Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 December 31 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Stevens[edit]

Christie Stevens (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 the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Brief, unbilled appearances in online promo videos are not featured performances in notable mainstream media. PROD removed without explanation, article improvement, or edit summary by account without substantive edit history The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:38, 31 December 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. Overall consensus is to Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Refugees[edit]

The Forgotten Refugees (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 a propaganda film from a propaganda organization (some wider context is here and regarding the funding organization's founder here). Reading WP:NOTFILM, I am not sure whether the Marbella International Film Festival counts as a major award. Strangely, despite this award, I could not find meaningful coverage of the film in WP:RS. And I could not find any WP:RS reviews. The Marbella award aside, I do not believe WP:N or WP:RS is established here. Pinging article creator @Iammargi: as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - being a propaganda film is not an argument against notability whatsoever. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. But the propaganda context is important as it should invite a healthy level of skepticism as to the article and as to the forthcoming deletion discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, skepticism about the article required. But that's more of a thing that should govern editing and protecting the article, not so much deletion. As an analogy, we have an article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in addition to reiterating what AllGloryToTheHypnotoad wrote (that this is not a valid argument for deletion whatsoever), this film won 2 awards at international film festivals, which meets the notability requirements for films. I have also added numerous mentions in reliable sources (easily found, by anyone trying) that attest to notability (screenings at hearings at the UN, the US Congress' Caucus on Human rights, etc..) which satisfy the WP:GNG When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why are there no WP:RS reviews of this film? There is something fishy here. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are - e.g. - [1]. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not WP:RS. The publication is produced by the AJCongress, which like the David Project, is a right wing advocacy group. The two organizations even appear to have some connections to each other. Can you find a neutral and unconnected WP:RS? If this film is notable, surely that would not be difficult. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is an academic journal - [2] available in hundreds of university librarries - check worldcat. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has an agenda connected to the subject of that article, so is clearly not WP:RS in this context. Again, if this film is notable, surely you can find a neutral and unconnected WP:RS? Oncenawhile (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is an academic journal, as the citation I gave you shows. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PERSONAL. You've been banned once, you haven't learned a lesson, so you're gone unless you start apologizing for abusive tone and behaviour. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. It is not peer reviewed. It is the journal of an advocacy organization. Many advocacy groups have such outlets. They may be ok to use for certain topics, but are to be treated with extreme care for wikipedia purposes, given their funded agenda. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is, in fact, peer reviewed.
Yes, it is , from the same source: "Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought is an academic journal" [3] When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the answer. The Marbella Festival is run by New World Films. New World Films is the film distributor for this film, responsible for its marketing (see here). So the "award" is almost certainly a self promotion. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
further comment - Given the nature of today's internet and the amount of cruft that can be sourced nowadays, I doubted the AfD nom's assertion of WP:RS failure. But I've just done a cursory Google and have found little mention of this documentary beyond showings at minor film festivals, which looks fishy to me too - I know how easy it is for artists to fake notability through walled gardening. The topic of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands is quite obviously notable, but this 15-minute doc seems not to be. However, I'd caution people to perhaps look for Hebrew-language sources before deleting. That's why I still reserve my !votinating. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123047#.VocilJMrKV5 - Describes a screening of the film for the US Congress
http://www.nytheatre-wire.com/bj06021t.htm - Feature from New York Theatre Wire
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/10/the_forgotten_refugees.html - Mentioned in American Thinker
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-149590116/the-forgotten-refugees-remembered-in-film - Review in "Judaism"
Incidentally, the film was screened at my synagogue when it first came out. The synagogue is Sephardic, and several of the Mizrahi congregation members shared their personal accounts of escaping antisemitic persecution. Sad to see some people on wikipedia trying to deny it. Drsmoo (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the links you have provided, the two Israeli newspapers give only a sentence each describing just the existence of the film with no description or detail at all. The other three are not WP:RS (the first is a local theatre blog and database, the second is a conservative advocacy website, and the third is a non-peer reviewed journal for an advocacy organization connected to the producers of this film). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. The mentions in the Israeli newspapers say the film was screened at a UN panel on Jewish refugees, and at a US Congress hearing on that topic. That , alone, would satisfy WP:GNG. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How? WP:GNG says ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail", yet neither of those sources provide any detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)my[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NF being established above under WP:NRVE. And though some may feel the subject non-notable or slanted (an addressable issue), per WP:ARTN and WP:NNC, topics with coverage merit inclusion. Time to address tone and not delete for lack. it is expected that Jewish sources would cover a Jewish topic. Simply up to us to maintain neutrality and balance. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MichaelQSchmidt, please could you provide your analysis behind your conclusion that WP:NF has been established? Oncenawhile (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well..."if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". Further, under WPV and WP:SIGCOV, the topic being sourced need not be the sole topic discussed in a source. So the lengthy article in JWeekly is not trivial. Archived by Questia, the lengthy article in Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought is not trivial. The mention in Times of Israel is not trivial. The lengthy article in American Thinker is not trivial. The interview in C.A.M.E.R.A. is not trivial. So my "analysis" is we have enough sourcing for an eleven-year-old documentary film per our community standards, thank you. We do not need the same amount of sourcing as we have for Jihad or The Patriot to be notable. But rather than re-argue or try to convince of how we apply the consensus-created community standard, I invite you to read, study, and attempt understanding of WP:GNG, WP:NF and its WP:NF#General principles, and understand that whether anyone might personally believes] a topic is irrelevant, under WP:ARTN and WP:NNC we objectively judge by its sourcability, and not by any subjective "perceptive". Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q. 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MichaelQSchmidt, I am confused. You say the American Thinker article is not trivial, yet the mention of the film is just one short sentence in passing? So it fails the "in detail" requirement of GNG. American Thinker is also definitely not a WP:RS. You mention CAMERA, which is definitely not WP:RS. You mention the journal "Judaism..." from AJCongress, which as described in detail above, is not WP:RS. You say the Times of Israel mention is not trivial, but the reference to the film is indirect and they don't even say what it is about. So it fails the "directly and in detail" requirement of GNG. Am I missing something? Oncenawhile (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are... several things. The guide's instruction for "directly and in detail" does not also mandate a non-policy non-guideline WP:SUBSTANTIAL. And you seem to intentionally avoid discussing the nice coverage in Jweekly while and ignoring that a source being used does not have to be 100% about the topic being sourced... and that a pertinent source discussing in detail the themes and history that inspired the film is not exactly trivial. And just where is your support from WP:RSN allowing your (unfounded) declaration that an authored review in American Thinker or the review in the academic journal "Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought" from the American Jewish Congress are somehow unsuitable for sourcing a Jewish-related topics? And please describe your personal issues with the non-profit Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America? You are welcome to bring forth criticisms from Al Jazeera or Pravda or Arab News. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AT, AJCongress and CAMERA are advocacy organizations, and they certainly don't have "the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires". That a propaganda work is pushed by other politically-aligned propaganda organizitions does not make it notable. If that was the case, then every piece of propaganda ever created would be worthy of a wikipedia article. And yes I have a specific issue with CAMERA, and I suspect you will agree with me once you read about how they were caught trying to subvert wikipedia a few years ago. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that all Jewish sources aren't reliable because the movie is about Jews is mesmerizing. The above user has not elaborated on how/why the sources are not valid, only to claim that each and every one of them are "advocacy organizations". And that the Israeli newspapers are not valid because they only describe the notability of the film, rather than going in depth about the film. But then an in-depth review from a theater magazine is suddenly a "blog" and an article in a conservative magazine is not valid because it's "conservative." And so on. The arguments are vague and meaningless. The notability of this film is clearly established. Just for fun though another article in a prominent newspaper: http://www.jpost.com/Features/In-Thespotlight/The-Nakba-of-Moroccos-Jews. Btw, as I just posted above, "Judaism" is in fact peer reviewed

So we have: Screened at the UN, screened at the US Congress, covered in the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, and Israel National News, reviewed in New York Theatre Review, featured in American Thinker as well as a peer-reviewed journal. So it's quite notable. Drsmoo (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is particularly mesmerizing that you think anyone holds that view. If the coverage in the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, and Israel National News was actually detailed and not just a sentence in passing, that would be satisfactory to my mind. As to the other sources, if you are arguing for an exception to WP:RS, you should state your case. None of them qualify on the face of it. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
country:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
year and type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
production:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - NN film done as propaganda. The topic of the film is important in current politics so the film receives indirect press release mention in notable journals as they discuss the broader more important topic. A certain type of political commentator will use any chance to mention the exile of Jews from Arab lands, Anyone can have a screening, does not mean anyone showed up.But film is NN, David project is entirety propaganda, little new here.--Jayrav (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is found through coverage, not politics or popularity. "Propaganda" is a subjective description and not a deletion rationale. Sorry. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct and there has been little coverage. TOI and AT are indirect mentions, Judaism, however, was a good direct mention and coverage.--Jayrav (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources added to the article and those described above meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't need to point out to the closing administrator -- but shall do so anyway, perhaps for the benefit of others -- that we have a vast category structure for Category:Propaganda films. So whether or not as film is or isn't "propaganda" is entirely immaterial. I see the article is not categorized as such, and if kept, editors would be free to add it to this category tree and adapt the article content to reflect this, if they have reliable sources characterizing it as such. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and a pertinent example of the problem here. We know it's a propaganda film because it was produced by an organization whose sole purpose is propaganda (e.g. "...propaganda machineries like David Project..."), and whose only other film is characterized by WP:RS as such (e.g. "...produced a propaganda film..."). But because, as discussed ad nauseum above, we have no WP:RS which give any more than a single sentence describing the existence of this film, so we cannot make any suggestion that the film was made for propaganda purposes in the article. Hence if this article remains it will forever be a whitewashed view, an advert if you will. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You do have some options in addition to deletion: if it is produced by a propaganda organization there's at least a case to be made for describing and categorizing this film as such, even if you can't find a reliable source stating "X is a propaganda film about..." And if that's resisted, you can always tag it as {{advert}} or {{POV}} and state your case in that regard. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but is it really acceptable to go down any of those routes without any WP:RS? IMHO, this is precisely the reason why all wikipedia articles need at least one detailed WP:RS underpinning them. This whole deletion debate boils down to whether we are willing to accept a review from an advocacy organization connected to the film's producers as an WP:RS for a propaganda film. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone is nursing a prejudice (and I am not accusing you of doing so),Jweekly (for instance) has been long considered a reliable source for Jewish topics. 01:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC).
  • Speedy Keep notability has been well established and the nominator continues to push a bias that merely because the source is Jewish it can't be RS, we have seen that at RS/N a few times and it is disgusting and there's one reason why you don't see many Jewish editors editing certain topics. After a certain point you need to take a step back and look at all the sources and see if there is something there, regardless of the topic at hand. That is what WP is about, this article is notable, not for the specific topic, but the notability of the article has been clearly met. Is the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival also not a notable film festival? Sir Joseph (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - after reading the above, I'd assert that between the Jerusalem Post and Jweekly sources above, there is sufficient independent mention of the doc and assertion of its notability for there to be an article. Schmidt above argues it better than I can. I'm confident that good Wikipedia editors could make a good article on this doc - whether or not we can find anyone with enough good faith to produce an unbiased article on this topic is not a valid point in an AfD debate. And parenthetically, for those editors interested in the finer theory of RS, I'd add that propaganda is often in the eye of the beholder, and there are many peer-reviewed journals and scholarly texts (e.g. in economics) that publish what many sensible educated scholars would identify as blatant propaganda. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schmidt. Simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT case from single-issue editor on WP:POVPUSHING crusade. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Business Furniture[edit]

National Business Furniture (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 company, some local coverage but no depth of coverage. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly not notable. A7 would have taken care of it. DGG ( talk ) 09:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as perhaps simply none of this suggests better notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Gallagher, Kathleen (2005-09-10). "It's 'Go' for sale of furniture firm". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2016-01-01 – via HighBeam Research.

      The article's introduction:

      For many years, the green light on a traffic signal inside National Business Furniture's downtown offices has meant its best suppliers are visiting.

      Now the privately owned mail-order furniture distributor has given the green light to something entirely different: selling the Milwaukee company.

      George and Julie Mosher started National Business Furniture in 1972 with a $50,000 bank loan. Through internal growth and acquisitions, they've turned it into a company with 120 employees projecting $130 million of sales and about $10 million in profits this year.

      In July, they hired Gruppo Levy, a New York investment banking firm that specializes in advising and selling catalog-related businesses.

      The article further notes:

      National Business Furniture sells desks, chairs, file cabinets and other office equipment, along with some home furniture through its catalog and over the Internet.

      It has become what Mosher says is the biggest business-to-business mail-order furniture company in the country by developing ways to measure the company's vendors, hiring the right people, and figuring out how to best satisfy its 450,000 customers.

      This 958-word article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the largest newspaper in Wisconsin, provides substantial coverage of the subject.
    2. Lank, Avrum D. (1985-08-06). "Mosher willing to help firms at start". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article's introduction:

      Ten years ago, a banker took a chance on George and Julie Mosher.

      The bet turned out well. Now, the Moshers are trying to keep that risk-taking tradition alive.

      The banker was Roger G. Dirksen. He met the Moshers at a birthday party in Whitefish Bay in 1975.

      The party was for Moshers' 5-year-old daughter Karen. Dirksen's daughter was a guest.

      At the time, George Mosher, who holds an MBA from Harvard University, was the leader, and one-third owner of the Business and Institutional Furniture Co. in Milwaukee. His partnership in the company had cost him $8,000.

      The article further notes:

      Since then, with little recourse to additional borrowing from the Associated Commerce Bank, of which Dirksen is now president, Mosher has built National Business Furniture, the company he and his wife started, to $14 million a year in sales.

      The company has offices in Atlanta and Los Angeles as well as Milwaukee. It employes about 25 people who sell business furniture by means of a catalog and the telephone.

      It has been so successful, indeed, that the Moshers have been able to buy two other furniture companies - the Alfax Manufacturing Co., New York City, for $300,000 and the Office Furniture Center, Waltham, Mass., for $700,000.

    3. Del Franco, Mark (2004-08-15). "From Office Furniture to Futons". Multichannel Merchant. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      During the past 30 years, Milwaukee-based National Business Furniture has sold furniture exclusively to midsize businesses, schools, and churches. Now the $110 million cataloger is reaching out to consumers as well, via its Furniture Online Website.

      National Business Furniture mails three business-to-business titles: the eponymous flagship catalog; Alfax Furniture, which sells to schools and universities; and church furniture title Dallas Midwest. Each catalog has an accompanying URL. The company acquired the Furniture Online URL in June 2001 when it bought OfficeFurniture.com and has spent two years tinkering with the business.

      Furniture Online carries about 4,000 SKUs, including entertainment centers, bedroom furniture, and futons. Finding products for the consumer segment wasn’t a problem, says founder/president/CEO George Mosher. Because of the company’s volume, National Business Furniture already had relationships with about 150 furniture manufacturers. The cataloger approached some of its key vendors at trade shows about buying consumer furniture from them.

    4. Barnard, Patrick (2009-01-14). "National Business Furniture Opens Three DCs". Multichannel Merchant. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.
    5. Daykin, Tom (2014-03-19). "National Business Furniture virtual showroom offers live demonstrations". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      National Business Furniture, with annual sales approaching $150 million, is a longtime industry player.

      The company was founded in 1975 by George and Julie Mosher, who sold it in 2006 to TAKKT AG, a German corporation. It has 150 employees, including 85 in Milwaukee. Most of those local employees are at the company's headquarters and call center, at the City Center at 735 building, 735 N. Water St.

    6. Brohan, Mark (2014-10-20). "A furniture wholesaler gets comfortable with procurement strategy". Internet Retailer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      National Business Furniture, a supplier of office furniture to companies and consumers, relies on sales through a procurement network to grow sales among an increasing number of corporate buyers.

      National Business Furniture, a Milwaukee-based direct marketer of office furniture with annual sales of more than $100 million, is a big believer in using a commercial network to grow its business-to-business e-commerce operation, says Brady Seiberlich, manager of information technology, electronic procurement and development. With connectivity through Ariba Inc., a unit of SAP AG that links corporate buyers and sellers using standardized Internet technology, National Business Furniture, or NBF, is able to directly connect with a growing list of 20 large customers, Seiberlich says.

      From https://www.internetretailer.com/about/:

      Internet Retailer Magazine was launched in March 1999 by Faulkner & Gray, a unit of Thomson Reuters. It was purchased in 2000 by F&G CEO Jack Love and some members of his management team, who left Thomson to form Vertical Web Media.

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

    Cunard (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • National Business Furniture received significant coverage in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the largest newspaper in Wisconsin, in 1985, 2005, and 2014. It received significant coverage in the magazine Multichannel Merchant. It has also received significant coverage in Internet Retailer, a magazine created by Thomson Reuters's Faulkner & Gray division, which in 2000 sold it to the F&G's management team.

    According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, National Business Furniture in 2005 had 400,000 customers. In 2014, it had $150 million in sales and is a "longtime industry player".

