerns is that my searches (here, here, here and here) found nothing to suggest better sourcing and improvement. I initially thought this group had closed because the website no longer works but the map and social media pages are still current. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. almost certainly a copyvio from their webstiem, judging by what is included.But if theyare the major nationalassociation theyare notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another professional association, no sources, no coverage Kraxler (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as essentially promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 14:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shubb[edit]

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

I'm seeing lots of mentions of this company and its products, but nothing substantial. Sam Walton (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 17:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (was delete) due to evidence presented below. I'll ping someone who might have something more to add about this, either way. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:Before was clearly not followed here. A less than 60 second search in google books provided non-trivial coverage in several publications such as here, here, and here. And that is just a cursory search.4meter4 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @4meter4: The first source seems like alright coverage, but is in a book specifically about capos, which doesn't really demonstrate notability to me, the second is only a mention, and the third appears to be an advert or directory listing. Sam Walton (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take the time to look through this google books search which has many good references; some better than the ones I listed above. I am on an iPhone without computer access and am extremely busy outside of Wikipedia right now or I would take the time to thoroughly reference the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion yet. This looks like a pretty good source: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/02/01/8398981/index.htm. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came here looking for more information on the history behind Shubb capos. Unfortunately all I have to tell constitutes OR but I have had my Shubb capo for over 30 years and they are a legend with guitar players who use capos - including the late jerry Garcia and Pete Seeger! This is the [][Gibson]] or Fender of capos and just because the company is small and the item cheap doesn't mean it doesn't deserve recognition among the pantheon of musical instrument and accessory makers listed here. Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lever-over centre principle Rick Shubb introduced to capos is still copied in others, most recently the G7th Newporter. This was an important innovation, one-handed operation with adjustment for neck size. AdrianLegg — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianLegg (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — AdrianLegg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep per WP:CORPDEPTH: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." the Shubb capo is nowadays mentioned, and its use explained, in all American banjo and guitar handbooks, as can be gathered from the book search, The Guitarist's Guide to the Capo has images and detailed descriptions of two types of Shubb capos. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC) Amended. Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shubb capo products are well known in music industry and their product is highly regarded by artists. Their capo design works on vintage and delicate fretted instruments without damaging or compromising. The ability to adjust clamp pressure and cam design is why I use on old as well as modern instruments. They exhibited at Summer NAMM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isitmiller (talk • contribs) 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — Isitmiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Sorry guys, this is my first hour here. You guys need a coder who can set you up with <input boxes>. As for Shubb Capos, it seems to me that Sam Walton is not a musician or he works for Kyser capos. Shubbs are very well known and respected in the fretted instrument world. Sam Walton seems to think that knowledge has to have some Kim Khardasian component to be relevent to Wiki. The article isn't even that long. Is it truly taking up so much space that it's impinging on something else? KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillWendt (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC) — BillWendt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:AGF--Savonneux (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case it needs clarifying, which it doesn't, I do not work for any competitor of Shubb. Sam Walton (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kraxler, and per WP:CORPDEPTH; and consider a Move, to "Shubb capo". Clearly a topic of discussion in the industry, that has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as per WP:GNG. Expanded with multiple mentions in reliable sources. --Djembayz (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In case it needs clarifying, I also do not work for Shubb or any competitor. As a spring loaded capo user, I learned quite a bit putting this together. Looks like there is a reason why someone went out and recorded the oral history associated with inventing this version of a rather small, and not particularly expensive guitar accessory. Had no idea there was so much to say on the subject of capos. There might even be enough material out there for separate articles on the different types of capos. Some of the authors cited are musicians who have their own Wikipedia articles. It's understandable why a capo would not seem notable for non-musicians, but in this case, it may be better to WP:IAR to serve our actual readers. --Djembayz (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reasonable amount of notability for a particular category of people presented. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Nagy Museum[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I added some sources, but didn't verify notability. I previously alerted creator and Wikiproject Museums. This has been tagged for notability for over 7 years and hopefully we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is well covered now with many reliable references. Pl remove the tag of AfD|U}}.--Nvvchar. 00:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nvvchar, thank you for your great work. I think this probably meets WP:GNG. Nomination withdrawn a notability has been verified by Nvvchar. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I guess because it should really be removed by the closer and this hasn't yet been closed. Should be done soon though. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Haider Raisani Baloch[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest improvement, better notability and even current information about your him and searches at all English Newspapers and attempts at Urdu ones found nothing better than here, here and here. There is no article for the Balochistan National Front and there seems to be coverage for it but I'm not sure if it's notable. It's worth noting the article has had hardly any edits and the author was blocked the following month in June 2008. SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person does not get a notability freebie for leading an organization, if adequate sourcing isn't there to get them over WP:GNG. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if something substantive can be written and sourced about him. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 circulatory system. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Double circulatory system[edit]

Double circulatory system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · circulatory system)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • redirect I agree with Tom (LT) that in it's current form, Double circulatory system should be redirected to Circulatory system. This article remained unreferenced since it got tagged as unreferenced in 2009, and so is probably going to remain unreferenced much longer. I found some google books that mention the double circulatory system but who knows which part of which book each piece of information in the article is in or if it's even in any. It probably has to be rewritten entirely to only include the information that sources can be found for and write that information in a clear way, and then it will no longer be worthy of deletion. Maybe a biology expert could easily find sources for Double circulatory system. Maybe we want track down some of the main contributors of Double circulatory system from its history and find out from them where they read the information. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the article's history and it looks like nobody made a huge contribution to the article; each person contributed a very small bit to the article so I'm not sure which contributors I should be notifying of the article's nomination of deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • transclude I changed my mind. It should probably be transwikied to Wikimedia Incubator to become encyclopedic as described in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Incubation. Is there somebody experienced enough in Wikimedia Incubator to decide wether they think that's even the best idea, let alone better than moving to Wikipedia's Draft namespace. Blackbombchu (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect: There is no "double circulatory system" as a distinct topic from circulatory system. This simply prepends a descriptive adjective, so is completely redundant. (I am not an "expert" in biology - got a 2 at O level - but this appears obvious.) Imaginatorium (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Some of the information from Double circulatory system is probably salvageable and should be added to Circulatory system. I'm quite sure there are lots of reliable sources for it each of which only has a small bit of information in the article, and all of them are very hard to find. It is however quite likely that no source has a lot of information in the article which would explain why it's so hard to find enough sources. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect when this article is stripped of irrelevant or uncited information there is so little left that it would be better just to redirect to Circulatory system#Other animals for the benefit of readers. I have also let WikiProject Animal Anatomy know about this discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There's no references for any of this information, so I think merging would not improve the circulatory system article. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure all those people who contributed to adding information to the article got the information from somewhere. It doesn't appear to be the type of information they could have figured out from their own original research. I even saw a brief mention of the double circulatory system in the book at http://www.nelson.com/nelson/school/secondary/science/0176121382/default.html that did a lot of explaining of how it evolved back then when I was in high school, so maybe that source could be cited and its information about the double circulatory system added to Circulatory system. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I added some information in and referenced it. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blackbombchu there is really no need for you to !vote multiple times when you are the one who originally nominated the article for deletion. Your comments are welcome as your views on the article evolve, but there's no need to begin every comment with a bolded recommendation. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each time I made another vote, I changed my mind so I consider my previous votes not to count. I made my most recent vote after the article situation changed, which gave a good reason to form an opinion in the new situation. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can strike out your previous votes like this by typing <s>like this</s>~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Petrosyan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Vashist[edit]

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

Delete. Not one credible source has been cited and Google News search did not show any results. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability in the article, refs are the subject's own website, blogs and dead links Kraxler (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement cancer[edit]

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

This is essentially a dictionary definition of a term which may or may not merit a wiktionary entry; my concern is that it could escalate into a POV fork or become a coatrack. TheLongTone (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could also call Wikipedia a dictionary. Your concern does not bother me at all. No one knows how a Wikipedia article will develop. The subject caught the headlines of renowned media. --Qualitatis (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might call Wikipedia a dictioary but you would be wrong: WP:NOTDICT. It's an encyclopedia.TheLongTone (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have found four instances of the term being used. The first is a statement from 2012, the second a quote (repeated in multiple sources) by President Abbas, and the final two are from Aug 2015 and use it as a catchphrase (though the reliability and neutrality of the papers may come under consideration). These latter sources indicate that it might be making a comeback, but there isn't any indication that this has actually become a common phrase bantered about in Palestine or Israel. Primefac (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything you don't like and it spreads, can be called a cancer. That doesn't mean it becomes a term and merits its own article.
I see Arab villages constantly building new houses, sometimes far removed from the outskirts of the village. So why shouldn't that be called a cancer as well? I think we better steer clear of such politically loaded words as "cancer". Debresser (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your badly written and badly sourced article does not really advance your credibility. --Qualitatis (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitatis, please keep things civil. Primefac (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is terrible. That Israeli settlement building has been going on lately, that there's a lot of backlash and controversy about Palestinian rights, and that the building has gotten a large amount of coverage is true, and that information is in the article where it belongs: 'Israeli settlement'. Imagine if a Jewish fundamentalist ideologue had taken the article 'Palestinian Christians', copied a tiny part of it, rewrote it, and then created a new article called 'The Plague of Christians Defiling Our Holy Jewish Lands'. What we have here is no different. It's specially frustrating to me given that I've edited articles on related topics and have wanted to include more of the Palestinian perspective (such as expanding harassment on settlement-related checkpoints), which won't happen as long as POV-pushing articles such as this one poison things all around. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Uddin (Blogger)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources in article are not reliable (blogs and a youtube video... other sources are 404 or from the site he founded) and there is not significant coverage. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.247.102 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not a notable blogger.
  • Delete per nomination, as subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Attempt at a souped-up resume at best, very little in the form of coverage by reliable sources out there. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 18:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snehil Sharma[edit]

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

I guess there are slender claims for notability here, which is why I'm not slapping a speedy on it, but I doubt if this character is notable. Sources are flaky; one is character's own website. TheLongTone (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as very non-notable self-described "Choreographer, a known Digital Marketing Expert, an Actor and Director". Quis separabit? 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and move to Sun and moon allegory. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of the sun and the moon[edit]

Theory of the sun and the moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a theory, it is an analogy. As such I do not think it merits an article. TheLongTone (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do no support your personal interpretation. --Nemo 17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename. To my personal surprise, this is fairly widely discussed, with absolutely no shortage of high-quality sources available. That said, I'll agree that the titling is problematic and would propose Sun and moon allegory as the proper alternative. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many sources, see GBooks.--Yopie (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and as for the 'theory' part, yes, it is a theory of political science. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, especially in scholarly sources, "sun and moon allegory" is pretty common, and "theory of the sun and the moon" (or even "theory of sun and moon") if not completely unknown, is very rare, suggesting the rename is proper per WP:COMMONNAME. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be suicide this kind of "knowledge theory" (I mean new) was entirely new to me it has to be kept for the sake of good practice I never heard of the idea until I came across article on Dante "On Monarchy".I would settle for a rename but keep the page.The page has to be saved Richardlord50 (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest the article be renamed or incorporated with Unam sanctam.Richardlord50 (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Schlegel[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. All but one source are dead. He has not won any major awards (the ones listed are for student works). JbhTalk 16:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete unless improvement can be made as my searches found nothing and I'm not sure about awards significance. One thing is for certain though in that there's not much and there's likely no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though he won some awards, they are non-notable. This fails WP:DIRECTOR. Jcmcc (Talk) 04:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - only possible notability is directing a film that was "shortlisted" for an Oscar nomination. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler J Smith[edit]

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

Not clear whether this is meant to be a biog or an article about the charity, but neither seem notable: there's a smidge of local coverage, but all dates fro 2013, so it does not look as though this crated more than a ripple of interest. TheLongTone (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom delete per nom, COI editor too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh I can't obviously see a way of rescuing this, but I will say that smacking the banhammers on a mother who's lost her 18 year old son to be an appalling lack of compassion and tact, and excellent way to scare people away from this place. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and the worthiness or rightness of a cause does not make for exemptions from the notability criteria. MopSeeker FoxThree! 14:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh indeed. See WP:NOTMEMORIAL. In any case the boy died a while back, and it would make more sense to campaign for more gun control. My wrist remains unslapped.TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there's simply not even the slightest coverage aside from memorial-like links. Also pinging taggers Cahk and MopSeeker for commenting. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I empathize with the author, but this is not what Wikipedia is for ... --Cahk (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a memorial site, nor a soap box, nor a web host for worthy causes. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SwisterTwister and Bearian. As a note to the closing admin, if this page is deleted then the redirect Tyler j smith needs to be deleted as well. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per sk1 & all that (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Crusade[edit]

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

An unremarkable fan-made game which hasn't been covered in reliable sources (having been made using Game Maker doesn't really help much either). If only A7 could apply to products. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing - It appears to have been covered by a few gaming sites such as Kotaku. The article still needs some re-writing though, particularly a mention that the game is unofficial. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 it stands, the article seems like a lost cause. No prejudice toward re-creation if a more encyclopedic page can be created with adequate secondary sourcing. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something Positive[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of 92.25.131.125, who says: "I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves." I am neutral unless I comment below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious delete. It appears I've accidentally stumbled into yet more nonsense wiki drama, where the group that cares the most wins. As far as I can tell, from what I've read after suggesting the page be deleted, it is taken that any comic to win a WCCA thing is notable, because the WCCA is (very very dubiously) taken as notable. There's some sort of article jenga going on, all resting ultimately on a paragraph in the New York Times mentioning the WCCA. The multiple previous AFDs for the 9 (or more?) WCCA articles seem to have come up keep more as a result of lots of editors getting angry and accusing others of being biased against webcomics as a genre, than of any....thing. I don't care. I ran into the shit that is the something positive article because I was reading SP archives, and wanted to know if the quality decline of the late 2000s(decade) reversed. You decide if it's notable, I don't care....I don't hate webcomics, jeph jacques didn't eat my hamster. 92.25.131.125 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As currently written, I would be a weak delete. There's no denying that this article needs a major trim and cleanup; the cast sections are entirely too in-universe and exhaustive. The article is practically drowning in primary sources; additional WP:RS's are desperately needed otherwise I fear that boiling down the excessive sections will lead to WP:OR. $0.02 DP76764 (Talk) 15:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-west Seed Services[edit]

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

Non-notable division of SGS S.A.. Some passing mentions as author of agricultural tests, but no in-depth coverage about the company itself. GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like an ad for a small company of little general interest. Delete New Media Theorist (talk) 16:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think the company's homepage is on a spam blacklist - no apparent independent notability. -- Callinus (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally, I try to find some consensus for WP:ATD, such as the merge suggested, but in this case I find none, so a straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfulness[edit]