    Cunard (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lacking significant independent coverage, plus concerns of promotional activity. Cunard: the pieces you point out above are churnalism, not independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hello, Cunard. It seems you had a productive January 1st, finding sources for quite a few business-related article. But I'm not seeing what the cites here are adding to the discussion. A company in Milwaukee gets some write-ups in a Milwaukee newspaper -- that hardly seems noteworthy (and, by the way, one of those articles is about the founder, not the company itself). As for the trade-press cites, it's all 'inside baseball' stuff. We are told that a catalog distributor is expanding its on-line presence -- that's true of virtually every reseller today. We also learn that the company opened some distribution centers and is looking into a new procurement strategy. None of this is encyclopedic.
It might be relevant to note that this article was largely the work of a single-purpose account -- TerryAHull, who appears to be the commercial writer whose web page is here.
Two more points. First, this company is owned by K+K America, which doesn't have an article. The parent of the parent does have an article, but on the German wikipedia, not the English one (that article is here). To get an English-language article, you need to go to the parent of the parent of the parent, which is Franz Haniel & Cie.. This, too, is the work of a single-purpose account, not only for the English article but the original German-language article, as well. And there's no point in redirecting the instant article to the Haniel article, because the instant company isn't mentioned there.
Second, as to the notion that the subject is a "longtime industry player", the subject company is only about 40 years old. I grew up in a neighborhood that had grocery stores that were longer-lived than that.
I expect that you and I will simply disagree about the notability of this company. I'm still interested in hearing what you think of these comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Mycles[edit]

Brett Mycles (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 the GNG. No awards or nominations. Little independent reliable sourcing. Importantly, there is no reliable sourcing associating the fitness model named in the article with the porn pseudonym used as the article title, but most of the content regarding the fitness model is wholly unsourced and more promotional than reliable. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by a newly created account with no other edits. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just a scene-related nomination. Fails GNG as a porn star and as a fitness model without significant coverage by independent reliable sources. The Toledo Blade death notice is not independent. Other coverage comes from blogs and sites like Find a Grave. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned above, no notable for the guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguements. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gamestyle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gamestyle (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)

Doesn't appear to be a popular website. And can't seem to find any information on the page so I don't think it is at all notable. GamerPro64 23:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to have an aside, I just discovered that this article may have been made by Mattcoxonline, who appears to have been a writer for the site. So this being a form of self-promotion looks to be the case here, too. GamerPro64 03:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar 17:10, 31 December 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) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Oh-hyun[edit]

Cho Oh-hyun (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 difficult to understand, but I see no indication in it that the subject meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. I found at least a couple references that he is considered notable in the poetry world, adding a couple of awards that were considered notable by a Korean newspaper and a mention in passing in The New Yorker (this last not enough to establish notability, but a verification to support the Korean reference that he has notability outside Korea, not that he needs that to be notable outside Korea for Wikipedia; Korean culture is sufficiently notable on its own). Someone who reads Korean would likely be able to find more references. And I only found a couple places with odd wording, which somebody who can translate Korean can probably clean up. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The prizes appear significant. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve as this seemingly needs better work. SwisterTwister talk 18:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will edit with better content after consulting Korean sources. 5 January 2016.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdwtalk 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Tait[edit]

Marissa Tait (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)

FTR, I actually remember this actress and liked her. But WP:NACTOR requires "...significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows..." and I don't think Tait gets there – she has maybe two: a 1-year stint on The Bold and the Beautiful and a co-starring role on the short-lived Baby Bob. Meanwhile, WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage" that "addresses the topic directly", and all I can find are passing mentions in reviews, etc. for "Baby Bob" (e.g. here). This one's more borderline, but I think it fails notability requirements. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Best known work is The Bold and the Beautiful with one soap opera award for that but there's nothing else better aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I love to figure out a way to keep articles about folks like this, she simply doesn't pass either WP:GNG (not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources) or WP:NACTOR (not enough significant roles in notable projects). The soap is a good gig, but the short-lived Baby-Bob bit doesn't quite make it. She had a major role in The Last Resort, but I question the notability of the film (appears to be a low-budget slasher film). Onel5969 TT me 13:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cartoons featuring Hollywood celebrities[edit]

List of cartoons featuring Hollywood celebrities (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 list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTN Legacypac (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; celebrities being featured in animation is more often than not extremely trivial Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Cescon[edit]

Craig Cescon (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:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Modest low-minor league career without particular distinction, fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the player meets the GNG. Ravenswing 06:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and does not qualify under WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 TT me 13:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti Talk 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 ICC Awards[edit]

2015 ICC Awards (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)
  • Queried speedy delete as "a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail, or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, ICC Awards#2015 awards": see Talk:2015 ICC Awards#Contested deletion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already exists at ICC Awards#2015 awards with no additional content on this page. No other years' award has its own article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have 2012 ICC Awards, 2011 ICC Awards, etc. (i.e. Joseph2302 erred in his statement above), and the 2015 article can easily be expanded to be of the same level of detail as those other pages. It strikes me as premature resorting to deletion when the nominator's issues can be solved by improvement. (Also, clearly this is a redirect candidate rather than a deletion candidate). Aspirex (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As we have all the other years that the awards have been held so why not keep it then Matt294069 is coming 23:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs expansion and clean-up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdwtalk 01:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Men Going Their Own Way[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Men Going Their Own Way (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 a school report full of weasel words, sentences phrased to appear to be references, and all sorts of other devices and stratagems to seek to show that this neologism is notable. It fails. Fiddle Faddle 19:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Notability has been established by the many reliable sources that refer to this referent. Notability grounds for deletion fail, so deletion cannot occur on those grounds. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim down, refine and keep. The subject is clearly notable, as defined by being the topic of multiple news items from WP:RS, as a Google News search will show. The article in its current form still needs substantial changes to meet Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and citation rules. It will, however, require quite rigorous and thorough editing to achieve those standards. -- The Anome (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @The Anome: if you rip it apart and rebuild it, or if someone else does, then ping me and I'll give serious consideration to withdrawing the nomination. At present I doubt it can be achieved and thus am sticking with "non notable neologism". I'm willing to have my mind changed, though. Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been chopping away at it for some time, and there's still quite some way to go: the initial version of this article was a lengthy WP:SYN-heavy essay. A Google news search seems to show that there are more reliable sources available on this that the original author realized. A Google Scholar search might also be helpful. -- The Anome (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- I thought for sure I'd be !voting delete on this, because of the POV pushing and misrepresentations from both sides, but Anome's good work has convinced me that it has potential. Reyk YO! 21:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing vote to delete. The article no longer even properly explains what it is about and the criticism section is much too prominent. If the best we can do is an uninformative hatchet job maybe we shouldn't have an article at all. Reyk YO! 06:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your grounds for deletion ("If the best we can do is...(than) ....we shouldn't have an article at all.") are false. This is not the best we can do. We can do much better. Your deletion grounds are not valid. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't explain what the subject is even about, and it's been like that for over a week with no sign of improvement. If I am mistaken, prove it. Reyk YO! 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - The article (re)creator did a decent job providing sources and showing relevance, though it was rough. A good start and The Anome is doing a good job refining it and making it encyclopedic. Given its notability and the fact that people are working on it, I say keep for now. Once the work is done, we can reevaluate, but I doubt I'll be in favor of deleting by then given the current progress. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - As the creator of the article, I am not interested in having a Wikipedia article about MGTOW just for the sake of having a Wikipedia article about MGTOW. If the article does not correctly and completely explain MGTOW, detail the various gradations within MGTOW, and contrast it with unrelated men's groups, explain its equivalence with the herbivore men, and its equivalence with the marriage strike/boycott, then I don't even see the point in having an article. If it makes any difference, the near-consensus of the MGTOW outside Wikipedia with whom I've discussed this is agreement with my delete vote here. Editors who know nothing about the subject have somehow decided that MGTOW has nothing to do with the herbivore men, or with the marriage strike/boycott, even though MGTOW themselves and Herbivores themselves (such as Kyojiro Kagenuma) disagree. The Helen Smith book is an excellent source, but you have decided that it cannot be allowed. The majority of the Google News articles are useless and only show up in the search results because someone mentioned MGTOW in their comment sections. The fact that you have removed everything from the article except "criticisms of MGTOW" is clear example of WP:UNDUE weight, intended to make it appear as if MGTOW are merely "men who whine about women on the internet". You also do not consider Milo Yiannopoulos to be a reliable source (but do consider the VICE article to be a reliable source, even though the latter is clearly a poorly researched, heavily biased journalistic hatchet job, intended to mock MGTOW with phrases such as "those tricky, tricky women"). If all this is the case, I instead prefer to wait several years, after a number of books about MGTOW have been written (as I expect), to make any Wikipedia article about MGTOW, or not to have an article at all. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 22:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
You should read WP:OWN before you find yourself blocked. The article was a disaster before and it's through a lot of hard work by others that it's resembling something worth keeping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never even used the word "owner" (I used the word "creator") nor intended to imply I was. The threat to block me is uncalled for. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 22:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky81682 WP:AGF I don't see what threatening to block this editor accomplishes here. Scarpy (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll strike that entirely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, keep your high-handed, thuggish, bullying comment there. We don't want an apology or a recant. Delete the article, and ban MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight, and myself, and everyone, and keep your "Open Platform", which is open only to views that you condone. We do not want an MGTOW article on Wikipedia. Delete. Nomnompuffs (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can restore/improve those sections just as soon as this deletion process is stopped. Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mention that this article needs to completely explain the topic, particularly by including some details you mention, otherwise the article should be deleted. Can you point to a Wikipedia policy that requires complete explanations with failure at this requiring deletion? Can you explain how stubs (WP:STUB) are generally acceptable? Also, since I imagine that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia would be deleted under that criterion, can you please point us to some Wikipedia articles about real-life groups that completely explain their topic, thereby making them OK to keep? — Olathe (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as well. This will require a lot of work to keep it in proper shape as evidence by the creator's attitude above. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and I would remind the other editors here that their personal feelings about MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight are not relevant to this AFD discusion. Please review WP:AFDEQ and collaborate efficiently and cordially with other editors. Scarpy (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This article is a hollow shell of what it was, and I do not want to see this redacted, stripped and impotent article which doesn't at all represent MGTOW being used as the public face of MGTOW. This article doesn't represent anything close to what MGTOW is. The original article submitted by MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight was what the MGTOW COMMUNITY approved as being an accurate definition and description of MGTOW. This perverse stripped-down shell is nothing close. Get rid of it. Nomnompuffs (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There exist two (German language) secondary sources which explicitly state that:
  1. "MGTOW" are equivalent with the Herbivore Men
  2. "MGTOW" are the topic of the book by Helen Smith (i.e. Marriage Strike/ Career Strike/ Education Strike).
There are also secondary sources which state that MGTOW is a general phenomenon in which men can be MGTOW without knowing about the word "MGTOW" (this criterion, by the way, also logically implies that Herbivore men are MGTOW). This implies that general references (that do not mention the word "MGTOW") about men abandoning marriage/etc are relevant, because MGTOW refers to the general *phenomenon* of men abandoning marriage/relationships/the rat race, not just the online community. (But at this point I can't be bothered anymore, so just delete.) —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to tell us what those sources are? I see no mention of a German source at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way but maybe I just missed it. Footnote 1 here is quoting Smith and she calls it "Men on Strike" not MGTOW. Is your argument that this is all the same thing? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this blog post freiewelt.net is one of the German sources. It might not be mentioned on the talk page, but a few days ago I deleted some reference to herbivore men and wrote in an edit summary, "Deleted due to lack of reliable, non-primary sources that compare MGTOW with herbivore men in Japan. FreieWelt.net is a partisan blog website." That was the only German source I came across, but I'm sure another one could have been deleted by someone else without me noticing. While we're on the topic of herbivore men, I've also commented on the talk page that, "I've not seen any articles about herbivore men that compare it to MGTOW. I've only seen articles where MGTOW's compare themselves to herbivore men. I've also seen articles about MGTOW that specifically differentiate themselves from the Japanese herbivore men movement." I feel strongly that sources about Japanese herbivore don't count as RS for the MGTOW and the argument that they're about the same "phenomenon" is not at all true and is not supported by a single reliable source. As far as MGTOW's notability, I'm abstaining b/c I keep going back and forth. Permstrump (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let us continue this on the talk page if there's anything more to add. There's a lot of excited new editors coming to this article and hopefully they will learn about our sourcing standards and can help us craft a better article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets notability guidelines. Needs to significant editing, removing fluff and superflous description but it's notable enough for an aticle. RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has been covered in reliable sources, although this article is already becoming an edit warzone so some form of oversight might be needed. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the Talk page, User:The Anome has enumerated 5 putatively reliable sources. However, two of these only mention MGTOW briefly:
  • Reggie Yates does not "reference the topic [of MGTOW]" as a "primary, or near-primary, topic" in his sham documentary. He only briefly shows the MGTOW.com website on screen and some youtube comment sections. Most of the documentary is about PUAs, MRAs, internet trolls, standup comedians, and feminists.
  • And the SPLC report is primarily about men's rights activists, not MGTOW, and also only mentions MGTOW in passing. I am also surprised that he considers organization such as the SPLC, with a clear biased agenda (and even lawyers to defend this agenda) as a reliable source. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 16:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copied "to", not copied "from". —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 16:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because DINC. I think we have enough to establish notability. The article is actively being cleaned up (h/t The Anome). Let the cleanup proceed, and if it proves too hard, we can then talk about deletion or merging into the manosphere article. De Guerre (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis that this appears to pass WP:GNG I withdraw the nomination. Please note that this does not mean that this discussion may be closed immediately. Two opinions to delete the article mean that this discussion must run its natural course and that consensus is still required. I applaud the editors who have removed the POV pushing material, and deprecate those who seem to be insisting that the article requires it. Discussions on content are for the article talk page, not for this deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle 10:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think I've now got the article down to the WP:NPOV essentials that can currently directly be supported by WP:RS, without it being either propaganda or a hatchet job, and I'm still inclining to "keep". If the article fails to grow over the longer term, it may be best to starting thinking in terms of merging this into manosphere article as a subsection. -- The Anome (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in its earlier and longer version it easily met WP:GNG as a notable topic, with many third party refs cited. It needs restoring to a more complete version such as this version and then fixing any remaining issues, not cutting out almost all the text and then noming for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The movement meets WP:GNG, though without the propaganda and the POV positioning.--Jorm (talk) 20:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - strongly agree with Ahunt. Article should be kept and reverted to its higher quality previous version. Maxvgc (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per Ahunt. The topic clearly meets GNG. Instead of trimming the text, try to fix it. sst✈ 06:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect per Cailil. I don't feel there are enough reliable sources on the subject to support a non-stubby article of its own. Previous versions were a mess of original research, relying heavily on cites to blogs, youtube videos, and other low-quality unreliable sources; looking over it, it also looks like it cited the same few sources and people over and over. When you trim it down to what's usable, there's enough to cover a mention on Men's rights movement or manosphere, but not really enough to give it its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and seriously prune. Trim it down to a definition of the term (etymology comes first), note about similar terms (the Japanese grass-eater phenomenon), a little history, perhaps some context (divorce law, in particular), and references. References should include web links, as part of the late development of MGTOW is certain websites and youtubers. The justification and advocacy can go, as can the attempts at high-falutin' "philosophy" and the libertarianism. Paul Murray (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - As per MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight and Nomnompuffs I feel the current entry mis-characterizes the philosophy in lue of the content that was allegedly insufficiently sourced. I submit that it would be better to have no article than a misleading, heavily culled one.Dwm347 (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — Dwm347 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@Dwm347 Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The article can change and grow as the number of reliable sources on the topic grows. - Scarpy (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple instances of WP:THEYRE-NOT-PLAYING-NICE-IMMA-TAKE-MY-BALL-AND-GO-HOME going on here. I can understand the frustration, but the solution is to allow the article to stay, and work incrementally and over time to improve it, not ragequit. Marteau (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted keep but not to see it "incrementally improved". The subject is notable and there is some worth keeping in this article but it needs SIGNIFICANT improvement, starting with removing the promotional language.--RadioFan (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"They're not being nice, I'mma take my balls and go home"? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course it's notable and worthy of an article. And yes the hatchet job that has occurred to the fine start on this article is understandably frustrating, but the solution is not to give up. Let's try to make things better, not simply remove an entire article because we are upset about how others are treating it... that's not how good editing is done. Marteau (talk) 00:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable and expand based on reliable independent sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's rough right now but clearly passes WP:GNG, which is all that really matters. Let it grow as good sources become available. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who suggests or supports deletion should have the basics of Wikipedia explained to them. Help them, don't destroy. Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the facts are present and new additional sources are filtered. Megr1124 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This article no longer contains any useful information, and is therefore pointless MrPC (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that there's some kind of "usefulness" threshold for information in articles. There is not. Also, it's not clear what "useful" means in this context. Therefore, your deletion grounds are invalid. Chrisrus (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Manosphere per Cailil, the article directly states MGTOW is a subset of the "red pill movement" (manosphere). Manosphere would be a better fit than the MRA article, as MGTOW doesnt seemed to be primarily focused on "rights". PearlSt82 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the differences, but if you would familiarize yourself with the available WP:RSes on this topic, not just the current state of the article, you will see that there is clearly enough by now for a separate article. This social group and their associated philosophy or way of thinking has nothing to do with the vast majority of the "manosphere", is clearly notable, and our readers will be clearly served by a the creation of a good Wikipedia article, which this deletion process is currently inhibiting.Chrisrus (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion process isn't inhibiting anything. Articles can always be improved while a deletion discussion is ongoing. In fact, improvement of the article has the potential to save an article from deletion (there's an essay about that, but I can't find it). clpo13(talk) 20:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. clpo13(talk) 23:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:HEY is true and a point well taken, resources dedicated to defending the article from deletion, together with the apparent futility of dedicating resources into an article in danger of deletion, are together preventing several of us from getting much work done on the article.
However, I will concede your point provided that enough deletion proponents describe their reasonable Wikipedia:Heymann Standard and deletion be disallowed for an appropriate amount of time for the Heymann Standard to be met. Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete wiki is too SJW and politically biased to have a MGTOW article. There are articles on other sites of which google prefers to point at anyways.i agree with MGTOW (maxgrosstaxoffweight)'s pointsAmghow (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) — Amghow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia's alleged "bias" (see WP: NPOV) is not a valid reason to delete an article. Neither is which site(s) Google prefers to point at. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. The present state is just temporary. A good article can be created if allowed to exist. Chrisrus (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The knowledge of this subject is more becoming vast and informative. all we have to do is to condensed the subject matter on a much objective and factual position. Megr1124 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I noticed this article was discussed on the fringe noticeboard, where the comment was: Maybe serious feminist scholars could help with sourcing. And people wonder why most women don't want to edit WP... Prevalence (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the original form of this article had serious issues, but at the heart of it is some verifiable information about the topic. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Night Gyr. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • absolute deleteYou should be ashamed of yourselves for allowing this fascistic piece of bloviating macho posturing, locker room penis-waving, rape-culture glorifying bit of utter nonsense to stand as long as it has. No wonder there are no female editors on Wikipedia. This is Despicable, an open attempt to intimidate women away from the project, and not a real phenomenon, verifiable by any legitimate sources not affiliated with the topic, and even if real, not notable, and even if notable, not appropriate for an encylopedia, which has an ethical responsibility to not chase away half of its potential users by subjecting them to what is essentially hate-speech.. "Group of Lonely Men on Internet discover casual sex" is not a plausible encylopedia article. Abhorrent.World Champion Editor (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2016 Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World Champion Editor and note that this editor os blocked as a confirmed sock puppet of Kingshowman Fiddle Faddle 00:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fear Wikipedia only has a responsibility to be factual and well referenced, Sometimes it fails either or both of these things. It is desirable to have a better mix of editors, but a deletion discussion is not the place to express this. WP:VP is better suited to that serious issue. We need more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT in order to make use of your strongly expressed opinion. Fiddle Faddle 19:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side discussion unrelated to the actual deletion discussion. Collapsed to clear space
    • I have a bit of personal experience with this issue, as I belong to a field that also suffers from a dearth of women, and is also dedicated to Truth: philosophy. Yet we philosophers have decided, like the rest of society, that we have an obligation not to actively exclude women (and other under-represented groups) from our field through creation of a hostile, unwelcoming environment towards them, and speak up against this kind of attempt at intimidation and exclusion, by ramming a completely not-notable Internet forum with a minuscule number of users on to Wikipedia and allow them to pretend the illusion of a movement. There is no movement, this is not a notable phenomenon. 1-2 news articles or blog posts about this vulgar sexism hardly makes it notable. There is no room for this trash on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does have a moral obligation to make sure they are not excluding women via their policies. Women are no less intelligent than men and no less able to contribute to the project of collecting the world's knowledge, and thus, if there is a dearth of them, we have fair grounds to assume that perhaps unconscious biases and discriminatory behaviors are chasing them off and showing them they are not welcome here. Here is most obviously one, this reporting on an absolutely completely not notable small band of Internet sexists, written by the owner of the forum. This is a complete waste of time for all involved , and bad for the encylopedia in all possible ways. World Champion Editor (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the connection you're making where hosting an article like this one on Wikipedia would discourage women from participating. It's completely plausible that it could have the opposite effect, women could take more interest if there's more controversial articles related to gender. Maybe it would have no effect either way. It's more of an empirical question than anything else. I also haven't seen any evidence that the person who created the article is the owner of the mgtow dot com forum. Even if he was, it's been modified so much from his initial version, I can't see how it matters. All of that being said, as important as being inclusive is, it's not an argument related to AfD criteria. - Scarpy (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That, and World Champion Editor's description of the MGTOW people seems rather hateful and inaccurate. As far as I can tell, they're just guys who choose not to date because they think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. I've seen no evidence of "locker room penis-waving", or "vulgar sexism", and the existence of this article is clearly not an attempt to drive women off Wikipedia. The notion is completely ridiculous. Reyk YO! 21:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to be drawn further into this dispute, because, honestly, who cares whether some hate-group men's forum gets a Wiki page? But here goes: they are obviously a sexist organization looking to spread their bigoted ideas, such as, for starters, these two, mentioned right on the page: 1. Women commonly falsely accuse men of rape (actual fact: nothing further from the case could be true. Most women who are raped do not report their rapist, and there are very few false accusations of rape. You are doing real harm by allowing this utter nonsense on your website.) 2. Women, unlike men, are inherently "hypergamous", I.e by there very nature they are looking to "marry up" and use men for their money. (Actual fact: women have been excluded from most professions for, oh, say the last 4000 years. They don't need this vulgar pseudo-sociology making claims based on anecdotal evidence and evidence gathered from periods when women were systematically excluded from earning their own living.) if you want to support these know-nothing, anti-women groups started by what appears to be an 18 year old strangely cowering in fear that he will "falsely be accused of rape" spreading the vulgar sexist canard that women do this every day , be my guest. But again, when you later ask "why do no women edit here" please do Remember what I told you: it's the fact that you allow angry sexist males a platform to spread distasteful hate speech against women. World Champion Editor (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
World Champion Editor appears to be engaged in deliberate trolling. No one should reply to him, and a good case could be made for removing his comments entirely. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not "trolling" because I am pointing out the obvious: that the notion that this bizarre, pathetic Internet forum which promotes the canard that women commonly engage in false accusations of rape is in any way "notable" .World Champion Editor (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could only even consider supporting a "Keep" if some sort of Tag marking them as a "Hate Group", or "Groups which spread Discriminatory Canards" were added, so it is clear that we are only reporting on them in the same way we report on to other such Bigotry-promoting, anti-social organizations. Thoughts? Evidence they are a hate group, spreading intolerance and bigotry, straight from the sources you cited: "Women are, by nature, manipulative, attention-seeking, inconsistent, emotional, and hypergamous. Accept this truth" User:World Champion Editor|World Champion Editor]] (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts are that you are someone who is deliberately trolling this page and that it's not going to be long before you are blocked as WP:NOTHERE.--Jorm (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
would someone care to explain how it is not bigoted to state "women are, by their nature, manipulative, etc"? That is open and shut evidence of bigotry.22:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@World Champion Editor The presence of a Wikipedia article isn't an endorsement of the article topic. No one is saying you have to like or agree with this group, any more than you have to like or agree with Heaven's Gate because they have a Wikipedia article or like to eat Nattō because it has an article or like to listen to Yanni because he has an article. In fact if you dislike this group so much, it's perfect opportunity for you to use every reliable source available to make the world aware of all of it's foibles in an encyclopedic manner. And, again, None of this is relevant to AfD. Not continuing this conversation further per @FreeKnowledgeCreator suggestion. - Scarpy (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Someone, presumably a new editor, accidentally left their comment on the talk page for this AfD, rather than the AfD page itself. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not be subjective or too personal of how we feel about the topic being discussed, We should stick to the facts that are being presented, not by our own personal opinions. Megr1124 (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkdwtalk 01:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samote Union Council[edit]