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

The Heartfulness article has existed since 2011 and for most of that time it's been a fairly unstructured collection of original research. There has never been an intelligible explanation of what heartfulness actually is. I thought it was meditation which used the cardiac rhythm as some kind of focus, but apparently that's not the case. I have been trying pretty hard to find reliable independent sources that talk about the concept, but although the word is used by two or three different organisations that teach meditation I can't find an actual definition of it anywhere, and the only source that might perhaps qualify as a WP:RS is the French-language article that's currently used as a reference in the article - that's not significant coverage. It is rather telling that heartmath.com, one of the organisations used as a reference both back in 2011 and again this month, doesn't discuss heartfulness at all - it's all just synthesis. The article has been heavily edited by people who have a conflict of interest, e.g. User:PetriHuitti; this blog post on Huitti's own website is interesting and may have led to some of the recent activity on the page. For a while the title was a redirect to Mindfulness but I don't actually think that "heartfulness" is sufficiently notable to work as a redirect. bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I came across the discussion on the talk page last month where one of the users was suggesting to start off a new page as the content on the page since 2011 didn't make mush sense as suggested above. Since then I did spend good amount of time researching and gathering content on this topic as it appears now on the web, and I am trying to build the page with proper discussion in the talk page and while trying to follow all necessary guidelines, but surprisingly noticing a kind of eagerness to revert any changes without discussion. I admit, my experience with creating new pages is limited, but then we all start somewhere. Before even I could add all the content, reverts were made, hence I stopped any more edits to prevent edit wars, and was trying to move the discussion on talk page and continue in draft mode, but then this deletion nomination came. Maybe it is fueled by the suspicion that my activity is somehow linked with user User:PetriHuitti, I will leave it up to the Admins to verify that. Meanwhile I am just sharing some relevant info on this topic that I gathered online in last couple of weeks. The term Heartfulness is a new term but gaining in popularity fast, it essentially means meditation on the heart. It's basically a methodical practice to use one's heart in ways more than just an organ pumping blood. Since its based upon the premise that human heart has a lot more potential and performs many more functions than just pumping blood, I had added this section on new research with links from verifiable and reliable sources, but it was taken out stating that its not relevant. Here are some non related but verifiable links on this topic - Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 and here are some totally independent and geographically dispersed organizations, who are talking about and have some kind of methodical practice on Heartfulness meditation: heartfulness.org - global presence, Heartfulness University by Love Solutions - Finland, SilentStay Retreat Hermitage - California, USA. It will be great if at least sometime is given to folks who want to build this page properly meeting all of the WP guidelines and then a decision is taken. Duty2love (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the links you mention, the first two are already in the article, and only the second one actually qualifies as a reliable source since the Huffington Post link is a blog post written by a representative of a company that teaches meditation (SilentStay). The third one, the garrisoninstitute.org one, is possibly a reliable source although I'm a bit doubtful. As for the three organisations you mention, they are not "independent", in the sense of the word used at Wikipedia - which goes for the Garrison Institute as well. An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective - please see this page for more information. "heartfulness.org" appears to be the organisation that coined the term and there's been some promotion of them in the article previously; silentstay.com is the same company that the author of the Huff Post blog post works for, so that's essentially the same source as the one already present. lovesol.fi is the most informative one, they actually have a short description of how the meditations work, but again they are not independent. All this does not mean that heartfulness is not a worthy concept or helpful for the people who practice it. It only means that independent sources have not written about it yet. Sources like the ones you mention can be used to verify facts (though to be honest most of the information on the websites is too vague and uninformative to actually tell us anything) but they can't be used to show notability. Sorry about the lengthy post here, but I wanted to explain exactly what the problem with the article is - and it's not that the concept is unworthy, or that anybody thinks that there is some kind of collaboration between different editors, but simply that notability has not been shown. --bonadea contributions talk 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PetriHuitti (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Hi, hope this comes right here, this user interface here is really difficult and I don't understand how I can support when there seems to be no place to make draft page here, just propose on the public article and then it is just deleted, even my edits removed, proposals. I don't agree heartfulness being only a form of meditation. It can be anyway thought so, and probably many different forms of meditations even, like heartfulness.org / Sahaj Marg, Bruce Davis, our small unit here in Finland, Buddhism way of doing it, and probably many others, like psychologists also use, aside mindfulness, regression therapy goes very close to heartfulness meditation I think. But, I see heartfulness as a wider concept, way to see life differently, use it in personal life, work, education, bringing peace in the world even, as Dalai Lama have suggested. It doesn't happen with superficial mindfulness designed for corporate world only, if I can be direct here, you need to go deeper in yourself. The art of heartfulness, is to bring it outside meditation, to real life, daily life, listen and follow your heart, intuition even when pickin something out of the shelf in the grocery store, listening yourself, whether that product, food, is good for you or not. And heartfulness cannot be exactly studied or defined by words, by science, verified sources, there are as much different definitions as there are experiences, it is about personal experience, nothing else. If you have no personal experience of it, it is nothing. If you have, it is all there is. Be well, listen to you heart, if you want to, dare to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PetriHuitti (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 19:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi User talk:Tomwsulcer, so now it is more clear why the content added was not very relevant to term "Heartfulness". Would it make sense to add a page for "Heartfulness Meditation", would this and similar content be applicable for that term .... please advise. Duty2love (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2015 (UT).
  • PetriHuitti, if you can find news sources, or books, discussing Heartfulness meditation objectively, impartially, respected sources which are seen as neutral, then maybe you could float an article with that title. My initial sweeps of US news, and in particular Indian subcontinent news, did not reveal much along these lines. The Huffington Post is not seen as a reliable source, since there is not much editorial review, and they take submissions on all kinds of topics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I think it would add value to have here some experienced Wikipedia users, who have some knowledge, understanding of the spirituality, concepts around it, maybe even about heartfulness, or at least about the meaning of the heart, spiritual heart in our growth. E.g. intuition in deeper levels, our wisdom doesn't come from mind but from heart so to say. I tried to contact userJoshua_Jonathan who seem to be updated Spirituality page and is aware, interested in e.g. Buddhism which includes also heartfulness as a concept, in their way. Maybe he or someone else who understands the concept somehow, can help us find proper solution. Whether it means deletion, redirecting or having own page for heartfulness.PetriHuitti (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I'm guessing that this goes either with 'mindfulness' (as a counterpoint to be discussed in that article, since meditation is inherently focusing on getting rid of mind/heart/soul lines), with 'meditative postures' (as part of discussing ways to focus on your heart), or with the main 'meditation' article itself. I'm not sure, but I'm leaning that way. As far as definitions and sourcing goes, I look to see how the term 'heartfulness' is defined but don't really get a handle on it myself. A lot of vagueness. If I have to choose, I'd say that 'heartfulness' should go to 'meditative postures' as a process of mediation, as per this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd agree with Coffee about merging into mindfulness, but... I don't see any content worth merging. There's nothing here worth saving. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. By a pure nose count this might be a "no consensus", but the arguments that specifically address whether there's enough referencing to write a biography on this individual overwhelmingly indicate that there is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Vélez[edit]

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

Seems to be a vanity or fan page mostly supported by non RS. Notability seems lacking. Greglocock (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not notable per GNG. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Beyond her accomplishments in robotics and software development, Vélez is a very visible and approachable role model for minorities who may not otherwise be able to picture themselves working in these fields. With the current national discussion about women and minorities not pursuing STEM fields, actively pruning the few articles about non-white-male technologists is counterproductive.Sriracha peas (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — Sriracha peas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. Certainly notable in the technology community and there are a significant amount of examples of notability and attention from outside sources. As mentioned above removing articles about a woman and minority who is a thought leader in the STEM field serves to do more harm than good. Jeremy Morgan (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Raquel Vélez is indeed a very notable member of the tech community, and to be honest, she is very well known and a role model for many. Her trajectory is an achievement after another. Her contributions to open-source projects used by millions, quite remarkable. Specially but not limited to, her work in the development of the Node.js package manager, an open-source project that is now being used by half of the applications anybody uses in their mobile phones or desktop computers (even companies like PayPal, Microsoft of the Linux Foundation rely on it). She is also one of the main (and first) developers of NodeBots, which are the next generation of drones, quadcopters and other Arduino type devices. The article has been updated with references from NASA, MIT, USA Today, Wired, and the Linux Foundation. Meea (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several references on the page that qualify for GNG. She would be on any short list of either leaders in Node or notable latinas in tech. Thomblake (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- closer Please note that at least one of the above is a single purpose account. Greglocock (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources GNG says 'The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.' The vast majority of the refs in the article are industry trade stuff, not independent of the topic. Nasa talking about its interns is not independent of the topic, and so on.Greglocock (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Need more information There are so many references that it would take too long to wade through them all to see if significant coverage about this person (as distinct from her projects) exists. If anyone has already done so, please post the "best" handful of references from unquestionably reliable sources which, as a group, clearly demonstrate that this person has received significant coverage from reliable sources, independent of the subject and independent of each other. Once this is done, then this should be a no-brainer "keep" as this is the very definition of Wiki-notability. If it cannot be done because such coverage does not exist, then it's probably a no brainer "delete" as this is the very definition of a lack of Wiki-notability. If it would just take more effort to do than anyone reading this has time for before the discussion closes, then the result of this AFD may not reflect the actual level of notability of this person. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • MSM analysis So the first USA today ref uses a one sentence quote from her, in the second somebody met her. The Wired article doesn't mention her at all. So for MSM we have a meeting between the subject of a story at which something unnamed happened, and in the other she is quoted. That seems a stretch for notability.Greglocock (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by MSM? I assume you're not referring to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sadly, I don't see the required reliable, independent, quality sources. There's a ton of references in the article, but they're mostly blogs, social networking sites, etc. The few that are in mainstream media are either interviews or passing mentions, neither of which establish notability by our guidelines. I'm all for supporting diversity in tech; but being a latina developer, even a highly successful one, is not by iteslf a criteria to establish notability, if the WP:RS aren't there to back it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Quinn Martin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC: apart from the Variety review of Slingshot (which only namechecks Martin in the list of credits), the sources are all WP:BLOGS or WP:PRIMARY. Doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. McGeddon (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, I searched, and , as non says, just not enough, I did find this: [5] but it is hardly persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now and draft & userfy until better sourcing is available and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global Literacy Project[edit]

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

The article has a few references (but not very detailed or linked) so I would've let this one pass but my searches (News, Books, browser, Scholar, Newspapers, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good with the best results here and here (not exactly in-depth and significant coverage). There's also no obvious possibility of improvement and no good target for moving (this has surprisingly stayed around quietly since November 2004). SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:52, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another organization trying to raise funds here?, refs are four dead links and two alleged off-line sources, no in-depth coverage anywhere, problems with WP:V, anyway fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain. "Just another..." can be used to denigrate anything notable or not. But I cannot tell if the refs are more than mere listings. The best information, as usual, is a financial report [6] -- they have a total of $1.5 million budget, , which is of borderline significance. The relevant size would vary by subject field, and in this area some of the organizations are very small, so they might be significant.
I was sure that "Just another..." means that there are many, and this is one of them, without any characteristic that would distinguish it from the others. I was not aware that it could be used to denigrate anything. Kraxler (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Kraxler. Searches showed nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 16:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Vincent Family Centers[edit]

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

For an organization from 1875, there's not a lot of good coverage and what I added is basically the best I found. Searches with relevant results were this and this (with zero finds at Newspapers Archive, Highbeam and thefreelibrary). There isn't even anything outstanding to suggest good local notability and there's no good target for moving elsewhere (although it'd be nice if there was). Unfortunately the article hasn't been heavily edited and the best edit was a promotional one by a SPA in February 2013. SwisterTwister talk 19:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus and add something into that article about the family centers being a part of their work with children. If that's not practical (i.e. we don't have independent sourcing), then delete this article. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For example [7] from The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History shows up the history. You have to search using the historical name(s) to find the history. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local branch of a famous organization. In general I think our policy of not covering these separately ias a good idea, and I think this is too small to merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Price & Myers[edit]

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

I accepted this as a WP:AFC draft a long while ago. Since then it has become a billboard used to feature allegedly notable projects by this firm. It is now a blatant advert. When I accepted it I thought it was probably a pass for WP:CORP. I may have been incorrect. We all make mistakes. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tend to agree with nom about this; page has been taken over by COI editing. As for notability, you could probably argue either way, however most sources available seem to just mention them in passing while discussing several projects. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- I am somewhat inclined to agree, but I would have thought that the structural engineers for a number of notable buildings would themselves qualify for notability. However, the building will normally by "by" its architects and builders, rather then the engineers, who carry out some design work on the structure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These are some of the chances you take at AfC. Onel5969 TT me 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." - I agree this page has totally changed since we worked on it at the start, but the 'billboard used to feature allegedly notable projects' has been removed by various editors. Engineers should be recognized in their own right (some precedents: BuroHappold Engineering, AKT II, WSP Global & Ramboll) but perhaps should focus of projects that are notable for their engineering, e.g. Structural Award winners. G0lfer92 (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The entire "notable projects" and "artwork" sections were deleted over a series of 4 edits between 13:30, 6 August 2015 and 15:24, 11 August 2015. Comments listed above prior to 15:24, 11 August 2015 may be based on material that is no longer in the article. @Timtrent and FoCuSandLeArN: your last contribution to this discussion was before 15:24, 11 August 2015. Do your comments still hold given the current state of the article? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those comments no longer apply because the trash has been removed. But I can now see the wood from the trees. In terms of references we require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. All I can see is a set of passing mentions. It seems I was incorrect to accept this in the first place. We all make mistakes. This was one of mine. I do not see that it passes WP:CORP. There is no basis for withdrawal of the nomination, but the basis for nomination has shifted. Fiddle Faddle 07:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: mine do too, for the reason that my main concern stemmed from the lack of substantial sources. I found no extensive coverage about the firm itself. Sources about its participation in many projects abound, but they are of the type "Engineering by: Price & Myers" from industry publications, which does not constitute sufficient coverage under general notability. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Taking also into account the translation that is a derivative work of copyrighted material. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Costa (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Best claim is that he came 20th in Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009. Bazj (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, Madam,

Please find substantial coverage related to the artist stated above in independent sources:

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.60.69.79 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple advertorial articles publicising a single gig (where he seems to be the support act) do not count as reliable sources. Bazj (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Could you please tell me - what act was he supporting in these other cases? These are all national, independent sources: http://lazer.publico.pt/concertos/225331_daniel-costa http://www.portaldofado.net/content/view/1252/67/ http://mirante.aroucaonline.com/2011/12/02/concerto-de-piano-com-homenagem-ao-fado/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.107.63 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP, (or Daniel, or Dorothy),
  • Público (Portugal) would be a reliable source, but all its leisure guide (guia do lazer) says is that he was born in London, Portuguese father, Italian mother - nothing notable.
  • portaldofado.net has been used in just two wiki articles, once supported by the New York Times, the other among a whole slew of references for a dead fado artist who definitely isn't trying to get an autobiographical article accepted. In this case it trots out the same material, born in London, Portuguese father, Italian mother (just recycling his PR material perhaps?) and makes no claims of notability.
  • mirante.aroucaonline.com, is a blog, see the watermark on the image at the head of the page "Um blog de José Cerca". Blogs are not reliable sources. Nor does the article indicate meeting the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO for notability.
Please remember to sign in before editing. Bazj (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Baji, If you read the article on Publico it states quite clearly that the musician's approach to fado is highly original, rather than just mentioning his origins, just as articles in the Jornal de Noticias which you can look for. Fair enough about Arouca being a blog, but it seems like anything put forward is an opportunity for you to find a new excuse. Before you said that the artist was only a support act and we have given you proof that this isn't the case now there is the problem with the reliability of sources. What else?