Samote Union Council (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)

Zero supporting references, nothing special to require a standalone article. If it exists then perhaps it should be merged into another article. Richard Harvey (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete existing content and history due to the material being based upon original research. It is worth noting that this is one of a series of unsourced articles created by new user Saadat Hussain Malik (talk · contribs). This individual has been creating numerous village/town stubs of this sort for the past 2-3 weeks, many of which are either copy-paste copyvios or short unreferenced articles like this one. While several members of the community have made attempts to communicate with Saadat Hussain Malik regarding these specific concerns, they have been completely ignored and the editor carries on as before. The only links provided within this and other articles are http://www.pothwartimes.com and http://www.pothwar.com/ which I am unable to parse for relevancy or reliability as it appears to be in the Urdu language. I am unsure if it qualifies as an external link or should be removed per WP:ELNO, and will defer to another experienced editor who is proficient to make that assessment. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:02, 30 December 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 05:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Maravi[edit]

List of rulers of Maravi (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)

No sources are given for this list of rulers of Maravi. None of the rulers mentioned are to be found in any academic articles on the Internet. S.J. Nthara in Mbiri ya Achewa (the History of the Chewa people) (1965) mentions the names Sosola and Mchochoma (apparently brothers) among a large number of other names of chiefs, but not as overall rulers of Maravi. M.D.D. Newitt in his article "The Early History of the Maravi" (Journal of African History 1982) does not mention any of these names. In short this list of names is unverifiable. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This discussion page was created without the afd2 template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself. @Kanjuzi: Please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO in the future. --Finngall talk 15:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant evidence that it exists. Ueutyi (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't quite get the rationale of the previous contribution - looking at available sources, there is no doubt that something that at least loosely and at times could be called a state named Maravi existed (and which in other periods seems to have consisted of a number of contending chieftaincies) and that some of its rulers used the title karonga or kalonga. And a verifiable list of Maravi's rulers would fairly certainly be notable as a standalone article - though if it were as short as this one, it might be better merged into Maravi. Having said that, the best source I have been able to locate for these rulers is this list - which, on available, could even be a copy from this article (though a copy in the other direction is at least as likely). Pinging User:JohnArmagh, who apparently created this article in something very close to its current form back in 2004 (and is still intermittently editing Wikipedia), to ask if he can remember what sources he used. PWilkinson (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:02, 30 December 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) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual ecology[edit]

Spiritual ecology (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)

Setting aside the current discussion about copyright violation, this article contains only internal references to books and periodicals published by those supporting Spiritual ecology. I can see nothing here which conveys any notability outside this niche interest group. There is no evidence that this has received any mentions that would convey notability in reliable external sources. Despite the wealth of references, and a trawl of Google, this appears to fail WP:GNG  Velella  ,Velella Talk   09:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The copyright issue has been addressed and removed. In looking at the history of this page on Wikipedia about Spiritual Ecology, it was started in 2004, and has evolved significantly since then with contributions from many different editors and resources. Three years ago the page was further developed, with various editors contributing more recent references and resources on the subject, include in-depth history and the more recently published books, academic studies, and other work. The page has of course changed and continued to evolve — in viewing the history you can see several editors both from within the field and outside of the field, who have contributed corrections, edits, and new resources. As this is an emerging area of study, the Wikipedia page serves as a encyclopedic resource which clearly continues to evolve as new sources come available, and has continued to provide a valuable resource for research and reference materials on the subject. There are now 3 votes to keep the page (both here and on the 'talk" section), and as a contributing editor to the page, I also agree it does not Fail WP:GNG --Gsc se (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Gsc se (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - both the Huffington Post ref and the Economic Times post are authored by people within the Spiritual ecology movement and therefore not independent. The Lisa Palmer book appears to be using the term Spiritual ecology in a very different way and is likely to be independent of the current group of contributing editors but doesn't seem to do anything for the notability of this article with the current content.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Velella, even though some of the sources I cited above were written by people within the movement, I still think they confer notability to the topic. Articles that appear in the Huffington Post and the Economic Times are vetted by independent editors, so I think these still qualify as reliable sources pursuant to WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG. I think this article could definitely use some heavy editing to clean up potential WP:POV problems, and as I mentioned in my vote, we may even need to invoke WP:TNT. However, I think we should pursue improvement before deletion in this case (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Velella and Notecardforfree, I did not create this page, it has been in existence since 2004. We contributed edits only in 2012 -- and before this deletion issue arose last week, I and the other editor I work with had not touched the page since, except for a typo; but I can see there have been several others contributing edits since then. As the deletion issue was presented last week, we are working to address the issue of notability -- adding the most recent events in the field, such as Faith leaders participation at the UN Climate Summit in Paris November 2015, new books, and references to Pope Francis's May 2015 Encyclical, etc. (do I need to add those references here as well, they're on the page?). I think the other sources cited in the discussion show the notability of the topic. For the second issue further edits can be made where needed to clean up the page, and I hope others with an interest in the subject would participate. I've read WP:NPOV, and the information presented here seems fair in representing the subject as found in many other reliable sources on the topic, and verifiable with references provided. I also had understand all the different editors/contributors participating helped form and maintain a neutral perspective on the topic. Is there a particular section or area of the page you find doesn't provide a neutral perspective, or the whole piece? According to WP:NPOV "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." [1]Thanks for any help to improve the page. Gsc se (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gsc se, I apologize for not responding sooner to your question. WP:NPOV requires articles to "[i]ndicate the relative prominence of opposing views". I don't see any presentation of voices or viewpoints that are critical of spiritual ecology in the article. I invite you to read WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, which explain the importance of presenting all viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree, Thanks, appreciate your response and your sending the information to read further. Just included section on "Opposing Views" -- have been researching, but at present there is not much criticism of the subject to be found in 3rd party sources, and only one or two "original research" critical academic papers/reviews of spiritual ecology publications -- which I understand are considered primary sources, and not to be included here. Will be researching further, and extrapolate in this section as research findings and time allow.Gsc se (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

exclamation mark  Comment - Two of the keep votes for this deletion nomination appear to have been made by accounts that appear to be meatpuppets. CatcherStorm talk 09:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first is the article's creator. The second is a blatantly obvious sock/meatpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Lack_of_neutrality_as_an_excuse_to_delete
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To the extent this represents a specific movement, it's promotional. To the extent this represents a general concept, it's vague, and there are multiple possible meanings. 09:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Keep because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but I do think the article needs to be cut in half. There has been an attempt to conflate certain fringey views with the concepts actually discussed in the many sources that a google news search easily turns up, and this needs to be corrected. But I don't agree with DGG's implication that the subject matter of those sources is so variegate that the phrase doesn't correspond to a topic. Notecardforfree's sources are enough for GNG. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh666 23:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organ crawl[edit]

Organ crawl (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 don't believe that this term is notable. Perhaps it is something for WikiDictionary Gbawden (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:54, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the other editors in this discussion have demonstrated, there are plenty of sources that substantiate notability. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdwtalk 01:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olentangy Commons[edit]

Olentangy Commons (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 previously speedily deleted a version of this page at Upper Point and Olentangy Commons due to multiple copyright violations. There are three news accounts adding content to Neighborhoods in Columbus, Ohio and related articles, User:Wang.4127, User:Cheng.958 and User:Dettra.12. Aside from copy-and-paste problems, the content seems promotional, including in this article. Olentangy Commons is a large apartment block that is being written about as though it is a neighborhood and the sourcing does not support it being notable, neither what is now used or what I can find. Fences&Windows 20:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:00, 30 December 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. Mkdwtalk 01:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 54 Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Studio 54 Radio (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 radio station; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:NMEDIA. No particular cultural notability or influence. (resisted since there were no comments at previous AFD) -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe I am looking at the wrong one, but here are some references [21], [22], [23]. Normally I would vote to redirect to Sirius but this one looks like it has significant coverage for standalone notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Studio 54 - the radio station is based on the defunct nightclub Studio 54 which already contains a section on the radio station. On the other hand there are some articles that discuss the station so it may be notable in its own right. I think until the article is long enough I think a merge makes the most sense for now. Borderline case for me though, but I don't think it should be deleted. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 00:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 19:00, 30 December 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasir arafat turk[edit]

Yasir arafat turk (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)

Unremarkable person. References do not establish signif. CatcherStorm talk 11:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not particularly significant at all, either as an activist or as an academic. He does not have a Ph.D. and is nothing more than a research fellow at his university, so he does not come anywhere close to satisfying WP:NACADEMIC. Various sources give the same quote from him. No evidence he is more than a very minor player in the protest moment. Fails WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Subsequent to the filing of this AfD, article was moved to the correct capitalization of Yasir Arafat Turk. Safiel (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Sourced primarily to his own writings. That is not evidence of notability. 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly not yet both a solid and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 18:30, 31 December 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A2. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

کتاب همیشه لاغر باشید[edit]