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.103.49.120 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Baji, You say that it does not meet requirements for notability, yet in fact this is wrong, as one of the criteria is clearly being placed in a major music competition, which as mentioned above is the Portugal Song for Eurovision 2009, as well as extensive media coverage for other events. Please also find more coverage from JORNAL DE NOTICIAS and ACORIANO ORIENTAL: http://www.acorianooriental.pt/noticias/ver/181795 http://www.jn.pt/paginainicial/cultura/interior.aspx?content_id=1177317 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.185.161 (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Marline[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete for now (unless anyone agrees to redirecting to Eurovision article) as my searches found nothing but then again I'm not fluent with Portuguese. Maybe Victor Lopes can help? SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hello! The Portuguese version of this article was deleted yesterday because most of it was a copyvio of this page. The second paragraph of this article is a translation of that same website, which makes me wonder if {{Db-g12}} wouldn't apply here, as well. The first and last paragraphs seem legit, though. Victão Lopes Fala! 17:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Starr[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO & GNG Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. "Tabloid" is a type of journalism. I'd like to point you to WP:ROUTINE where it says "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." and to WP:SENSATION where it says "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip.". Kraxler (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tabloids and tabloid journalism are not the same thing. The Daily News is, in fact, a Pulitzer Prize-winning tabloid. You've rightly pointed out that tabloid journalism doesn't count towards an event's notability. This biography, however, has two articles from newspapers that are tabloids. If you want to make the argument that these two articles represent tabloid journalism, you are free to do so, but the mere fact that they are from a tabloid-style newspaper is not sufficient. -- Irn (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Fakt ("Fakt is characterised by its downmarket, often sensationalist journalism with a populist appeal...Fakt has been subjected to criticism concerning its style of journalism from media watchdogs. Twice so far, the Association of Polish Journalists awarded Fakt with its "Hyena Of The Year" award for "particular unscrupulousness and neglect of the principles of the journalistic work ethic") and Super Express ("Since 2007, with the new editor-in-chief formerly from Fakt, Super Express adjusted its profile to become (similar to Fakt) "a noble version of the tabloid daily"")? Kraxler (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No case for passing PORNBIO. The claim that she passes the GNG rests entirely on two extremely brief articles reporting only superficial biographical information. Both articles are minimal, existing primarily as a hook on which to hang galleries of cheesecake photos of the subject -- in other words, clickbait. It's also rather curious that the Super Express piece describes her as the only Pole with a significant role in the US porn industry, effectively denying the existence of her sister (who is discussed in the Fakt piece). With only these two flimsy and inconsistent articles cited, it's difficult to see how BLP/GNG requirements can be met. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable, popular in Poland. Also, nominations for awards, 9x interwiki, good quality article, not stub.... - keep. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     11:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tabloids are generally poor in terms of quality reporting, fact-checking, and reputation, thus they are frowned upon when considering what is a reliable source to determine a subject's notability. Without the tabloid name-drops, there's nothing to satisfy the project's notability threshold. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz & Tarc. Finnegas (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irn. Covered by Polish reliable sources including [14]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable mainstream Polish media. Some of the sources are in the tabloid format, which does not degrade their reliability. Some "delete" votes above are confusing Tabloid (newspaper format) with Tabloid journalism, which aren't the same thing. Rebecca1990 (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Irn's rationale. These porn AfDs are becoming increasingly lazy. "Fails GNG" when there is clearly some claim to notability. How about explaining why it fails GNG? Notability is demonstrated as per the Polish sources and I am sure other refs could be found if we looked. Deleting this would be as silly as deleting Puma Swede, who just like Natalia Starr may not be notable in the U.S., but is definitely notable in Sweden. World wide fame is not a criteria of WP:GNG, as far as I know. Nymf (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's no reason to cast aspersions here; I could just as easily apply the term "lazy" to editors who simply assume a publication is reliable even though its extensively referenced native-language Wikipedia article [15] points out its reputation for "misconduct and disregard for the rules of journalistic ethics" and "the administration of untruth and creat[ion of] fictional material". What's happened here is fairly straightforward: a flurry of posts on social media claimed (without any credible evidence) that the winner of a quite minor beauty pageant ("Miss Polonia Manhattan") had become a porn performer. ([16] seems to be the starting point, apparently based only on visual resemblances in a few photos. Sources which base their reporting on social media aren't reliable, and can't support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SENSATION: "Tabloid or yellow journalism is usually considered a poor basis for an encyclopedia article, due to the lack of fact checking inherent in sensationalist and scandal mongering news reporting. Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip." This is policy, not any odd guideline. Kraxler (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essential nutrient[edit]

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

non notable subject; lack of WP:MEDRS sources establishing notability Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The term "essential nutrient" is used throughout the medical and scientific literature. Google Scholar finds many thousands of articles that use the term. A PubMed search finds thousands of articles that include "essential nutrient" in either the title or the abstract. Essential nutrient is linked from dozens of other Wikipedia articles. I don't think the argument that this is a "non notable subject" is viable. There appears to have been problems with prior versions of the article (the text of which has recently been removed) which may have conflated multiple meanings of the term or included original research, but surely there is a way to write a WP:MEDRS-compliant article on this topic. ChemNerd (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide WP:MEDRS sources that back up you assertion? Best case scenario is that it's a content fork and warrants a redirect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS is not the right policy for determining which topics have sufficient notability to warrant Wikipedia articles. It is therefore not relevant to the outcome of this AFD. Even if there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that define the topic, the Wikipedia article should be descriptive and inform the reader about the ways that non-MEDRS-compliant sources use the topic. There is no reason we can't have articles about layman's terms that do not have MEDRS-defined medical/nutritional meanings. In other words, an article does not have to have MEDRS-compliant sources if it is not making any biomedical claims that require MEDRS-compliant sources. ChemNerd (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS is the policy that defines the sources that should be used to create the article. If there are no MEDRS compliant sources, then there is nothing to base the article on and hence its existence is not merited. The fact that the phrase "essential nutrient" appears in a Google or PubMed search does not establish notability. A search phrase is not the same as a definable term with a recognized academic meaning. It's akin to searching for the phrase "essential component" and then arguing that because the phrase appears on Google/PubMed, and article on Essential Component is warranted for WP. The terms "essential amino acid" and "essential fatty acid" have well-defined and widely recognized meanings; "essential nutrient" does not. It's merely a WP:CFORK of the other two terms. I put the challenge to you -- find a few high quality MEDRS source that define and discuss "essential nutrient". If that can't be done, then the article shouldn't exist. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ChemNerd. This is a standard concept in nutrition science. — J D (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide a link that establishes notability and a definition? This shouldn't be a theoretical discussion; let's see WPMEDRS sources please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can the nominator summarize why they've gutted the page of all content in the weeks prior to this nomination? — J D (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material in the article that did not refer to "essential nutrients" was removed and subsequently, it became obvious that the article had been cobbled together using irrelevant sources and that the topic was non-notable. The article was poorly executed WP:SYNTH and a WP:CFORK of essential amino acid and essential fatty acid. Another editor nominated it for deletion,[17] and I continued the process. What might be called for is a redirect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you suggest we redirect to? There are many essential nutrients. PriceDL (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect page that includes essential amino acid, essential fatty acid, vitamin, and dietary element would be an option. What do you think? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cursory notability search. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or keep, perhaps broaden if we keep. No redirect and no deletion, IMO. There are way too many things that "essential nutrient" is used for, both on-wiki (the ones mentioned by Rhode Island Red) and off-wiki. Including non-human non-medical usages. Searching for "systematic review" OR "meta review" AND "essential nutrient*" on Google Scholar gives enough material to discuss a number of different examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Zanes and Friends[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable group whose members or fans created the page; only sources, aside from its own webpage, are social media (Facebook, etc). Quis separabit? 20:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 15:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, 8 years, 0 sources, adverty phrasing. 92.25.131.125 (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cowboy coding[edit]

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

"Cowboy-" anything can mean "reckless and irresponsible." The meaning is no different when applied to code. It is not a Software Development Philosophy any more than doing anything badly is a philosophy. The only other "source" for this term is a circular reference back to this Wikipedia page. This article is entirely original (or a joke) and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 00:15, 24 July 2015‎

  • Keep The term is commonly used and there are sources. The article never calls it a software development philosophy. More could be added, but AfD isn't the route to go to get those. I'm not sure why nominator stated that in nomination rational. I checked StickyMinds.com and there are many sources there, unfortunately most are restricted to members (I am one and membership is free). A simple Google search shows sever RSes in the first ten returned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have completed this incomplete and malformed nomination and inserted it into today's list of nominations. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Cowboy coding" is not simply a generic "cowboy-" prefix/adjective applied to "coding" as the nominator suggests. It is an established concept in the realm of software development. A Google book search for "cowboy coding" returns 275 hits, many of which are reliable sources establishing notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep The fact that it's a bad methodology doesn't mean that it's not a popular methodology. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chase Corley[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer does not meet WP:KICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brand new account User:Green Blue Wave, which created this article, has been blocked as a spam/advertising-only account. --doncram 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Who the author is not necessarily a deletion rationale. Unless the article is being deleted under WP:G11 or block evasion. In this particular case, I would say the valid grounds for deletion here would be failure to meet WP:NBOX. Much of the coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE. Mkdwtalk 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches found nothing better regarding sources. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable as a boxer or kickboxer and doesn't have the coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Woodward[edit]

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

fails PORNBIO & GNG - scene awards no longer count Spartaz Humbug! 12:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - winner of the award, meets of WP:PORNBIO/Wikipedia:Notability (people). Also, notable because: 11x interwiki and many nominations to awards. Also, good quality article, not stub. Notable. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     11:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closer; every one of this user's rationales to keep fails to meet the project's guidelines, policies or norms for notability;
    1. Scene awards wins is a deprecated criteria of WP:PORNBIO.
    2. The subject fails to meet WP:N, as the sources in the article are press releases, nomination announcements, and mentions in non -RS.
    3. The number of interwiki links has never been a criteria for notability in this project.
    4. Multiple nominations for porn awards is a deprecated criteria of WP:PORNBIO.
    5. The quality of the writing is not a criteria for notability in this project.
    Tarc (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The world and Wikipedia is not black and white, this is not binary code: 0 or 1, we are humans, not robots. Even if some argument fails to meet of PORNBIO, total rate based on many smaller arguments like as multiple nominations, number of interwiki, quality of the article, scene awards wins etc is keep. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     16:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have the right to make any argument you wish in an xfD...being wrong isn't a crime...but any other editor has the right to rebut your argument if they feel it is bad. I am simply pointing out that the entirety of your argument to retain this article is only supported by your personal opinion and not based in project policy or guideline. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO, as multiple noms and scene ward wins are deprecated criteria. Subject is not covered in-depths by multiple reliable sources, thus failing WP:N. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO as multiple noms and scene award wins no longer count. No in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Tarc - You may aswell give up - You'd get more sense speaking to a brickwall!, Anyway as gorgeous as she is looks don't count towards notability, As noted above fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails PORNBIO, no plausible arguments supporting claim of notability under the GNG. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Valley (actress)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz Humbug! 12:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real claim for passing PORNBIO with only a bit part in a mainstream movie. One-event biography at best (getting killed in a car accident). Even if you count the porn trade press as reliable, the only significant coverage appears to be brief obituaries in Adult Video News and XBIZ. The morals arrest is WP:ROUTINE coverage from a self-published source. Not enough to pass GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gene - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gene93k's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Georgewilliamherbert with reason G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Haunting in Cawdor[edit]

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

Article about a minor film. I am unable to find any independent sources that establish WP:GNG notability. - MrX 12:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like the nominator, I could find no independent coverage of this film. According to its IMDb listing it is slotted for a 9 October 2015 UK release, so maybe it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to X Marks the Pedwalk#Discography. Overall consensus to rediretc. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 22:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Door[edit]

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

This was kept as no-consensus on previous AfD -keeps included on the grounds that "it the debut single by a notable band” which is not grounds, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Still non-notable, still without references and failing WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Richhoncho (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to X Marks the Pedwalk, as previous discussion had no policy-compliant reasons to keep the article, and I can't find any good sources, but it's a possible search term for the band. —Torchiest talkedits 10:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty obvious redirect to X Marks the Pedwalk#Discography. I mean, it is a notable band's debut, but there's no references actually about the single and why it would have an article - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I was not as thorough as I should have been before nominating this page. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hill (scientist)[edit]

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

Astrophysicist whose main claim to fame is making a few comments about a slight irregularity in the sunspot cycle. Entirety of (non-primary) references deal with the solar cycle itself, with sound bites from Hill and no other coverage. Therefore, I must conclude that neither WP:PROF nor WP:GNG are met, and this is a case of BLP1E. Primefac (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF. Just counting 4 of his papers I see he's been cited about 2000 times, having published papers in Science, among others. WP:BEFORE evidently hasn't been performed appropriately. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:PROF is a straightforward criterion, and he meets it. Having made a scientific discovery is not the sort of thing BLP1E applies to. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Veil[edit]

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

I can't really see where this film is notable enough for an article. A search brings up nothing to show that this person is notable enough for an article and there are no good redirect targets (director, main star, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(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)
lead:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete for failing WP:NF. I fixed up the article some, but was unable to find the film spoken of in reliable sources even though it exists and can be viewed. Sorry, this one is premature at best. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches found not even minimally good coverage, Wikipedia is not IMDb and so the latter can take this one (as IMDb is more lenient with pages). SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most likely WP:TOOSOON, searches show nothing to meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 17:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I-exceed[edit]

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

Failed to find any other news source for this company. Variation 25.2 (talk) 08:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Highbeam returns a couple of routine product announcements, Google returns the usual social media and company listings. The most substantial that I am seeing is a blog entry that the firm made a presentation at FinovateAsia in 2013. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (I see a speedy G11 was declined but this could meet A7 as it makes no claim to notability?) AllyD (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per AllyD and the lack of any good sources in the article. CorporateM (Talk) 01:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reference reads like a news release, and it probably is. I couldn't get any good information about the CIOL news site either: It may not have an independent news staff. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches instantly found nothing and especially see this list of self-generated coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article was considerably modified on Aug 19. Please address the new version.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Link bombed with passing mentions and press releases. Still not up to WP:CORP--Savonneux (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I closed this after a half hour of checking, but in the meantime Ymblanter had relisted, so I've reverted my close in favor of the relist. —SpacemanSpiff 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing to show notability in any of the searches. Onel5969 TT me 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ockun[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Notability is not inherited from those he's worked for or interviewed. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coverage is available including interviews on youtube though wikipedia will not allow such interviews. We are happy to include segments to validate with interviews including (Carlos Santana, Richie Havens, Phil Ramone, Eddie Money, Wavy Gravy, Marty Balin and other major icons to music). If ability to upload segments of interviews to inherit notability is possible, please let us know. Also photographs from current Museum exhibition available, including plaque on display at museum referencing Dave and past history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.133.71 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Searches produced no reliable secondary or tertiary sources that could establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional sources to be included. Requesting additional time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.133.71 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you make an account, the article can be drafted & userfied to your userspace if you wish. But until then, for as long as the article has existed, there hasn't been much change (what's needed is enough good and third-party coverage, but not passing mentions, to at least meet WP:GNG). SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now - Mostly behind the scenes worker and my searches found not even minimally good coverage so for there's not much to help this article from December 2006. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 00:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nataša Kojić[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Mdann52 (talk) 07:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable songstress. Maybe in a few years. Quis separabit? 02:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 16:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities impacted by current sea level rise[edit]

List of cities impacted by current sea level rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete as arbitrary list; all cities at sea level on the world ocean with a beach or port should be here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article of little value whose scope is extremely large (all seaside cities) and whose fundamental concern (the impact of sea rise) is better dealt in the already existing article Future sea level. —Lappspira (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I see the potential vast scope as a reason to keep and improve, rather than delete. If there are reliable sources on the subject, not just newspaper articles, then it is in itself a notable subject. The article on Future sea level is not supposed to have extensive lists in it. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not because it isn't a notable topic. I hope that every city and town in the world near the ocean is at least making plans to do something about rising sea levels. But as for a WP list of them, well you might as well have a list of cities that being impacted by crime, earthquakes, fires, air pollution, etc... The list really serves no purpose. Borock (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is, clearly, incomplete. And it does not actually focus on Future sea level, it focuses on CURRENT issues. That said, if concerned editors arrive at a reasonable cutoff, I think it appropriate, as Sea level rise ( the topic of the article) and future sea level really do not contain anything close to a comprehensive list, nor would a "listy" section be appropriate for these articles. This article has a clear criteria for inclusion (cities currently affected and those having a plan to deal with it) and per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, it is a valid topic that will, no doubt, expand. A possible rename or some expansion would be in order. Montanabw(talk) 01:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the title. First, the current title is confusing. I don't know what is meant by "current sea level rise". If it means something different from "current sea level", then it must refer either to "past sea level rise" or "future sea level rise". Secondly, the text gives a different definition to the list: "Cities on this list have either implemented measures, or are discussing measures to deal with rising sea levels and associated storm surges, according to reliable sources." This, at least, narrows the subject down from a list of every coastal city to something manageable and verifiable. I believe that the article should be retitled: "Cities planning for sea level rise" or something similar. Plazak (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It still would be an arbitrary list, as (in most cases) it is impossible to tell whether the city is preparing for future sea level rise, past sea level rise (or land fall; see New Orleans, although not on the list the last time I checked), or merely has the funds to deal with current sea level problems, whether or not due to a change in sea level ( sea see Holland). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The article already conflates past, projected, and possible sea level rises and as can be seen elsewhere in WP, many enthusiasts in this field exhibit confusion about tenses. Already in this short article 'current' applied to sea level rise is used meaning in one case 'past' and in another 'future projected'. Even with a suggested name change as above, how does one reliably tell that a new sea defence is being planned because of projected sea level rise and not simply because of projected or actual increase in storm surges; or just because the city can now afford it? Too messy. Gravuritas (talk) 06:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom and above editors. Onel5969 TT me 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joy-Bangla Keyboard[edit]

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

I came across this as an A7 article, but since this is a piece of software it technically doesn't qualify for an A7 deletion and it doesn't really fall under any of the other criteria.