کتاب همیشه لاغر باشید (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 English, not relevant to be on an Encyclopedia. TheJack15 (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The way it's supposed to work is the article is tagged with {{Not English}} first and then we see if it's worth translating and retaining. If not, then it goes to deletion. Has that determination been made yet? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. Confirming what Shawn in Montreal said; being written in another language is not a reason to immediately delete an article. There's a grace period of two weeks in order for someone to translate it. If nothing has happened by then, it will be proposed for deletion (one of Wikipedia's three deletion methods). It can also be deleted sooner (speedy deletion, another method) if the article content is covered by a criterium for speedy deletion. I suppose you are relatively new to the deletion processes on Wikipeda, TheJack15, so I'd like you to carefully read the guidelines at Wikipedia:Deletion process. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. The article appears to be about a non-notable book by صفدر صانعی (Safdar Sanei). Apart from mentioning in line 1 that the book was written by said author, the article says nothing else about it. The remaining two lines give two other books by said author (WP:COATRACK). The book does not show up at all in GNews or GBooks, while its author has 1 hit in GBooks, but only as part of a bibliography. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:58, 30 December 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. While adequate input has occurred here, no consensus has emerged within this discussion. North America1000 05:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash[edit]

2015 Oklahoma State University homecoming parade crash (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 hardly a notable event, and it is certainly not worthy of having an article of its own here. Yes, it's clearly murder according to the police, but it sounds like it may have been caused by driving under the influence of something. There's nothing unusual in that and Wikipedia is not a news service. Parsley Man (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNOW Delete its a car accident. Legacypac (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was not a car accident but a deliberate murder, of a woman intentionally driving into parade watchers. She was not driving under the influence but was trying to kill herself and trying to kill other people at the same time. She had to drive around multiple barriers. Four people were killed, including a child, and dozens injured. It was huge news, even internationally. She was not DUI and was found competent to stand trial for four accounts of murder and 46 counts of assault - that's how many people she hit as she kept driving. It continually receives updates in mainstream media[24]. —МандичкаYO 😜 11:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTNP. Even if it is intentional and not an accident, spree killings have unfortunately become a common enough occurrence in the United States that it is difficult to see how this particular case passes WP:N. That the occurrence recieved international coverage is irrelevant as the event still fails WP:GEOSCOPE as the event affectted only one city in Oklahoma. In fact, who, outside of the city that it occurred in, actually remembers this event now? The article thus fails WP:NTEMP. It is also difficult to see how this event could have any WP:LASTING effect. --Millionsandbillions (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um everyone who lives in Oklahoma - it was probably the biggest news story of the year, and it's not over since it will be going to trial. And even though spree killings have become more common, we don't delete them for that reason, just as we don't delete articles on mass shootings, bombings despite their frequency. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly agree with Мандичка's rebuttal of Millionsandbillions' argument about the frequency of spree killings. I'll build on that to say that the US is a large enough country that frequency, if it is to be considered as a yardstick of notability, should be on a state level rather than a national level, and clearly this is a notable event in Oklahoma history. Aspirex (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are other articles on this wiki for unnotable American mass shootings and spree killings but the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not at all a rationale to keep this particular article. The idea that notability should be measured on the state level instead of the national level seems to just be a way of moving the goalposts. The fact remains that this article still has a very limited WP:GEOSCOPE and that this site is called Wikipedia, not Oklahomapedia. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This online Oklahoma encyclopedia also went with a catchier title (and also omits this crash). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I pointed out why your argument was invalid. We don't delete articles on events because there are lots of events. And this continues to receive national news coverage. How many crime stories get updates in People magazine? This was a very rare and very bizarre event, hardly common, and very notable. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an event with a lasting impact on Oklahoma and OSU. The impact of this event reaches far beyond the sorts of short-term inconsequential events that the "WP:NOTNEWS" policy is intended to represent. Aspirex (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Мандичка and Aspirex.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 00:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pending illustration of lasting impact (even locally). The game wasn't even postponed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it was an important and relevant event. Dan Holsinger (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sad but just another fatal accident involving a motor car, probably one of a thousands that day. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a widely publicized, high-profile murder. Note that many of the iVoters, including the one just above, appear to mistake this for a a car accident. But the driver is arrest charged with assault. Title should probably be changed to "car ramming" or "vehicular assault".E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the suspect was also charged with 4 counts of second-degree murder.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 03:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015-16 Haffez Colony premier league[edit]

2015-16 Haffez Colony premier league (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 is about a season that has yet to be played in a non-notable league. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haffez Colony premier league HCL. Whpq (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The league itself has not established a shred of notability, and will most likely be deleted too. JTtheOG (talk) 06:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:52, 30 December 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 and redirect to Garo. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katsuichi Nagai[edit]

Katsuichi Nagai (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)

Nagai and Garo are strongly associated. Needs documentation on independent notability. Many books mention Nagai but it is always focused on his work with Garo and hardly mention anything about his own life. Recommend redirect to Garo. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it might be different if those sources only mentioned him in passing, they specifically talk about how the person himself set up Garo and the lengths he had to go to. (like getting funding from Sanpei Shirato) It is the case for many notable figures that they will always be mentioned in the context of their major discovery, but as the jawiki article shows, there is much to write about Nagai himself. Looking at the sources already in the article I can already see information that is relevant in the first one: "whose sunken cheeks showed the effect of decades of bouts with tuberculosis and hard living". I think it'd really just be an issue of hunting down sources and there'd certainly be more Japanese-language ones. I also think the second point of WP:ANYBIO applies: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Garo was very influential in the history of manga and many artists today got their start there. It would be a shame to have no information on the man behind it all, especially when unlike so many other ventures, it really was mostly a one-man show. Opencooper (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing in the Japanese Wikipedia article for Nagai other than errata, like how he ran a bar in Asakusa for half a year. His professional life centers on Garo unless his abortive foray into becoming the head of a now-extinct minor software publishing firm called Zeit is counted as WP:N. I would actually push for a Merge if this article was substantive as the Japanese one in terms of assessing Nagai's cultural impact, but this is a stub and has minimal merit as a stand-alone article. Jun Kayama 06:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are there any usable sources from the Japanese wiki article? [25]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From what I can tell, I think the best possible argument against deletion or a merge with Garo is to argue that Nagai made another, somewhat separate contribution by founding Seirindō ja:青林堂, the publisher. True, Seirindō was primarily focused on Garo at first, but it also published monographs, first of the important manga artists featured in Garo, such as Yoshiharu Tsuge, but also of film criticism, politics, etc. It got into a somewhat notorious split, which formed Seirin Kōgeisha (which has taken over publishing manga). Seirindō continues as less a manga publisher than as a publisher of some of the more notorious right wing revisionist literature, such as the now internationally notorious Toshiko Hasumi's anti-refugee book [26] [27]. Michitaro (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One article is sufficient, and the one on the magazine is very much more substantial. Redirect to it. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 31 December 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. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti Talk 16:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Cazzani[edit]

Jimmy Cazzani (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 doesn't seem to fulfill the GNG, I can't find any secondary sources for him or his company. There's this article but it was written by the subject so it hardly qualifies as secondary. The only thing I could find was a passing mention here but it barely mentions him. Not to mention the article is a mess and has been for years. – jfsamper (talk•contrib•email) 23:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your search link pulls in any result with the word "James." A better search just uses his much less common last name; that search proves that yes, he has raced powerboats, but doesn't do much to advance the notability claim; I don't see any links that meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or google "Serafino Cazzani" or Scuderia Cazzani" or Seraffino Cazzani. Clearly WP:GNG. Can't be in the forefront of this sport without being there.
Indeed, the article as written presently lists multiple sources, to wit: A.P.B.A. Hall of Records; Ocean County Observer 6/89; 6/90 Propeller Magazine; Powerboat Magazine; and Vaportrails Magazine. And we should WP:AGF as to off line sources. This is not a sport that I (or any of you, I am guessing) happen to follow. But per se that doesn't make it non-notable. This is a systemic bias among our contributors. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't dispute that there are systemic bias issues in Wikipedia, but I don't think the sport of powerboating is a good example. It's just not a particularly popular sport. Is it bias that we have large articles for NFL and Cricket players, but not for Jai Alai players? No, it's simply a function of popularity, and popularity is intrinsically tied to notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not being pejorative. It is popularity, but it is also tied to demographics. That we edit wikipedia may make us less likely to gravitate toward this particular sport. In any event, I am trying to come up with better citations for the paper mentioned in the article. I don't have access to high beam or jstor, and those may include the magazines. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jfsamper, Citobun and User:Ohnoitsjamie Here is a "27 pages of newspaper and magazine clippings regarding Jimmy Cazzani and Scuderia Cazzani Offshore Racing". Scuderia Cazzani Offshore Racing. Retrieved December 22, 2015. It includes 27 pages of material which gives the sources and should satisfy your quest for WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Given that you have now been brought to the light, time to reevaluate and for Wikipedia:Speedy keep, I think. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC}
Keep - article needs wholly re-written to sound more encyclopedic and less like a fan page, but seems notable enough. StuartDouglas (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:51, 30 December 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) —UY Scuti Talk 16:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Chi-chun[edit]

Liu Chi-chun (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 notability. I speedied this, but user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz removed the speedy in the curious but mistaken belief that being married to somebody notable confers notability. See WP:NOTINHERITED. "She put lots of efforts to look after the new family of her, and she borne 9 child (5 sons and 4 girls) for the family" is not a credible claim of notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wolfowitz removed the speedy because being the "First Lady" of the Republic of China is an assertion of notability, and is certainly a claim of significance sufficient to defeat A7. There's a category Category:First Ladies of the Republic of China, and the notability of the other members of the category isn't in question. That's probably because WP:NOTINHERITED staes rather clearly that Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. Therefore, since the very page that TheLongTone cites in support of deletion says that the subject is notable, Speedy keep, speedy close and a serving of trout for the nom for both their obvious error and their clumsy name-and-shame attempt to cast aspersions on the editor who corrected their error. Clunky prose doesn't justify deletion, just copyediting.The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. First, as Wolfowitz pointed out, being first lady is assumed to confer independent notability. Second, she did receive some biographical coverage e.g. [28][29]. However, it is clear that she is solely known for being President C.K. Yan's wife and all the detailed biographies of her contain what User:EEng would call "pedestrian life details", so I'm !voting weak keep. Deryck C. 12:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, I'm famous for something. My mother's very proud. (Nothing to add to the notability question, though I'd be surprised if there's not SIGCOV on her.) EEng (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Yen Chia-kan into a new family section. Unlike in the US, first ladies in other countries don't always take a public role, and this article emphasizes that in her case. Plus her role was many years ago when women were less in the public eye. Her husband's bio is quite short so some details about his wife and 9 kids will give it a little bulk. Leave name as a redirect of course. Legacypac (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep Our usual practice is that head of state is notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 31 December 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America1000 05:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaishankar Chigurla[edit]

Jaishankar Chigurla (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:DIRECTOR and case of WP:TOOSOON. His only film is yet to be released. Person not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 16:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or simply delete as simply moving often has the risks of this being restarted so delete may be a better option until a solid article is available. SwisterTwister talk 20:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably we can wait till the movie is released. If deleted then at-least allow re-creation of the page after release of movie and if there are some credible news references. IndianGeneralist 08:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:02, 30 December 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.  Sandstein  21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtonomics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Virtonomics (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)

As a result of a procedural error with a previous AfD close, there is a consensus at deletion review to speedily relist the AfD. I personally am neutral. —S Marshall T/C 17:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. "Полмиллиона игроков в Виртономике" [Half a million players in Virtonomics] (in Russian). Tom's Hardware. 2009-09-24. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      В середине сентября 2009 года число зарегистрированных пользователей экономической онлайн игры Виртономика превысило полмиллиона человек. Виртономика появилась довольно давно, в декабре 2006 года. С тех пор проект постоянно развивается и обновляется. Играть в Виртономику можно на русском и английском языках, в скором времени планируется запуск китайской версии игры. Так же до конца года планируется локализация игры на арабский, немецкий, французский, испанский и португальский языки. Проект Виртономика сочетает в себе элементы mmo-игры, бизнес-тренажера и экономической стратегии. В Виртономику играют самые разные люди: она интересна тем, кто занимается маркетингом, экономикой и бизнесом, но при этом любит онлайн игры, хочет знакомиться и общаться с интересными людьми.

      «Виртономика - уникальный и единственный в своем роде проект, онлайн симулятор бизнеса с детальнейшей проработкой экономики, с мощнейшим аналитическим аппаратом, с развитой коммуникативной средой, - говорит Сергей Меншиков, генеральный директор компании-разработчика. - В силу своей специфики Виртономика собирает уникальнейшую аудиторию - и по уровню образования, по уровню доходов и по уровню амбиций. В мае мы выпустили англоязычную версию игры, и в течение первых двух месяцев с момента ее запуска к нам поступило 6 предложений от университетов и бизнес-школ Великобритании, Индии, США, Канады по созданию локальных игровых пространств для их использования в процессах обучения студентов на различных курсах по экономике и менеджменту. В данный момент в Виртономику (VIRTONOMICS) играют люди из более чем 100 стран мира, хотя пока мы практически не предпринимали никаких активных действий по продвижению игры за рубежом. В конце года планируем начать активную экспансию игры VIRTONOMICS на все основные зарубежные рынки».

      Here is the Google Translate of the text:

      In mid-September 2009, the number of registered users online economic game Virtonomics exceeded half a million. Virtonomics appeared long ago, in December 2006. Since then, the project is constantly evolving and updated. Play Virtonomics can be in Russian and English, soon plans to launch a Chinese version of the game. Just before the end of the year is planned localization of the game in the Arabic, German, French, Spanish and Portuguese. Virtonomics project combines elements of mmo-game business simulator and economic strategy. Virtonomics play all kinds of people: it is of interest to those involved in marketing, economics and business, but the love games, wants to meet and communicate with interesting people.

      "Virtonomics - a unique and one of a kind design, online business simulation with detailed study of the economy, with strong analytical apparatus, the advanced communication medium, - says Sergey Menshikov, CEO of developer. - By their very nature Virtonomics collects unique audience - and by level of education, income level and the level of ambition. In May, we released an English version of the game, and during the first two months since its launch, we have received six proposals from universities and business schools in the UK, India, USA, Canada, to establish local gaming space to be used in the process of training students in various courses in economics and management. Currently Virtonomics (VIRTONOMICS) played by people from more than 100 countries around the world, but so far, we almost did not take any active steps to promote the game abroad. At the end of the year we plan to start the game VIRTONOMICS active expansion in all major international markets."

      Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed."
    2. "«Виртономика» и «Билайн»: получи $5 миллионов игровых денег" ["Virtonomics" and "Beeline": Get $5 million play money] (in Russian). Tom's Hardware. 2009-10-01. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      Экономическая онлайновая игра «Виртономика» присоединилась к акции «Геймер», проводимой компанией «Билайн». По условиям акции «Геймер» все абоненты Домашнего Интернета «Билайн», подключенные к одному из тарифов с абонентской оплатой от 650 рублей и выше, с 1 сентября по 31 декабря 2009 года могут получить бонусы в популярных компьютерных онлайн играх.

      ...

      Напомним, что, как ранее сообщала редакция THG, в середине сентября 2009 года число зарегистрированных пользователей экономической онлайн-игры «Виртономика» превысило полмиллиона человек. «Виртономика» появилась довольно давно, в декабре 2006 года. С тех пор проект постоянно развивается и обновляется.

      The Google Translate of the text:

      The economic online game "Virtonomics" joined the action "gamer" by the company "Beeline". Under the terms of the action "Gamer" Home Internet all subscribers "Beeline", connected to one of the tariff with the subscription payment from 650 rubles and above, from September 1 to December 31, 2009 can receive bonuses in the popular computer online games.

      ...

      For more information about the game and about the campaign can be found on the official website of the project "Virtonomics."

      Recall that, as previously reported by the editors THG, in mid-September 2009 the number of registered users of the economic online game "Virtonomics" exceeded half a million. "Virtonomics" appeared a long time ago, in December 2006. Since then, the project is constantly evolving and updated.

    3. Парамонова, Ника (2006-12-04). "Матрица для белых воротничков" [Matrix for white-collar]. Computerra (in Russian). Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      В "Виртономике" перед игроком предстают поистине широкие возможности: разработка месторождений, научные исследования и разработка новых технологий, постройка заводов и фабрик, открытие магазинов, банков, организация поставок, проведение рекламных кампаний и прочие радости бизнеса. Конечно, до реальной жизни список не дотягивает, но разработчики прикладывают все усилия к тому, чтобы сделать все механизмы наиболее схожими с настоящими.

      Открыв магазин, игрок может самостоятельно набирать персонал и выбирать товары и поставщиков. Товары тоже не без хитростей - они отличаются не только ценой, но и качеством и даже известностью брэнда. В ближайшем будущем, кстати, планируется ввести в игру настоящие бренды. Естественно, с разрешения их обладателей. А если всё сложится хорошо, то и не только с разрешения, а по договорённости о рекламе.

      По-настоящему ощутить всю прелесть "Виртономики" можно лишь поиграв какое-то время и столкнувшись с другими игроками. Конечно, не воспрещается иметь дело исключительно с компьютерными вендорами, но это значительно обеднит игровой процесс. Сотрудничая с людьми, можно не только потренироваться вести дела, но и получить куда большее удовольствие от игры.

      The Google Translate of the text:

      In "Virtonomics" appear before the player truly great opportunities: mining, research and development of new technologies, construction of factories, opening of shops, banks, the organization supplies, advertising campaigns and other pleasures of business. Of course, to the list of real life falls short, but the developers make every effort to ensure that all mechanisms to make the most similar to the present.

      Opening the shop, the player can independently recruit and select products and suppliers. Goods not without tricks - they differ not only the price but also the quality and even the famous brand. In the near future, by the way, is scheduled to play a real brand. Naturally, with the permission of their owners. And if all goes well, and not only with the permission and by arrangement on advertising.

      The really feel the charm "Virtonomics" can only be playing for a while, and when faced with other players. Of course, not precluded from dealing exclusively with computer vendors, but it is considerably impoverish gameplay. Working with people who can not only be trained to conduct business, but also to get much more pleasure from the game.

    4. "Экономическая онлайн-игра "Виртономика" названа лучшей игрой 2007 года" [The economic online game "Virtonomics" named the best game of 2007]. Mail.Ru. 2008-01-29. Archived from the original on 2009-10-08. Retrieved 2011-04-23.

      The Google Translate of the text:

      Russian magazine "Game Navigator" - authoritative publication in the field of computer games - called economic online game "Virtonomics" the best browser game of 2007.

      "It's like" Capitalism 2 "if one understands what we are, but bigger, and of course, online. The game is not with themselves, and with thousands of people like us, the smart and prudent" - the newspaper notes.

      The "Virtonomics" represents a new generation of online games, where players learn the business playing. Economic and business orientation "Virtonomics" reflected in the qualitative composition of the audience, many of whom are senior managers and business owners, middle managers, private entrepreneurs.

      The magazine that named Virtonomics the best game of 2007 is Game World Navigator.
    5. Çalışkan, Necdet (2010-12-19). "Kapitalizm oyuna geldi" [Capitalism came to the game]. Habertürk (in Turkish). Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      3 - Virtonomics: Online olarak sanal şirketinizi kurup, gerçek piyasa koşullarında rekabet etmenizi sağlayan Virtonomics ile 17 temel sektörde 100’den fazla ürün ile girişimcilik yeteneğinizi ölçebiliyorsunuz.Üretim, ticaret, Ar-Ge, takas gibi faaliyetleri yürütebildiğiniz oyunda aşama kaydettikçe, petrol kuyularından, otomobil fabrikalarına, sebze ve meyve tarlalarından bankalara kadar birçok ortamla karşılaşıyorsunuz. Ofis kiralarını da dikkate almanız gereken ve internet üzerinden çoklu oyuncuyla en çok oynanan ekonomi oyunlarından olan Virtonomics, 40’dan fazla ülkeden 750 bin kullanıcı sayısına sahip.

      (+):Oyun internet üzerinden diğer kullanıcılara karşı da oynanabiliyor. Kullanıcı, ofisin tasarımından, şirketin logosuna kadar kendi oluşturuyor.

      (–): Üretim, pazarlama, bilimsel araştırma gibi faaliyetlerin olduğu oyunda en büyük eksiklik hisse senedi borsasının olmayışı.

      The Google Translate of the text:

      3 - Virtonomics: set up your virtual company online, allowing you to compete in the real market conditions Virtonomics 17 main sectors in more than 100 products with my ölçebiliyorsunuz.üret your entrepreneurial skill, trade, R & D, you can carry out activities such as clearing the game stage kaydettikçe by, the oil wells, the car plant, up to the banks of the fruits and vegetables you are experiencing many middle field. Office rents and the need to take into account Virtonomics economy, one of the most played games with multiple players on the internet, with the number of 750 thousand users from more than 40 countries.

      (+): The game can be played against other users over the internet. The user of the design office, creating their own until the company's logo.

      (-): Production, marketing, lack of largest stock exchange in the game that the lack of activities such as scientific research.

    6. Cruz-Cunha, Maria Manuela (2012). Handbook of Research on Serious Games as Educational, Business and Research Tools. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global. p. 609. ISBN 978-1466601505. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The book notes:

      The Virtonomics Economics

      Game Online

      Virtonomics (http://virtonomics.com) is an online economic simulation based on the principles of MMOG games. The player creates a company that will compete with the game's artificial intelligence and other players and may also establish cooperative partnersehips. The aim is to create a successful business, and the players can carry out activities like production, sales, scientific research, mining, agriculture, trading in international financial markets, marketing, logistics and other management processes.

    7. "Виртономика" [Virtonomics]. CNews. RBC Information Systems. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      «Виртономика» - это не просто игра. Это уникальный симулятор реальных экономических процессов. Если обычно Вам доставляет удовольствие лишь монотонное кликанье по противникам с банальной целью убить или завоевать, вряд ли Вы найдете здесь для себя что-то интересное. Этот мир для людей, которые побеждают силой интеллекта, навыками убеждения, умением анализировать и прогнозировать.

      Но если Вы не боитесь трудностей, создайте свою корпорацию, ведь не политики вершат судьбы мира, а предприниматели, стоящие за их спиной.

      Мир Виртономики состоит из взаимосвязанных экономических отраслей и разделён на страны, регионы и города. Каждый игрок управляет виртуальной компанией, целью которой является получение прибыли за счет разработки ресурсов, производства и продажи товаров и т.д.

      Кроме того, реалистичность игровых процессов и механизмов позволяет использовать игру в качестве инструмента для исследования, бизнес-тренажера для руководителей и маркетологов, а так же для наглядной иллюстрации курса экономической теории для школьников и студентов

      The Google Translate of the text:

      "Virtonomics" - is not just a game. It is a unique simulation of real economic processes. If normally you enjoy a monotonous Clicking on the enemy from the banal to kill or conquer, it is unlikely you will find here for himself something interesting. This world is for people who are winning by force of intellect, skills of persuasion, the ability to analyze and predict.

      But if you are not afraid of difficulties, create a corporation, because not heard by the fate of the world policy, and businessmen standing behind them.

      World Virtonomics consists of interrelated economic sectors and divided into countries, regions and cities. Each player controls a virtual company, the purpose of which is to make profit at the expense of resource development, production and sale of goods, etc.

      In addition, realistic gameplay and mechanisms can be used in the game as a tool for research, business simulator for managers and marketers, as well as to illustrate the course of economic theory for students

    8. Суворов, Николай (2008-01-24). "Журнал "Навигатор игрового мира": Virtonomica — лучшая браузерная игра 2007 года" [Magazine "Game World Navigator": Virtonomica - the best browser game 2007]. MoneyNews. Archived from the original on 2016-01-01. Retrieved 2016-01-01.

      The article notes:

      Российский журнал «Навигатор игрового мира» назвал экономическую онлайн-игру Virtonomica лучшей браузерной игрой 2007 года. Проект «Виртономика» представляет собой новое поколение онлайн-развлечений, где игроки учатся бизнесу, играя. Экономическая и бизнес направленность «Виртономики» отразилась на качественном составе аудитории: львиную долю игроков составляют топ-менеджеры и владельцы компаний, менеджеры среднего звена и частные предприниматели.

      Разумеется, онлайн-игра «Виртономика» — это еще и канал для взаимодействия с платежеспособной аудиторией пользователей Интернета, а также доступ в уникальную среду для маркетинговых исследований и акций.

      В процессе игры участники тесно взаимодействуют с брэндом, эффективность рекламного контакта увеличивается в несколько раз. Брэнд включен непосредственно в игровой процесс, а также в визуальное оформление игры и сферу около-игрового общения участников (форумы, чаты, индивидуальная деловая переписка). Такой метод продвижения оказывается гораздо эффективнее традиционной интернет-рекламы в поисковых системах и баннерообменных сетях, утверждается в пресс-релизе «Виртономики».

      Напомним, что многопользовательская экономическая онлайн-игра «Виртономика» появилась в 2006 году и с этого момента живет по реальным макроэкономическим законам. Мир игры состоит из взаимосвязанных отраслей экономики и разделен на страны, регионы и города. Каждый игрок в «Виртономике» развивает свой бизнес, управляя виртуальной компанией, получая прибыль за счет разработки ресурсов, производства и продажи товаров и т.д.

      The Google Translate of the text:

      Russian magazine "Game Navigator" called economic online game Virtonomica best browser game of 2007. The "Virtonomics" represents a new generation of online games, where players learn the business playing. Economic and business orientation "Virtonomics" reflected in the qualitative composition of the audience, the players make up the lion's share of top managers and owners of companies, middle managers and private entrepreneurs.

      Of course, the online game "Virtonomics" - it is also a channel for interaction with the solvent audience of Internet users, as well as access to a unique environment for market research and promotions.

      During the game, participants work closely with the brand, the effectiveness of advertising exposure increases several times. Brand inserted directly into the gameplay as well as the visual design of the game and around-game scope of communication between participants (forums, chats, personal business correspondence). This method of promotion is much more efficient than traditional Internet advertising in search engines and banner exchange networks, according to a press release, "Virtonomics."

      Recall that the economic multiplayer online game "Virtonomics" appeared in 2006 and since that time lives on real macroeconomic laws. The game world consists of interrelated industries, and is divided into countries, regions and cities. Each player in "Virtonomics" develops its business by managing a virtual company to profit from the development of resources, production and sale of goods, etc.

      According to http://www.banki.ru/news/bankpress/?id=942647WebCite (banki.ru/ru:Банки.ру is a news agency founded by Russian journalist ru:Ищеева, Елена Вячеславовна):

      «Подобно тому, как сайты знакомств и сервисы по продаже рингтонов приучили россиян платить с помощью отправки SMS на платный номер, есть шанс, что популярные интернет-сервисы приучат людей пользоваться интернет-деньгами,— считает главный издатель интернет-проекта MoneyNews.ru Виктор Захарченко.— Например, в популярной социальной сети «Вконтакте.ру» за последнее время появились MoneyMail, e-port, «Единый кошелек» (W1.ru), Roboxchange, LiqPay».

      The Google Translate of the text:

      "Just as dating sites and services to sell ringtones taught Russians to pay by sending a SMS to a paid number, there is a chance that the popular internet services accustom people to use online money - says the chief editor of the Internet project MoneyNews.ru Viktor Zakharchenko .- for example, in the popular social network "Vkontakte.ru" recently appeared MoneyMail, e-port, «wallet» (W1.ru), Roboxchange, LiqPay ».

      This verifies that MoneyNews.ru has editorial oversight. Виктор Захарченко (Viktor Zakharchenko) is the chief editor of MoneyNews.ru.
    9. Чинарова, Екатерина (December 2006). Викторов, Денис (ed.). "Бизнесмен играющий: Сетевые money−пуляции" [Businessman playing: Network money-populations]. Бизнес-журнал. p. 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2016-01-02.

      Here is a list of b-mag.ru editors and staff. According to Google Books, here is a description of the 100,000-circulation magazine, b-mag.ru (Бизнес-журнал):

      «Бизнес-журнал» (www.b-mag.ru) – самое массовое всероссийское деловое издание, адресованное предпринимателям, управляющим собственникам и топ-менеджерам компаний. Выходит ежемесячно в более чем 20 регионах России общим тиражом около 100 тысяч экземпляров.

      Журнал является открытой площадкой для обмена предпринимательским опытом, для распространения информации о лучших деловых практиках и популяризации современных управленческих, финансовых и

      The Google Translate of the Google Books' description of the source:

      «Business magazine» (www.b-mag.ru) - the most massive all-Russian business publication, addressed to entrepreneurs, managers and owners of top managers. Issued monthly in more than 20 regions of Russia with a total circulation of about 100,000 copies.

      The magazine is an open platform for the exchange of business experience, to disseminate information about best business practices and the promotion of modern management, financial and...

      Here is a Google Translate of part of the text.

      A snippet of the Google Translate:

      One of the Russian Examples examples of successful creation of virtual Noah gaming business environment - implementation ized Alexei Kuznetsov in 2004 the project Money Mania. Each participant gets determined during the registration dividing the amount of virtual money, with which comes into play. Facilities can be directed to the creation of pre- acceptance, payment of expenses or investment tion. Selling products to other players and "public" virtual entrepreneur earns de gentle remedies that may be used use to development. Money Mania quickly became popular, and the number of plays for a short time pre- Stigl six thousand. However, the game had a certain technical limitations, it is difficult It was to maintain and develop. In 2006 year to work on the project nect familiarize new group of investors and develop- handler, who decided to create BO Lee advanced version, calling it "Virtonomics» (www.virtonomica.ru). Now the game is testing hundreds of players, The official launch is planned December 11. "One of the principled GOVERNMENTAL differences and innovations, "Virto- omy "will be better adapted to the the current realities of the Internet. There will be new elements - the ability to pro- led research and, as a consequence, to create new products. We also introduce a system franchayzin- ha, which was lacking in the Money Mania », - explains the head Project Sergey Menshikov.

      The article provides a detailed description of the game. Google Translate of the text:

      AT the game will bemore elements capable posche-Kota vanity players. For example,at the start of the business you have tohuddle in the inferior virtualoffice, but with the growth of profits Interiorand the view outside the window will change, poyavyat-Xia personal account and such attributes prosperity as yachts, limousines andthe beautiful secretary. InnerArchitecture project after "apgrey-yes "will transform" Virtonomi-ku "in a unique platform for product placement. Already signed con-tract manufacturer GPS-navigationtori.

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

    Cunard (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 2 are press releases. (See here and here, for example.) Source 4 doesn't seem to work for me, but the text above appears identical to this article from Internet.ru, also a press release. (See it at softkey.info, where it is clearly marked as a press release.) All of these articles make claims that are inherently self-serving and should be sourced to reliable, third-party published sources. For example, I am unable to find any independent source covering Game World Navigator's 2007 awards, which generally indicates that they're not considered very important. Sources 5 and 6 are trivial, just a few sentences each. This leaves Computerra, which does appear to be significant, reliable, and independent, though it's still a single source. Woodroar (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that sources 1 and 2 cannot be used to establish notability. Although source 4 is a press release, it notes that the Russian computer games magazine Game World Navigator named Virtonomics the best game of 2007. This strongly indicates the Game World Navigator has provided substantial coverage of Virtonomics.

I believe the newspaper Habertürk's review provides significant coverage of the subject. It describes how the game works and has critical analysis of the game:

(+): The game can be played against other users over the internet. The user of the design office, creating their own until the company's logo.

(–): Production, marketing, lack of largest stock exchange in the game that the lack of activities such as scientific research.

We agree that the Computerra article provides substantial coverage.

I've added source 7, a review published by the Russian media group RBC Information Systems.

Cunard (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CNews source is a database entry. In nearly all cases, WPVG has considered these to be unreliable, because they're added by the publishers or otherwise user-submitted and not in any way fact-checked by the publisher. We also like to see author by-lines and significant coverage of a game rather than a few sentences about many games, which are both problems with Habertürk. As far as the award goes, I am unable to find any third-party coverage of its existence. I mean, major award winners don't have to issue press releases announcing that they've won. Journalists do that for them. We absolutely need independent sources to verify everything here, especially because of this article's history of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry from the publisher. Woodroar (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Habertürk article was written by Necdet Çalışkan and provides significant coverage. Per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is clear that the Habertürk article is "more than a trivial mention" because it provides a description of the game, praises the game for some features, and criticizes the game for its deficiencies.

I've added source 8 from Nikolay Suvorov (Николай Суворов) of MoneyNews.ru, which verifies that Game World Navigator called Virtonomics the best browser game of 2007.

While the Game World Navigator award may not be a major award, the award strongly indicates that Game World Navigator had substantial coverage of Virtonomics.

Cunard (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another press release, or at least a partial rewrite as much of it is copied verbatim. It even mentions the press release in the article. And as for Habertürk goes, I'm not convinced. I'd like to see more significant coverage, another article about the subject or at least something more in-depth than a few sentences and pros/cons. But that's just my $0.02. Woodroar (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the articles in Computerra and Habertürk are by themselves enough to establish notability because they both are "more than a trivial mention" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline). The Russian computer games magazine Game World Navigator likely has a detailed profile of Virtonomics since it named Virtonomics the best browser game in 2007, although the article is not available online. Cunard (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard, has any single reliable source reviewed this game? Or are these small snippets the best we have? Also what is your method for searching for Russian articles? czar 18:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Computerra has a very detailed review of the game. It is likely that Game World Navigator also has a detailed review of the game since it named Virtonomics the best browser game of 2007; however, the article is not available online. I searched for Russian sources about Virtonomics by searching "Виртономика" (Virtonomics) on Google. Cunard (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bunch of mentions, but not enough to constitute significant coverage. If it had four reviews, it'd be fine, but it doesn't even have two. And I have my doubts about the major review under discussion—the one by Computerra. Our article on the mag has its print circ at 60k (very low...) and the site has no staff posted. Perhaps it's just in decline after its print mag folded, but there's very little to instill confidence as it is. In any event, send this to draft if someone else wants it there, but I don't see enough in-depth secondary source coverage to actually write something of substance on this topic. When this topic becomes sufficiently popular, the reliable source coverage will follow. czar 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is reckless. The Бизнес-журнал puffery-filled description is not from Google Books, as GB isn't a source, but PR directly from the mag. The Habertürk article is a listing of several games, of which this one gets a very small mention. The point of sigcov is that a topic is widely and thoroughly discussed and it isn't done in these sources. (Requiring "two sources" is particularly reckless, because GNG sets no such restriction and two small blurbs hardly ever—actually, never—constitute sigcov.) As for GWN—we can't judge sources we cannot access. It's a noble attempt, but this isn't even close to sigcov or even two full reviews. (If a game is not reviewed in any reputable outlet, it needs some serious coverage in other sources to justify writing an article without a Reception section.) czar 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say source 9 was from Google Books. Google Books hosts the content that is also hosted on the magazine's website. I said the content in source 9 is from the 100,000-circulation business magazine Бизнес-журнал. That detailed article is written by a neutral, third-party source and can be used to establish notability. Why do you say it is "PR"? Cunard (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Google Books, here is a description of the 100,000-circulation implies that Google/GB had some authority in the matter, but it's repeating the company's choice PR claim: the most massive all-Russian business publication (can't take that at face value) czar 04:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted that text from Google Books to show that b-mag (Бизнес-журнал) is a business magazine with 100,000 circulation. You are correct that that is PR from the magazine about itself, which is also available on its website here. To avoid any misunderstanding, I should have quoted from the Google Books page and noted that the description is PR from the magazine itself. My apologies.