A search doesn't really show where this software is ultimately notable enough to merit an article at this point in time. Unless there are foreign language sources out there in RS, this seems to pretty solidly fail notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability, at least in English language sources. It would be helpful if someone who reads Bengali did a search of Bengali sources, as that appears to be where this originated from. This is a pretty blatant attempt to get around the repeated A7 deletion of the author's autobiography. ~ RobTalk 06:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't really fit any of the criteria since A7 only covers web content (websites, podcasts, and that sort) and software isn't really considered to be web content. It's not promotional enough to speedy and it's not copyvio, so it doesn't really fall under the various criteria, otherwise I'd have speedied it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS references. As above, social networking sites are not RS. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 SmartSE (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minaakshi S Dass[edit]

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

not in line with WP:Notability & WP:BLP. Peppy Paneer (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, the previous deletion log. Peppy Paneer (talk) 06:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tongue[edit]

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

Non-notable band with no charting releases and no notable members. Also the only two sources on the page fail the Wikipedia policty for sources. I could not find any sources to why they should be kept on here, not that I dislike the band, I love their music. Just saying I don't think they qualify under notability. Second Skin (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 11:13 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No indication this is a notable group, and can't find any singificant coverage, only routine database entries. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Save"" This is a notable group, they have releases on iTunes as well as an upcoming album through a label. Edits rquired. Information in bio is hearsay, and sourceless. Rewrite of bio recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B001:A777:0:39:9FA1:7C01 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can draft & userfy this to your userspace if you wish but until there's better third-party coverage, there's not much to help the article. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as my searches found nothing good aside from some local coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good Fellas of Baltimore[edit]

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

Now non-existence program (website is closed and no further evidence to suggest continuous existence) and my searches found absolutely nothing good aside from this (various links). I believe there's not even much to support a brief mention at the TV station's article as it seemed to have been a rather brief and ordinary segment and there isn't even much information such as when it started or ended for that matter. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Brokered programming; paid to get it on TV using paid programming time and obviously didn't get much further than the 13 that aired in 2011-12 when the funding ran out. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to television series that aired on a single station in a single media market; to be suitable for inclusion here, a television series must have had national distribution, or must be reliably sourceable as clearly meeting WP:GNG. Neither of those, however, has been demonstated here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarath Kodithuwakku[edit]

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

Not Notable - No evidence that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:PROF. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Bondegezou (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability in the article, sources are primary pieces by the subject, a faculty listing, and some don't mention the subject, google scholar lists one paper that was cited 150 times, and another that was cited 30 times, not quite enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Kraxler (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and above editors. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 14:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sardha Wijesoma[edit]

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

Not Notable - No evidence to support that the subject satisfies the criteria under WP:PROF. Article lacks any in-depth support of individual. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACADEMICS #3, was a member of IEEE which is cited as an example at the criterion, also # 1, is a widely cited scholar, this shows 86 publications, total of 349 citations. Kraxler (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Amended. Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Kraxler: - criteria #3 states the subject should be a 'fellow' of a major scholarly society. Being a mere member is signficantly different from being a fellow - to be a member all you need to do is apply and meet the basic membership criteria whilst to be a fellow, you have to be recognised by the institute for your signficiant contributions to the institute and the industry, it is a highly selective honor. Unless there is documented evidence that Wijesoma has been elevated from member to fellow then it clearly fails criteria #3. 349 citations is a relatively low number and is hardly considered to be a widely cited scholar - it does not meet criteria #1 either. Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The actual status of his membership is uncertain, he may have been just a "member", two grades nelow "fellow". I amended my rationale. The citation count is subject to interpretation. I'd like some other users more familiar with this criterion to comment. Kraxler (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep - this is very borderline. I'm not sure 350 cites makes him notable. The fact that he also co-authored books which were cited another 600+ times tipped me to keep. Onel5969 TT me 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Malawi (band)[edit]

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

Not notable. Once the youtube, soundcloud, and self-published sources are stripped out it's sole sourced claim to notability is that they were ONCE played on a BBC online (not broadcast) digital radio station at 2am. Fails WP:NMG Bazj (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

online (not broadcast) -> digital per Michig's comment. Bazj (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. BBC 6 Music is a broadcast radio station. How about looking beyond what's in the article per WP:BEFORE? There's plenty of Czech coverage of the band and some in English, e.g. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. --Michig (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 Talk 18:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Samorajczyk[edit]

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

Delete: utterly non-notable politician. Quis separabit? 17:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 01:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - normally, we delete or merge such articles, but she's more borderline than most I've seen at AfD. This is subject to re-creation or a keep if somebody can come up with better sourcing or she wins higher office. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP Why now? Jim Webb is running for president and readers will want to read about his wives and the mother of his children. It is premature to delete her WP article now when it can come up for deletion later. Just my humble opinion. -- AstroU (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • County councillors do not get automatic inclusion rights on Wikipedia just because they were county councillors, and wives of politicians don't inherit notability just for being wives. She certainly might qualify for an article if she could be reliably sourced enough to pass WP:GNG, but the only source in this entire article is a raw table of election results. So nothing here makes her eligible to keep an article as things stand right now — and "readers will want to read about his wives and the mother of his children" doesn't hold any weight as a Wikipedia inclusion criterion if the sourcing isn't there to properly support an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not inherited or transferred. It is also not temporary, so why now simply does not apply, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Aisenberg[edit]

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

Meets WP:BLP1E. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you explain why BLP1E applies here? this source says that he appeared in multiple films prior to the current appearance on TV. A person who has made multiple public appearances on film and TV seems an unlikely candidate for BLP1E protection. 109.79.90.87 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is not notable for his previous appearances. He is only notable for his current appearance. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the article has been expanded. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 14:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If by expanded you mean two tables with unreferenced information were added, then yes. No evidence the subject is notable. I've personally been unable to find a single reference about his previous roles, and about his minor role in OISTNB there very few sources available. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's appearances seem notable and does not seem like an candidate for BLP1E protection.:::: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.155.249 (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar 08:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now or redirect to Orange_Is_the_New_Black#Recurring_cast as my searches found nothing good aside from low and trivial coverage. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here, as that's not applicable to an actor getting notability from a role — but what does apply here is that the article isn't reliably sourced enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Our notability rules for actors do not confer an automatic freebie on every actor who has ever had television or film or stage credits at all — they still require coverage in reliable sources, and one news article about him is not sufficient to satisfy that. (IMDb is never a valid source in and of itself, either — our rules permit it to be listed as an external link on an actor's article, but not to be cited as a reference or to confer their notability in and of itself.) No prejudice against recreation if and when more sourcing can be found — he doesn't need more than OINTB to pass our notability rules for actors, but he does need a more substantive volume of sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MALOVA[edit]

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

After doing a web search on this topic I could find no information on this organization. I would fix it myself but I can't find any sources. It is a one sentence article with some wikilinks. It is non-encyclopedic and seems to be a definition at best. It's edit history is confusing and doesn't seem to clear up the question of why the article even exists.