I'd like you to consider the material about Virtonomics in the b-mag (Бизнес-журнал) article. I think that b-mag is a reliable source with editorial oversight, that it is independent from Virtonomics, and that it provides detailed coverage of Virtonomics.

What are your thoughts about the coverage in b-mag (Бизнес-журнал) of Virtonomics? See page 13.

Cunard (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looked fine, but my larger point was that that ref (about a paragraph) alongside Computerra together are not sufficient for the GNG czar 17:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article in b-mag (Бизнес-журнал) provides six paragraphs (roughly six hundred words) about the subject so amounts to sufficient coverage. Here is the Google Translate.

The article talks about Alexei Kuznetsov's Money Mania project in 2004, which b-mag calls "one of the successful Russian examples of virtual gaming business environment". The article then describes how the game worked and how it received a following of 6,000 people. The article says the Money Mania project had "technical limitations" because it was "difficult to maintain and develop". Therefore, in 2006, the developers created an "advanced version" of Money Mania, renaming it Virtonomics. The rest of the article has an in-depth description of Virtonomics (for example, how Virtonomics has new features Money Mania didn't have). I think this article and the Computerra article both provide significant coverage about the subject.

Would you review the Google Translate link I included earlier in this post?

Cunard (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same translation service when it was first posted. I have trouble accepting the translation's claim ("one of the successful Russian examples of virtual gaming business environment") given that this blurb and one review are the best we can do on the subject. That's why this doesn't pass the GNG. czar 22:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two detailed reviews: the Computerra article and the 600-word b-mag (Бизнес-журнал) article. The translation's claim that this is "one of the successful Russian examples of virtual gaming business environment" does not detract from the article's reliability, independence, or depth of coverage about the subject. It is not an extraordinary claim. That Virtonomics when it was called "Money Mania" was able to gain a following of 6,000 people by 2006 established it as a successful Russian example of virtual gaming in 2006. 6,000 users might not make a game be considered a successful example of virtual gaming now, but the source considered it successful for 2006. Cunard (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the latter has no elements of a review and it could even call the game Russia's greatest—the semantics don't even matter here as much as coverage. Can we do any justice to this topic with the available reliable coverage (this review and some backstory, if we can even extract it from the Russian translation)? No—not even close, and to that effect, there's nothing else for me to add czar 23:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned below, the article has been covered by multiple peer-reviewed academic papers, as well as two magazines (Game World Navigator and Computerra), and multiple news articles, which is enough and more to do justice to this topic. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not covered, but mentioned. They add no substantial additional discussion of the topic. And no one has found a GWN article—for all we know, there isn't even a blurb. "Implied" coverage is not coverage, especially when this conversation is about detail. czar 08:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligent Information Management is a trivial source, just four sentences that really don't say much at all. Entertainment Computing is better, a few paragraphs and part of a chart, although it's still lacking much detail. I'm surprised that you would reinstate the content referenced to these sources, though, because they really don't support the claims being made. (Which was why I removed them in the first place.) And not only that: though it's short on details, Entertainment Computing is mostly negative criticism about the game, none of which made it into your summary. Woodroar (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IIM source is far from trivial. Aside from the four-sentence description of the game, it also contains an evaluation of its features (table 1) compared to other games, and criticism of the support material it uses. Sources do not have be praising a subject for them to demonstrate its notability. If by "none of which made it into your summary" you are accusing me of puffing up the subject by mentioning only the positives, then you are barking up the wrong tree, as I did not add any new content to the article (aside from the name of a magazine that reviewed it), only sources to support existing content, until this 3rd AfD. Both papers noted that the subject is a multiplayer business simulation game, and that is the statement that they supported, so I do not understand why you removed them. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The restored content is often peacocky/promotional in tone and was originally added by editors with conflicts of interest, like the developer and marketer. For example, the sentence "[i]t simulates the basic principles and processes of businesses in a competitive environment" is sourced to Intelligent Information Management, but that source doesn't support the claim. IIM mentions studying and testing "basics of management" but nothing about "processes" or "competitive environment". Our phrasing makes the game sound exciting through buzzwords but the source is more neutral in that presentation. Next, the sentence "[i]n the game, players may engage in agriculture, exploitation of natural resources, manufacturing, trade, foreign exchange market trade, finance, personnel management, marketing, logistics, scientific research and other business processes" is sourced to Entertainment Computing, which is a poor summary of the source. EC does mention some items on this list, but not all of them. And where our phrasing again is positive ("may engage in"), the source characterizes its own list as mandatory and criticizes the game's lack of support throughout. So they're really not being used to reference Virtonomics being a "multiplayer business simulation game", but more POV claims that they do not support. I still disagree that these sources constitute significant coverage, but that's another issue and we'll likely have to agree to disagree there. Woodroar (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accessed both of these academic papers. Both use the game as an example (among many) of a simulation, but with little description and nothing added on the value of the game. It's self-defeating to say that this sort of mention means anything towards notability because all of the other games used in the studies (with the same weighting) are equally not notable. We're back to having a bunch of mentions and calling it significant coverage when there is nothing of substance to be written on the topic. czar 08:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG, per a detailed review of overall source coverage about the topic. The topic has even been the subject of academic research. North America1000 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the academic research was business games, of which Virtonomics was only one of many and not elaborated in detail. czar 08:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges (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 appears to fail notability per WP:ORG, as there is not substantial coverage of the subject nor moderate coverage in multiple independent sources. Any mention of the group seems to be only passing mentions of the group's naturopathic advocacy written from a perspective critical of pseudoscience, i.e., [31], [32], and [33] (which are not cited in the WP article). On the other hand, a high beam search turned up a Townsend Letter article [34], but this doesn't seem like it covers the subject in any detail, and the publication fully embraces fringe topics. Delta13C (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources listed in the first AfD (in the first Keep vote) and per WP:NGO. These sources are significant enough (in number and type) to show notability. The nom requests "substantial coverage" but WP:GNG says significant coverage. Significant does not mean substantial, it means significant to show notability. Also the nom's focus on peusudo science theory as a reason to delete is incorrect because the article is about an NGO, not a fringe theory or theorist. What an NGO advocates is unrelated to the notability of the NGO itself. -- GreenC 04:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My focus on substantial comes from looking at WP:ORGDEPTH. Could you please explain how those sources cited in the first keep vote of the first AfD are significant enough to indicate notability based on nonspecific descriptions of Google search results? As I stated in the AfD nomination, there are not sources that provide significant coverage. I reread through WP:NGO, and I do not agree that this article meets notability as there is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources that are independent of the organization. A vast majority of search result hits which seem to be cited by those who support keeping the article are from other naturopathic sources/organizations/individuals. Thus, the notability of the article is not widespread. Delta13C (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we disagree about the quality of the sources. -- GreenC 16:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This internal organization of a fringe medical movement is discussed in detail only in their fringe sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to reconcile "only fringe sources" when there have been state government laws passed to allow Naturopath doctors accredited by AANMC to practice medicine.[35][36][37] AANMC is the primary accreditation organization for naturopathic doctors; regardless of Wikipedia's ideas about fringe are legally considered accredited doctors for certain conditions. -- GreenC 15:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That information about AANMC being the accreditation agency for naturopathic programs is incorrect. The Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) is the official accreditation agency that approves programs [38]. The AANMC is an advocacy group that represents the naturopathic colleges. It also appears to approve some continuing education credits for naturopaths. Delta13C (talk) 23:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the [State of Virgina says: "a naturopathic medical school accredited by the Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges". -- GreenC 01:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very curious that authors of this particular Virgina House Resolution made the error of stating that the AANMC accredits naturopathic colleges. It is important to note that naturopaths are not licensed in Virginia, and that the Resolution you are citing never became law and was opposed by the Medical Society of Virginia [39]. Delta13C (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naturopaths are licensed by at least 16 states. In VA they've introduced at least 5 bills over the years, the one in question was the 4th. I don't know where things currently stand in VA but I imagine they keep trying. -- GreenC 05:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The independent sources do not rise above the level of directory entries. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I take strong issue with the claim that the sources that are being used to establish notability are significant enough for us to cross the threshold required at WP:GNG. "Significance" means that the sources should speak to the notability of the subject at face value. None of the sources actually do that. See WP:Notability vs. prominence. jps (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 San Bernardino Express. And merge from history as editors may desire.  Sandstein  21:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSUSB Transit Center[edit]

CSUSB Transit Center (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 bus (not train) stop. No significant coverage in sources -- all discuss bus line as a whole. Furthermore, the title is a promotional neologism by an editor who created multiple neologism articles --. the "station" itself, when rarely discussed in sources, referred to as "the CSUSB stop" or similar. A non-notable advertisement of an article. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 23:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Omnitrans distinguishes between Transit Centers (off-road places to transfer between buses) and Transfer Centers (on-street places to transfer between buses). Among the transit and transfer centers called out on the Omnitrans system map, CSUSB is not one of them. So it would appear Omnitrans themselves do not consider the stop notable. However, the Google satellite map of the stop sure looks like there is an off-road place to transfer. At the very least, the article needs to be moved from "CSUSB Transit Center" (capitalized Transit Center) to "CSUSB transit center" (lower case transit center), because the name of the stop is not a proper noun, or "CSUSB station". In a Facebook post, Omnitrans refers to it as "CSUSB sbX station." I don't believe the content is intended as an advertisement; I believe it is a good faith post. We don't get to use WP:TRANS as it is only there for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisnotatest (talk • contribs) 08:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major Transit Center for the city, allows transfer to sbX green which is a brt line not just a "bus". sbX is the first and only rapid transit line in the Inland Empire. If you ride the sbX, they refer to it as the "California State University Transit Center" in their intercom. Also, CSUSB is the only place with multiple connections to other bus lines besides the SB Transit Center. Note, all sbX stops are stations per omnitrans since it is bus rapid transit; if you're not familiar with this form of transportation TorriTorri (James), I suggest reading a bit on it and see the branding of brt. See SDSU Transit Center. Thanks, House1090 (talk) 07:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if kept: I personally would call it a transit center, based on the Google satellite image. However, Omnitrans does not call it a transit center or even call it out as a transfer center, nor apparently does CSUSB, and I haven't seen any reliable sources calling it a transit center. Unless we can find a reliable source that calls it a transit center, Wikipedia can't call it a transit center. That doesn't necessarily point to deletion; it might point to a renaming as "CSUSB Station" which is what Omnitrans has branded it. The SDSU Transit Center article appears to use "Transit Center" because SDSU and (inconsistently) MTS call the station the SDSU Transit Center, and there are articles by an NBC broadcasting station and by Mass Transit magazine calling it the SDSU Transit Center. I'm not ready to say keep or delete for the CSUSB Transit Center article, but the CSUSB Transit Center article is definitely mis-named. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to favor more "keep" leeway for articles about places, but as far as I can tell (from the sources listed as well as satellite and streetview images), this is a bus stop and not much else. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a merge, but the title should not remain as a redirect.--Regards, James(talk/contribs) 21:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:48, 30 December 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal bolide[edit]

Montreal bolide (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 event, WP:NOTNEWS. The references prove that the event happened, but the fact that nothing more could be added to this tiny stub shows it was insignificant, nothing note-worthy. P 1 9 9  ✉ 03:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meteors are not inherently notable. If this one were, I'd expect more than coverage in local news sources and something other than a meteor was flashy and made a sound type description. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This did no damage and had no lasting effect or enduring notability. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: For the record, a recovered Meteorite fall is generally what makes a meteor notable. -- Kheider (talk) 18:54, 31 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joséphine Bomele[edit]

Joséphine Bomele (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 contains only one live ref - a non-RS fan site blog post quoting a facebook post. [40] Searching her name only returns social media and pageant blogs, suggesting her extensive travel as a model fails WP:NMODEL Creator User_talk:Handsome_Luke#July_2015 has been Indef blocked from editing for advertising or promotion. Legacypac (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:46, 30 December 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.  Sandstein  21:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open Mobile Ticketing Alliance[edit]

Open Mobile Ticketing Alliance (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)

Significance Ueutyi (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just wondering if I can get some further detail on why this is being discussed for deletion - significance is quite an ambiguous critique, may I ask what the requirements are?

I am currently studying future payment solutions and associated technology, I found this initiative interesting - France have recently established a similar alliance of their own: http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/technology/french-contactless-ticketing-alliance-formed.html

Best wishes, Enochian88 (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and draft and userfy if needed as there's hardly even much for a better acceptable article not to mention fully satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 08:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a parent link, OMTA is already mentioned in the HERE company article.Enochian88 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and potentially use this information to expand mobile ticketing. I looked for notability and do not yet see sufficient reporting of this subject to pass WP:GNG. I compared media coverage on this subject to Masabi (company), which is a similar effort and shows much more media coverage. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet notability criteria. Virtually all of the information I found was either pr, churnalism, or brief mentions. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Edgerley[edit]

Paul Edgerley (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)

WP:BLP of a businessman, making no genuinely substantive claim of notability for much more than existing. The sourcing, further, is parked entirely on primary sources and directory entries; the closest thing here to reliable source coverage is a simple list of donors to a political campaign, which still fails to be substantive coverage. I have to imagine that for a person at this level of corporate management a good and properly sourced article is potentially possible, so I'm willing to withdraw this if the article sees improvement before close — but if "he exists, he gave money to Mitt Romney, the end" is really all you can say about him, and glancing namechecks in business directories and his own self-published profile on LinkedIn are really the best you can do for sourcing, then being a managing director of a company does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie or a "get out of media coverage free" pass. It also warrants mention that the article on Bain Capital fails to even contain a single mention of his name at all, which says something to me about how much prominence he has as a public face of the company. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of this suggests fully satisfying the applicable article notability guidelines and ensuring a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 08:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:46, 30 December 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.  Sandstein  21:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The English Commentary of the Holy Quran[edit]

The English Commentary of the Holy Quran (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL; = title used in cited sources)

The book is not notable and does not pass WP:GNG or subject specific criteria. Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 13:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews are related to an English version of Quran with commentary which are 3 volumes but our case is an English commentary which are 5 volumes. Mhhossein (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect these are different editions of the same translation, but I don't feel like dedicating the time to finding out. Withdrawing my !vote for the timebeing until someone figures out what the connection between these two books are. If the article is focusing on a latter edition of the earlier book, then it really ought to be completely rewritten. Brustopher (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable translation. Doesn't appear to have significant coverage. A couple of obscure references doesn't change this. 213.205.251.233 (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article is confusing, is it about an English translation of a book that was first published in around 1917?, 1947?, essentially a reprint in English?, or is it a reinterpretation? Should there be an article on the earlier work and this becomes another edition mentioned in the article?Coolabahapple (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. I think Brustopher is right that they are different editions of the same book. Brustopher's first link can also be viewed here without a paywall. Based on that review and the publisher's notes, it seems that the initial idea was to have 3 volumes. After finding out however, that these volumes would be too big, they decided to divide them further. This list of books for example, implies that there were indeed "3 volumes [divided] in 4 [books]" by 1963. The 5-book edition seems to be from 1988, since the publisher's notes say "First Published in U.K. in 1988..." - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and add a notability banner. If notability isn't established after a period of time, reconsider for deletion. Eperoton (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:45, 30 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berglind Icey[edit]

Berglind Icey (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:NACTOR. Short list of minor roles that don't add up to notability. Has been tagged for notability since 2013 with no real move towards notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not even sure why this was created: I can't work out where its author thinks the notability comes from. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Sphilbrick per WP:CSD#G12 -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Kevra[edit]

Derek Kevra (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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG. Not even notable within the meteorology spectrum. JTtheOG (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree I agree with the deletion recommendation as this clearly doesn't satisfy any notability requirements. Hermera34 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A relatively inexperienced meteorologist with no claim to notability. Only sources are published by his employers. Fails WP:NBIO. Meters (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Granted, I'm the author of the article and a Wikipedia newbie, but Mr. Kevra is notable within the Detroit-Livonia metropolitan area as a TV personality and member of the community, but I'm not sure if that fits the criteria for general Wikipedia notability guidelines in a global context. In any case, I'll work on the article. Pebblebitty (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) (comment moved from subpage by Meters (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 01:21, 31 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SMV Academy[edit]

SMV Academy (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 academy. Pure promotional page about a training institute. Although Google hits return results there is not a single third party ref found to establish notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent coverage cited. Article looks like promotion that's veiled just enough to avoid CSD G11. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably speedy: A WP:SPA article on a firm providing training in web design and SEO. Note the Talk page which is effectively pure advertising. No encyclopaedic notability claimed or demonstrated. I am going to flag this CSD A7/G11. AllyD (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an educational institution, so A7 is not applicable. I'm leaving the G11 tag up for others to review, though, since I think that's a judgment call. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I would make a distinction between a recognised education institution - which is certainly A7-exempt - and a training shop which is purely a firm trying to sell its wares. But one way or another, it is a use of Wikipedia to promote. AllyD (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have declined the G11 speedy delete, and instead cut out the promotional text. So it is now half the size. Without any independent references, I think this may have to be deleted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No good sources on checking the links or additionally running a quick Indian newspaper check. And [43] is so dishearteningly filled with problems that it further undermines any idea of a notable operation. FeatherPluma (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete No indication this is anything other than a tech academy. No indication of degree or diploma granting. To quote Frank Zappa, "Strictly commercial". John from Idegon (talk) 09:24, 31 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SM Harrison[edit]

AfDs for this article:
SM Harrison (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)

as per my previous nomination, fails WP:ORG. Only gets routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pretty run-of-the-mill shopping mall, sourced only to the corporation websites. Reyk YO! 17:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are only few notable sources are detected for this article. Pinespunned (talk) 21:01, 01 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not good enough coverage by WP:RS to meet WP:GNG KagunduWanna Chat? 08:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As much as I'd love to see this deleted it's unfortunately not gonna happen..... Consensus is to Keep 

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Universe[edit]

Mrs. Universe (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 fail WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources about the contest itself. The Banner talk 14:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I see a lot of independent reliable coverage using the Find sources link above. AfD is not cleanup. sst✈ 16:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable event see WP:EVENT Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Malaysia to host Mrs Universe".
  2. ^ "Mrs. Universe sued by Miss Universe - balticreports.com".
  3. ^ "Miss Universe threatens legal action against contest with similar name won by Canadian".
  4. ^ "Mrs Universe 2015 kicks off in Minsk".
  5. ^ "iafrica.com Scott wins first place at Mrs Universe".
  6. ^ "Contenders for Mrs Universe 2015 title to be shown BelAZ". Belarus News.
  7. ^ "Winning Big on the International Stage!"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mansoornejad[edit]

Mohammad Mansoornejad (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)

All sources presented, with possible exception of 1, seem to be the author's own site, or site of the publication he produces Dweller (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 15:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no evidence of notability. sst✈ 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. Current sources: all sources used to support the biography part are either his personal website or his own "indepent publisher's" website. Remaining sources for the bibliography seem to be online bookstores. No GNews/GBooks hits (except several Wikipedia publications) for "Mohammad Mansoornejad" and a couple of other transliterations. Googled for "محمد منصورنژاد": there was 1 GNews hit, but only as a passing mention in a list of "doctors"; nothing on GBooks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is not notable even in Iran.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:47, 31 December 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

R. E. Hillebrand[edit]

R. E. Hillebrand (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)

no sourced birth date, no sourced death date, played one game, sources are lacking information other than his statistics from a single baseball game. Wikipedia is neither a dictionary nor a who's who;there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Per WP:NBASEBALL, listings of statistics aren't enough to establish notability. Delete. Müdigkeit (talk) 12:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NBASE, to maintain the comprehensive coverage of baseball players who have appeared in major competition, and with the likelihood that this article can be improved significantly through new sources. Johnlp (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Played in Major League Baseball. Spanneraol (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All MLB players are considered WP:N regardless how short their careers were.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since he played in The MLB. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NBASE says "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball". He has, so he is notable. Jack | talk page 07:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBASE and all the above. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What we do now have is a consensus that this article meets WP:NBASE, contrary to my erronerous claim above. What we don't have is:
  1. A consensus that this meets WP:GNG
  2. A consensus that this meets WP:NOT, which is required per WP:N regardless of notability guidelines.--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:NSPORTS states in its opening paragraph and in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Note that is GNG OR SSC and NBASE is the SSC. Can you please say more about WP:NOT and why you think this is necessary? Thanks. Jack | talk page 17:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you read the WP:NSPORTS FAQ? It clearly states
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?                                                                                                A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)

So no, not that simple- if we fail to find further sources showing notability, it will get deleted regardless of WP:NSPORTS criteria met. (Good luck finding a source that shows significant coverage) From WP:NOTNEWS:

  1. Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

The only coverage recieved- in this case- was about the partipiciation in a single baseball match. Now, that match itself fails any notability criteria by miles.

WP:NOTGENEALOGY states:

Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on- or offline). Less well known people may be mentioned within other articles.

R.E Hillebrand is clearly less well known, and was never featured in several external sources... he only exists in some statistics as one of many.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Müdigkeit. Well, as I have said more than once elsewhere, these "guidelines" do not provide adequate guidance because they are contradictory. We cannot rely on them, hence all the arguments about them in various AfDs, so it comes down to individual preference. You obviously believe that someone who just passes NBASE at its minimum level should not have an article and only be in a list somewhere. Fine, I respect your point of view and can see where you're coming from. If it wasn't for the lack of precision in the guidelines, I might agree with you but, like most of the other people in this AfD so far, I think "completeness" is a necessary project aim and so, given that we have NBASE and he passes that, he should have an article, however small. I am concerned about his name, though, per the evidence found by Zagalejo (see below). Jack | talk page 06:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT is not a guideline. It is a policy. And WP:N states that WP:NOT must be met in addition to notability guidelines.--Müdigkeit (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have claimed that "The only coverage recieved- in this case- was about the partipiciation in a single baseball match. Now, that match itself fails any notability criteria by miles." Have you actually done an exhaustive check of sources from the early 1900s and possibly earlier, for coverage of this player, or are you just relying on the coverage that happens to be readily available on the internet today? Because any offline coverage would be relevant as well. Rlendog (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An exhaustive check? No, of course not. Some sources may be lost, and the effort to evaluate some possible sources is simply too high. A better wording would be indeed "The only coverage recieved and known to partipiciants of this AfD". Still, that is enough. Unless you can show that players playing only briefly during that time usually got significant coverage.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary, so those lost sources and sources that you feel would take too much effort are relevant. Hence the WP:NBASE guideline. Rlendog (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not clear to me that "R.E. Hillebrand" is his correct name. Baseball-Reference just lists him as "Hillebrand", with a note that says "also Hildebrand". The Chicago Tribune recap of his game refers to him as "Hillerbrand", with no first name given. He is mentioned in a sub-headline: "Youngster Named Hillerbrand Is Right Field for Chicago". Then there's one sentence about him in the article body: "Hillerbrand, a youngster whom Selee picked up to help out, waited for a walk." The article is "Colts Beat the Pirates" from August 30, 1902. It's available on ProQuest. (And to clarify, "Colts" was an older nickname for the Chicago NL team, and was still used in 1902.)
Now, it's possible that there is more information on this guy somewhere, but without having a clear idea what his actual name was, searching will be pretty difficult. I wonder if maybe the "R.E." part of his name was actually a misinterpreted "RF" (ie, right fielder). I'm curious where those stats websites got their information. Zagalejo^^^ 01:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Under no circumstances would deletion be the right thing to do here. Completeness is an encyclopedic necessity. If we are going to purport cover major league baseball players, it makes no sense to exclude some small subset of those players. Removing information about players like this one accomplishes nothing except damaging the quality of our coverage of baseball. Now, if someone wants to propose creating a list of players who've played in only one game, similar to the existing List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names, that could be a subject for discussion--but even then, this would be, at most, merged and redirected to such a list, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:(R.E.) Hillebrandt is in that list already.--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep - Per WP:NBASE. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NBASE and longstanding consensus that players who have played in the Majors, even if for just one game, are notable enough for an article. This is particularly important for old-time players, who likely garnered significant coverage that is not readily available today. Rlendog (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional) Comment All !votes only basing on WP:NBASE or completeness overlook that WP:N explicitely states that not meeting WP:NOT means deletion regardless of notability; in addition, while those who meet WP:NBASE are presumed to be notable, there is evidence to the contrary: Only routine coverage in broad statistics databases and newspapers, barely passing the criteria (one match), failing WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Completeness is basically WP:ILIKEIT. No evidence has been shown that players with brief appearances got significant coverage in the past(beyond WP:ROUTINE)--Müdigkeit (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not necessarily so. In fact, if we look at WP:NSPORTS, it says "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article..." So, regardless of what people are looking at (or "overlook[ing]" as you state), lets look at consensus here. This can be found at WP:WINNEROUTCOMES which shows that "professional athletes in major sports are always kept." So, we can discuss WP:GNG and topic specific guidelines all day, but until there is a consensus opposite of precedent, I find it hard to delete this one. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first part of your text doesn't support your position. WP:NOTAVOTE.
Using WP:WINNEROUTCOMES as keep reason (or worse, as base of consensus) is a good example of Circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. The article won't get it's keep from (other articles).--Müdigkeit (talk) 09:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Müdigkeit, all that you are doing by citing WP:this, WP:that and WP:theother is confirming what everybody already knows: the notability guidelines are inconsistent and in a mess that needs clearing up, but not here. I notice you have only done 1,700 edits in six years and I think you need much more experience of the site to understand how things tend to be done in practice. We have here a consensus of, currently, nine to one. The majority favour NBASE and the importance of that is support for SNGs within NSPORTS. This nomination is derived from the NSPORTS discussion about NCRIC. The best thing to do now is to close this as a snow keep, which is what it is going to be, and take the result back to NSPORTS. Can a closing admin please attend to this asap? Thanks. Jack | talk page 11:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A consensus of "nine against one"(or in other words, WP:MAJORITY, which is a reasoning that should be avoided) combined with the omission of my reasonings regarding WP:NOT which have not gained consensus against, and are solidly based on policy, then the fact that WP:NBASE is, as keeping rationale against WP:NOT blatant misrepresentation of WP:NOT and the top part of WP:N, and even of WP:NSPORTS itself... A keep, let alone a snow keep, would be not the correct action.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The site has always operated on a consensus basis. Quote all the WPs you like but it is consensus that ultimately counts. The WP guidelines and policies are contradictory and open to many permutations of interpretation so consensus is all we have in a case like this. Jack | talk page 11:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep claiming that we have a consensus to keep here. I looked at how many keep !votes I would discount. I don't see a consensus to keep. --Müdigkeit (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please list the ones you would discount and the ones you consider valid, with rationale for each? Thanks. Jack | talk page 14:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, however much any of us would like to be judge, jury and hangman in these discussions, an independent closer will put us all firmly in our places. Johnlp (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Jack | talk page 15:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All the keep votes reference directly or indirectly at least the guideline of WP:NBASE. Just because their interpretation of the guideline differs from yours does not make them invalid. That is why we have the discussions. Nor is anything in this article a violation of WP:NOT (if nothing else, he achieved a level of fame and achievement by playing at the highest level of his sport). As discussed above, lack of easily accessible sources does not imply lack of sources, especially dealing with a subject from over 100 years ago. That is one of the reasons NBASE got a consensus in the first place. Rlendog (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at WP:OUTCOMES, we already have a precedent and can see how "judge, jury and hangman" have already decided in the past. It is what it is and prior outcomes state that prior discussions such as these have always been kept. While this is NOT a guideline, it does show the consensus of the encyclopedia as a whole and not just the few editors discussing on this thread.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keri Sable[edit]

Keri Sable (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)

Minor or insignificant awards no longer cut the mustard. Therefore fails gng and pornbio. Note that the article reads like a press release. Spartaz Humbug! 23:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Largest" is a pretty meaningless term in the context of an awards ceremony. What does it refer to? The attendance? That isn't enough to establish notability; every single NFL game, many college football games, many college basketball games, and even high school football games in Texas likely had higher attendance, but they don't get individual articles (or, in most cases, rivalry articles). The size of the venue for the ceremony? The number of awards given out? It has nothing to do with how well-known or significant the award is. That single press report doesn't say the award is well-known, or that it's regarded as significant. All you've found is a single, isolated, unexplained comment in the local news coverage of the hometown newspaper in the market where the non-notable which gives out these awards is published. Where is the evidence that the Nightmoves awards are well-known and significant? A vague reference to "largest" isn't enough. UCLA graduations are "larger" events than this awards ceremony (and many more notable people take part), but that's not enough to support a claim of notability for "UCLA graduations", and quite certainly wouldn't support the claim that the awards UCLA gives out to outstanding graduating students are well-known and significant. For that matter, the NightMoves awards don't seem to be porn industry awards, as required by PORNBIO. They're given out by a single non-notable local magazine centered on strip clubs, which has some connection to the pornographic film/video industry, but isn't part of it. In all the discussions over the last few years regarding PORNBIO, possible revisions, and its interpretation, not one editor suggested that these awards met the PORNBIO standard. A single ambiguous statement in a single piece of local news coverage isn't enough to overturn that consensus. And it's also a measure of the actual significance of the awards that none of the newspapers you cite in the awards article and in these discussions, not one of those newspapers bothered to report who the actual awards winners were. Thar's a very clear signal as to the significance those sources actually viewed the awards as having. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spartaz's sound srguments and my comments above. Awards given out by non-notable local giveaway magazines with negligible editorial content generally do nothing to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete puff pieces about the award that do not mention the winners show that they are not notable wins. Delete the article, the subject is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets of PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rebecca1990.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This particular actor has appeared in over 100 films.  I'm not thrilled by the article, but it satisfies our policies and guidelines.  This topic passes WP:N, whose basic concept is that the topic attracts the attention of the world at large.  Porn-actor nominations need to focus on WP:V and WP:NOT.  WP:V has not been questioned.  Relevant discussion for WP:NOT so far is that it reads like a press release, but it is not a press release; so while it is a point that needs some attention, is a point that can be handled with editing, and AfD is not cleanup.  The 2007 bio at this webpage states that the topic has appeared, "on the cover of the June 2005 issue of AVN Magazine and the September 2005 issue of Adam Film World Guide. Keri has also been interviewed by...publications as Club Magazine and European based adult industry magazine Hot Video."  Hot Video is reported to use "professional journalists previously committed to other news fields", so this source might be useful.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Note: I've recently, heavily edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has "won a well-known and significant industry award" - namely the Adam Film World Guide Award (one of the longest-running adult film industry award ceremonies) for "Starlet of the Year", which is very similar to other major award categories in the same industry (like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & the XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet).
One might consider the "Fan's Choice" version of the NightMoves Award for Best New Starlet a slightly less prestigious award than the "Editor's Choice" version of that same award, but none of that really matters here given the above. Guy1890 (talk) 08:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:01, 30 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashli Orion[edit]

Ashli Orion (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 only award won isnt significant and her co-winner has just been deleted for beining non notable. Fails pornbio and gng Spartaz Humbug! 23:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She won the award. Why are we nominating winners now? If there is a consensus that the Urban X Award is non-notable, please link to it. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merely pointing a policy without explanation is an argument to avoid listed at WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Mkdwtalk 01:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As other winners of Urban X winners have been deleted that didn't have other means of notability, even ones who were Hall of Fame inductees. It's too bad they couldn't run a more legit awards show, as ethnic performers (blacks especially) are usually ignored by AVN, XRCO and Xbiz for the most part. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PORNBIO & GNG, Ofcourse this has nothing to do with looks and it has nothing to do with this image... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin, what Davey2010 actually means is that this is a non-policy based HOTTIE vote as he can't bring himself to go with policy for this individual. Spartaz Humbug! 23:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's accurate analysis and consensus practice. The consensus that the Urban X/Urban Spice Award fails to demonstrate notability has been established by repeated AFD and DRV discussions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ANYBIO states, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." I argue that the award is not well known which was the intent of this guideline, to not simply to merit all award winners notability. Additionally, it only suggests notability is likely because presumably there will be WP:SIGCOV. Most of the sources in the article are there only to cite titles in the filmography section, not to substantiate the lightly spread material in the article. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage about this individual because of their career or being the recipient of this award. I do not think the keep camp has addressed these concerns. Mkdwtalk 00:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus that there are no notable awards here. FeatherPluma (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some degree of onsistency is a virtue, even at WP. the way we treat analogous people is relevant. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is not fully satisfying the pornography notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 31 December 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 Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thozla[edit]

Thozla (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 searched a lot but fail to find any movie with this name but there is a new upcoming movie named Thozha (Thozha (film)) that have same cast and filmmaker. I think this page should be removed due to wrong name which make confusion or redirect to Thozha (film) if am not wrong. GSS (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:34, 30 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Muhammad[edit]