  Bfpage |leave a message  01:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I searched for this topic and cannot find it in any search - at all. There seem to be many people who have this for a surname; This article may be a hoax.
  Bfpage |leave a message  01:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an organization so much as a case-control study. It's definitely real and there are a number of peer-reviewed articles backing this up, such as [26] [27] [28] In addition, there are the sources I just added to the article. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not a hoax at all but appears to be a well-cited study. search for kræft+malova or cancer+malova and you'll find it. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: what are the notability criteria for a case-control study? I can't see any particular value in this study having its own article. Sure, this study can be used as a citation to back up claims in other articles, but why have an article on it that seems destined to remain a stub? Bondegezou (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The peer reviewed documentation shows the notability of the subject. The fact that it is a stub, and may remain a stub (although I don't necessarily agree with that assessment) doesn't have a bearing on its notability. Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Chawla[edit]

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

My searches found nothing to suggest she's more than an ordinary corporate lawyer, with searches this, this and this (I performed a few other searches but found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Kalagbor[edit]

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

Subject of the article is a "Doctor of Philosophy, Ph. D" (not yet a professor) and acting provost (not yet a provost). He fails WP:ACADEMIC. He fails criterion 1 as his research has not made significant impact in his scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. He would have manage to pass criterion 5, had it been he's a full Professor. His appointment as provost (without been a professor) is an indication that a Provost is not a "Distinguished Professor" appointment, therefore fails criterion 5, perhaps the seat is reserved for a professor who will be appointed soon and probably that is why the subject of the article is acting (no reason to be hasty to have a stand-alone article). Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 01:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as subject passes WP:BIO. There's no such thing as "he's an acting" or "he is not an acting" in our policy here. The subject has been appointed by the Governor as head of a government-owned education institution. Therefore a government official. The article also meets WP:RS. Stanleytux (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC) User:Stanleytux is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]
I usually don't expect anything different from a "Speed keep", "Strong Keep", "Keep" or "merge" and sometime "redirect" vote from an article creator when their ridiculous articles get nominated for deletion through WP:AfD because editors rarely want their articles or contributions deleted. However, you need not be reminded that government officials are not inherently notable, they must meet our primary inclusion criteria and in this case WP:ACADEMIC must be satisfy. If I may ask, which of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria does your Samuel Kalagbor met? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A google news and book search further provides substantial evidence of notability. If you feel the article can get better, you should try to improve it and not nominate it for deletion when it is clearly about a notable person. Stanleytux (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Acting college administrators are not automatically Wikipedia notable. there would have to be significant coverage in reliable media. In this case, there is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very new article, and it seems a shame to jump on it immediately with an AfD, but I clicked on the searches offered by Stanleytux as "substantial evidence" and found only three Google entries for each. It's not that US-related sources dominated the first pages, but that there were only three sources total. If the creator of the page can find local sources that perhaps we don't find in Google and add them to the page, then I'm happy to change my !vote. If there is more work to be done on this, the creator can ask for it to be userfied, and can continue to work on it without fear of deletion. LaMona (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LaMona, the page was created by an established editor who has the autopatrol user right. Besides, you need not be reminded that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about being automatically notable. The subject is notable and the article is supported by sources that are reliable. Major Nigerian newspapers such as The Tide, The Sun and P.M. News among others, have published content on the subject who assumed office like a couple of days ago. There's really no point deleting this article. LaMona I found these 1, 2, 3 and 4.Stanleytux (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new links. Of those, 2 and 4 seem to have significant coverage of the appointment news. It's still hard for me to see this as encyclopedic since this is recent news, and of the nature of "new person comes in promising significant reform." It don't see support for wp:academic, as this is more about management than academics; and the management aspect is all of 2 weeks old, if I read the article 1 correctly. Essentially what we have are announcements of a new appointment. That doesn't change my !vote. LaMona (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided centered on his appointment as "acting provost". He is not a professor and has not been confirmed as "Provost". WP:ACADEMIC isn't satisfied here. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 22:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not going to ask for it to be userfied. Stanleytux (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's only an "acting" appointment, so, no on that basis. Moreover, it does not appear to be a "major" institution; it has only just received the authority to grant degrees - and it is not even clear what level of degree it grants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Acting" or not is just a legal distinction, not something that affects notability, see Acting Governor John Tayler. The College has seven different schools for different areas taught there (engineering, management etc.) and they grant the same degrees as any other university in Nigeria. The distinction between a college and a university is that colleges focus on teaching, while universities are required to do also research. Kraxler (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • edits) 03:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Of the sources cited in the article or brought up in this discussion, six ([29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]) are the epitome of trivial coverage. In total they contain only these 106 words about the subject:
  1. "TRANSITION COMMITTEE ... Dr. Samuel Kalagbor"
  2. "According to the statement, Wordu would handover to Dr. Samuel Kalagbor with immediate effect."
  3. "He is to handover to Dr. Samuel Kalagbor with immediate effect."
  4. "He is to handover to Dr. Samuel Kalagbor with immediate effect."
  5. "In a related development, the Governor of Rivers State, Chief Nyesom Wike, has ordered the Provost of the Rivers State College of Arts and Science to hand over to Dr. Samuel Kalagbor with immediate effect."
  6. "Earlier in his welcome address, the Acting Provost of RIVCAS, Dr Samuel Kalagbor urged lecturers and participants of the conference to strive towards excellence in their field of endeavours."
The only other pieces not written by the subject, [35], [36] and [37], are all from the same source. They are longer, but are primary sources reporting his comments with virtually no independent analysis. Kalagbor talking about Kalagbor does not establish notability.
Even if we assume that provost is the highest-level academic post at Rivers State College of Arts and Science (RIVCAS) - which none of the cited sources say - RIVCAS, as fine an institution as it no doubt is, is by no stretch of the imagination a significant or major university. It is a run-of-the-mill state polytechnic, "recently upgraded to award degrees" [38], where staff and faculty have to be reminded to show up to work and teach their assigned classes [39]. The subject does not meet criteria #5 or #6 (or any other) of WP:NACADEMICS. Worldbruce (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refs # 7 and 8 are the same piece, from June 2015, ref # 9 is a different article from August 2015, they are both in-depth coverage of Kalagbor. The guideline NACADEMICS #6 doesn't require a "significant or major university" it says "a major academic institution" which includes any State degree awarding certified college. I'm afraid you are stretching your imagination to make something that is clearly inside the bounds of a guideline to protrude outside that limit. Kraxler (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching my error with sources #7 and #8. I've now corrected #8 so that they link to the two separate articles I intended. #7 is the best source of a bad bunch. It's an interview with Kalagbor about Wike's education plan. Although not about Kalagbor directly, and although it provides no in-depth information about Kalagbor, it does include limited biographical information about him - that he's an educationist, a university lecturer, and a stalwart of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Rivers State. #8 and #9 are primary sources. Notability criteria WP:GNG and WP:BASIC state that sources used to establish notability should be secondary sources.
In paraphrasing WP:NACADEMICS, I didn't mean to draw a distinction between colleges and universities, but between major and non-major, between significant and run-of-the-mill. NACADEMICS criterion #6 says, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution" (emphasis mine). The specific criteria notes further explain, "Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university ... " (emphasis again mine). One example of a major academic institution (a significant accredited college or university) would be University of Lagos. The criteria does not say that it is satisfied by "any State degree awarding certified college", and in my experience it is not applied that way. Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification of your understanding of the guideline. But, newspaper articles are not primary sources, they are WP:secondary sources. These articles in The Tide are not reprinted press releases, they seem to have been written by some sort of journalist, not by a college employee. Kraxler (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are multiple reasons why Samuel Kalagbor may not be suitable for inclusion. Firstly "Rivers State College of Arts and Science" is never a major academic institution in Nigeria. Secondly, this man is just an "acting provost". The "Provost" is on leave and may probably return to the seat soon or better still, another person entirely. I see no reason to be hasty to have a stand-alone article for this local and non-notable academic. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 06:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether RIVCAS is a major academic institution or not, is not easily to ascertain from the sources. I would take your word for it, but that would be OR. Judging from their website, and from our list of polytechnics in Nigeria, there are only 2 polytechnics in Rivers State. Also, "major" does not mean "the biggest" or "the best". Could you say how many students are enrolled there? The sitting provost was actually removed from office by the governor, and certainly will not come back. Kalagbor was a member of the governor's tranition committee earlier this year, so I'm confident that he will stay, either acting for a long time. It's also unclear how the provost is actually chosen, or appointed. Kraxler (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "Major" doesn't mean "the biggest" or "the best". The word "Major" means "Great in scope or effect". The oxford dictionary defined it as "great or greater". These definition makes the word "major" differs from "minor" or "ordinary" which applies to "RIVCAS". The truth is, RIVCAS is actually a minor academic institution in Nigeria. Let me also correct n impression that the sitting provost was sack. " Hillary Wordu ", the sitting provost was not sacked but was directed to " proceed on compulsory leave" per The Sun News and Today FM. To " proceed on compulsory leave" is not the same as "Sacked". "Wordu" is on leave and "Samuel" is only acting before he returns. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's delete it for now, it may be WP:TOOSOON. Anytime his academic position is consolidated, or he appears more in the media, the article can be recreated. Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that's fine! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 04:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_20&oldid=1142626705"