Criticism of Muhammad (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 an attack page - biographical material which is entirely negative in tone. A one-sided presentation of a topic is contrary to our basic policy of neutrality. Note that the page Praise and veneration of Muhammad has just been deleted on similar grounds and so balance requires us to delete this one too. Andrew D. (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not really a personal attack on him, it seems to be more of a documentation of criticism he received, which I see know problem with. And the attack policy page talks about being unsourced but this has plenty of sources and overall is a decent quality article. Also, the fact that this has existed since 2006 and has never been suggested for deletion should give you a pretty good idea of why it should stay. In the first place, Muhammad has been dead for a really long time and attack policies seem mainly for living people. So, no!--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As indicated in the nomination, this is related to the recent deletion of a similar page which focussed on praise of Muhammed. The close of that discussion said, "if Criticism of Muhammad is deemed problematic (possibly for some of the same reasons as this one; and there are valid arguments to be made that all "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently non-neutral), then that would have to be discussed in a deletion discussion about that article." The core policy WP:NPOV confirms that such "Criticism of" articles are unacceptable. WP:POVNAMING states "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." So, all these one-side pages should indeed be deleted but a group nomination would be unwieldy and so this is best done one at a time. Andrew D. (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like that closure was as flawed as this nomination. And it looks like you are misinterpreting the "core policy WP:NPOV" here too. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An entirely legitimate article about a notable topic. The Rambling Man makes an excellent point. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment:. While praise articles are rare, if not non-existent, on Wikipedia (try searching for "Praise of"... All these articles are only about works/things titled or named as such; nothing in the sense of anti-criticism), there are numerous criticism articles. I think community-wide consensus is needed about the WP:POVFORKiness of these "Criticism of..." articles, before they can be deleted. IMO all criticism articles are unnecessary POV-forks and against WP not being an opinion piece.
Having said that, Criticism of Muhammad seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS of everything negative that people have historically said about Muhammad. Most of the stuff there should be relocated to the subjects that are criticised, such as all the main articles mentioned in Criticism of Muhammad#Points of contention. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument for deletion is that the article is an essay, that is, a piece of original research trying to make a point, and that it is a content fork of material already covered elsewhere, as well as an aggregation of quotations with little in the way of context. Mkkamran (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is definitely staying. There needs to be a 2 sided perspective on the 2nd most popular religious figure in the world. Every other major religion can handle criticism and so must Islam. Thesqueegeeman (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the argument for deleting "Criticism of" and "Veneration and praise of" forks based on WP:NPOV is misplaced. The subject of these articles is the criticism, veneration and praise, not the person or organization being criticized. In this case policy dictates that the discussion of the criticism should be balanced per WP:NPOV (including criticism of the criticism), based on non-primary sources and not degenerate into a quote farm, which is what tends to happen in practice. The deletion of "Veneration and praise" counterpart (with which I disagree) was based not so much on NPOV grounds, as on WP:OR and WP:QUOTEFARM. Eperoton (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eperoton that these point-of-view articles should discuss the point of views, instead of merely stating the points of view. Criticism of Muhammad has a couple of discussions, but there's also plenty of "bare criticism", such as Modern critics have criticized Muhammad for preaching beliefs that are incompatible with democracy; Somali-Dutch feminist writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has called him a "tyrant"[29] and a "pervert".[30] The Dutch Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders calls Muhammad a "mass murderer and a pedophile".[31] The article could use a good cleanup to remove passages like these, or at least expand them to include an analysis of said criticism. If not, we're essentially dealing with WP:NOTREPOSITORY in this case. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also note the following comment from the deletion review for the veneration and praise article ([50]: "No prejudice against recreation of a policy-compliant article under this or a similar title." Eperoton (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To my way of thinking, and given my own religious background, there is a significant difference between "praise" and "veneration". "Praise" is ordinary, human, pedestrian. In Catholicism, "veneration" is something closer to the worship of the sacred -- which Christians cannot call "worship" because that would put a saint on the same level as the deity (and that would be sacrilegious in Christian doctrine). Theologically, Mohammed has a similar status to Mary and Catholic saints: venerated, but not divine. I note that we have article titled "Veneration" and "Veneration of Mary in Roman Catholicism," which discuss the doctrine underlying the veneration of saints and the various rites involved; those are notable and encyclopedic topics and the articles seem to me to strike the right balance. A similar article, written in a neutral tone and discussing the related rites and underlying Islamic doctrine regarding the veneration of Mohammed would be an appropriate stand-alone article, with an emphasis on scholarly commentary on the primary religious texts, doctrine and rites found in secondary sources. What is not appropriate is an article whose text is based mostly on extended passages from the Koran and Hadith, sourced solely or primarily on the Koran and Hadith; the article should be written in a neutral tone and should be largely descriptive, not as a religious text. If we can strike that balance, I would support a stand-alone "Veneration of Mohammed in Islam" article, but I also recognize that many of our self-selected contributors do not (and will not) be able to strike that balance and there is not easy solution to that challenge. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - While it is indeed a content fork (which is understandable given the length of the parent article), it seems rather absurd that such a well-sourced and long-established article would be nominated for deletion. It's certainly not an attack page, given the notability and currency of such criticism (including within multiple fields of academia). The argument for deletion seems to misinterpret core policy (as The Rambling Man pointed out), and dare I say it: be somewhat disingenuous. I won't visit the intentions of the nominator, but per their own comments, this AfD nom seems to be related to the deletion of the aforementioned 'praise' article which apparently "failed key policies so badly as to be unsalvageable". If the nominator disagrees with having articles of this ilk on Wikipedia (though they apparently only nominated this one), that's fine; but that would require sweeping changes across the project with the deletion of literally dozens of articles. And this isn't the way to do it. Take this discussion to the appropriate forum; AfD shouldn't be used to make a point, engage in apologetics, or provide "balance" for other articles. I'm honestly a bit surprised an administrator hasn't closed this discussion already.Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that this and other criticism pages have to be kept. Criticism of a religion/person/ideology are a distinct subject than the ideology itself, and I think that the existence of such pages is legitimate. Flauius Claudius Iulianus (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, noting that this was an unsourced biography of a living person and that it had previously been deleted at Sachin Shivalia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Shivalia (Actor)[edit]

Sachin Shivalia (Actor) (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)

Unremarkable actor. No references to assert notability/significance, and a google search brings up nothing, along with an image and news search, CatcherStorm talk 08:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only does this fail WP:NACTOR, it is also completely unsourced. sst✈ 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 31 December 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 deleted first and foremost as a G5 problem. In the minute chance that someone else thinks that this is worth re-creating, do without socking first although the consensus was overwhelming so that should be a sign to second-guess trying this again. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and Fascism[edit]

Donald Trump and Fascism (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)

POV article and negative BLP (although I don't think it rises to the level of attack). While this has been discussed extensively in the media, this topic has already been brought up on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 and Fascism in North America. Majora (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep well referenced and a more significant topic then most of the pageant winners like Meg McGuffin etc. I learned some interesting things reading it. Legacypac (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like "Far-right" or "Neo-Nazi" or whatever "...endorsement of Donald Trump." That is what the article is mainly about and seems to be a notable topic, at least right now. Borock (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea - it's not that Trump is endorsing the far right its that the far right is latching on to Thrump. Legacypac (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think Trump is appealing to the fascist instinct but I don't see any evidence that he is or would be a fascist himself. He is more liberal and internationalist than lots of other Republicans. (I'm not voting for him.) Borock (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'To keep the article strictly neutral and factual, I chose to limit the references to those about the phenomenon of Trump's popularity with such groups, which seems to be an objective and encylopedic phenomena, and thus should be kept, since the increase of popularity of these groups, as claimed in these articles, seems to be a significant (and troubling) historical phenomena our readers may wish to know of. I could have also listed a number of other references where Trump's policy proposals have been criticized as fascist, but I left these out in order to not push a POV and just present the facts to our readers, who deserve them. I am not opposed to a rename if anyone has a good suggestion, and I am happy to have others make edits to the article if they see ways to improve it. Cheers.King Of The Wikipedians (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reverted as per WP:BLOCK EVASION 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — King Of The Wikipedians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @King Of The Wikipedians: Ok, even if you were to clean up the POV language (which I don't think you did) how is this still not a content fork or worse a POV fork? Why did you decide to create a new article instead of just adding to the mentions of this topic in the articles that already exist? --Majora (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has room to grow! Imagine if Trump is somehow elected. Or even gets nominated by his party. There will be much more Fascism related news coming on Trump, and we wouldn't want to take away too much space from reports on his reality television endeavors from his main page. Besides, the revival of mainstream fascism in 2015, 70 years after we thought we had killed it, now back as an unashamed political platform in the persons of Trump and Le Pen in France, is an encylopedic and notable phenomenon. I provided lots of hard evidence here. Closing our eyes doesn't make it go away. Maybe a section connecting Trump to the unseemly revival of Fascists globally, like Le Pen, would be in order. What do you say? I remind you of WP: NOTCENSORSHIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Of The Wikipedians (talk • contribs) 19:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reverted as per WP:BLOCK EVASION 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — King Of The Wikipedians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • And I don't understand these claims of POV. Although I myself regard Trump as a charlatan, fraud, demagogue, and Hitler replica unfrozen from the sands of time, and see his supporters as fawning, sycophantic goose-steppers all-too-eager to lead Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Blacks and anyone else they can get their hands on to the crematoria, I DID not insert these opinions into the article. At no point did I add one whit of my personal opinion that Trump is likely already drawing up the blueprints for the crematoria now. I merely objectively reported a newsworthy phenomenon:Trump's massive popularity with hate groups, and his increase in their popularity, and the widespread news reports that his fellow candidates have called him Fascism. My god, if this isn't what an encylopedia is for, then what is? I left my personal opinions entirely out of it, and just reported the facts, with exceedingly strong references. Have a look for yourself.King Of The Wikipedians (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reverted as per WP:BLOCK EVASION 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — King Of The Wikipedians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Delete You cannot possibly be serious with this article, with its unapologetic political agenda. Wikipedia is not the Huffington Post. And Adoil Descended (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a classic case of WP:COATRACK, taking articles about far-right groups and perceived support for the candidate to define Trump as a fascist. Believe you me, I'm no fan of the Donald, but this article is nothing more than an attack piece. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you've got to be kidding me. Who thought this was a good idea?—S Marshall T/C 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of deleting this article, I vote we collaborate and get this article up to GA status. There is a treasure trove of knowledge here that we can build upon! As has been pointed out numerous times, this is far more encylopedic than Meg McGuffin or The Apprentice Rises Again: Season 7 Recap or much of the flotsam and jetsam that masquerades as knowledge around here. This is a real historical event. We are called to report on this revival of Fascism in the 21st century. We stand on the front lines of history. The choice is yours.King Of The Wikipedians (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reverted as per WP:BLOCK EVASION 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — King Of The Wikipedians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Here is an example of a comparable article: Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008. Borock (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete So blatantly POV and cherry-picked it's embarrassing, and casts a poor light on everyone who works on Wikipedia. Also skirts the intent of BLP via technicalities. Not the proper venue for political axe-grinding or character assassination, no matter if it is altruistically motivated by "killing a baby Hitler". - CompliantDrone (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Comment" I've added even more references and moved the reports of Trump's Hitler book, which he is claimed by his ex-wife to keep in his bedside cabinet to its own section. I've also added the NYTimes story from September about Trump's father having been a Klansmen, along with Trump's denial to this collaboration. Let's work together, not against each other, and we can make this article great again, comrades. To the barricades (of knowledge)!King Of The Wikipedians (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reverted as per WP:BLOCK EVASION 15:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC) — King Of The Wikipedians (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete  The article has no lede, so I'm not able to check the reliable sources that identify this as a topic worthy of notice.  Nor can our readers.  Whatever there is to be said about Trump and fascism, this is nowhere close to being WP:NPOV.  I quickly found three paragraphs about Miss USA without any stated relevance to the topic, so the article is coat-racking unrelated material.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This type of blatant BLP hit piece should be embarrassing to everyone who has ever contributed a sentence to it. Personally, I think Donald Trump is a piece of work who is completely lacking in temperament, ideology, education and meaningful experience for the office for which he is now a candidate, but attempting to tag him as a "fascist" -- on par with Hitler, Tojo and Mussolini -- is disgusting. There should be no room for this type of garbage in a serious encyclopedia; it's what gives a black eye to Wikipedia and holds us up to the derision of the media and the public. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Got some good laughs but Fascist's support of Trump != Trump's support of fascism....and it seems like this page attempts to equate them. 24.102.247.42 (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Just an article meant to defame someone and push a Far-Left political agenda. Whoever started this should be blocked from using Wikipedia. LiberatorLX (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is a WP:BLP time bomb. Instead of looking at just the content, look at the sources in which derives this article as well. The massive collection of references either:
A) cover statements and opinions made by one or more people over the span of Donald Trump's candidacy
B) provide opinionated analysis or interpretation of these different statements
C) discuss social media or "buzz" influences that have trended as a result of those statements
The article then takes all of these different references and attempts to either connect them with one another when they have no relation, or establish the parent article subject with fascism. The underlying topic of this article does not appear to be neutral, and is not an encyclopedic aspect of a WP:BLP that should be covered to this extent. Each viewpoint should have its own due weight, and this article does not abide to Wikipedia's core principle that all view points be equally covered. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely well-referenced information that has significance for our community. This article cites mainstream sources like CNN http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/24/politics/donald-trump-fascism/ and is of value by providing an historical context for a notable phenomenon. HistoryReaderWithPHD
    Note: This editor was registered today and has no edits outside this AfD --Majora (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a WP:POVFORK.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article is currently on Google News's front page as a "Wikipedia:" link. This may attract a higher-than-usual amount of attention to this RfD. (The news stories are about a video by Al-Shabab which uses Donald Trump in it; topic link is here at the moment though that link might expire soon. The group of articles includes this article as an example.) —AySz88\^-^ 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like more "work" by Kingshowman (talk · contribs) to me. I have tagged some suspicious accounts accordingly. Doc talk 05:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another non-fan of Trump here, but this article is OR and unhelpful. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more I look at it, the more glaringly obvious it is who is behind the account that created this pile of slop. It meets WP:G5 and is a major BLP issue. The edits of King Of The Wikipedians (talk · contribs) in particular should be revdeleted for BLP violations after the account is indeffed for being a blatant quacking sock of Kingshowman. This is a no-brainer. Doc talk 05:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencylopedic essay-like POV pushing. 108.2.58.56 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not only is this unencyclopedic and loaded with framed political language, it came up in my Google News feed as a Donald Trump reference (why I'm here). Drop it as soon as possible. 76.181.233.121 (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no reason to maintain. This "hit piece" is intentionally inflammatory and serves no purpose other than being a slanted, politically motivated attack piece. Keep this garbage on internet forums, not here. 96.61.173.1 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE – This wiki entry is rife with political hubris, innuendo and pot-calling-kettle-black. While it might be agreed that Trump is a personification of Mussolini, there is a strong argument that Clinton is a subversive personification of Hitler due to her outright lying to the public on Bengazi, private email server scandal, Clinton foundation conflicts of interest, etc., all verifiable, if even uncomfortable, and side-stepped facts by the Clinton political machine. To put a singular political figure in the same vein as Fascism completely misses the point that Fascism is first and foremost a 'corporatist/statist' aligned form of government. Corporate welfare, which is rampant in American economic policy, is a defining principle of Fascism. The SCOTUS Citizens United Ruling simply ensconced the corporatists/statist basis of Fascism into American further and deeper into politics. Has it been lost on the argument that Clinton is running her campaign, as far as the dollars total garnered, on the very corporatist campaign contributions that are part of the corporatist/statist agenda America is sliding deeper into with each succeeding incoming president, regardless of political affiliation? Trump or Clinton being Fascist in their own rights are at their core really Straw Man arguments in the final analysis, and inflammatory and hubris ones at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoR. Caarl Robinson (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RENZ GmbH[edit]

RENZ GmbH (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)

There are no major references to prove the said claims in the page. Promotional piece created by an editor, whose most of the pages are either deleted or marked for deletion. Ireneshih (talk) 07:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – insufficient independent coverage. sst✈ 16:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as the history and age would've actually suggested better here but there's surprisingly no German Wiki article and my searches found nothing considerably better. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 31 December 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 per CSD G11: the entire article was written in advertising-speak, presumably by an undisclosed paid and/or COI editor Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Office Supplies[edit]

Complete Office Supplies (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)

Promotional page with no significance. Fails WP:GNG Ireneshih (talk) 07:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I repaired 10 20 to correct my mistake. --Pounder39 (talk) 09:31, 30 December 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by age[edit]

List of current members of the United States House of Representatives by age (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)

Total content fork of Current members of the United States House of Representatives where all the detail (except exact birth dates) and more can be seen. Legacypac (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK with Current members of the United States House of Representatives, which you can sort by the members' year of birth (see WP:DEL-REASON). The author clearly put a lot of work into this page, and if they want to preserve the information, I would encourage them to add the date and month of birth for current members at Current members of the United States House of Representatives (but please make sure to substantiate all assertions with citations to reliable sources). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant content fork. We shouldn't spin off articles based on sortable table elements. If that's not a guideline somewhere, then it should be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If nothing else, the article's age at which they entered Congress is notable in its own right, as it has major career, leadership, and tenure implications. And if anything, the year of birth should be removed from the clunky current members page. Star Garnet (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, you want to delete the (to you critically important) variable that makes the TITLE of this list unique from the article It duplicates to save this article? Is that correct? Legacypac (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was more or less a gripe at how long that more basic list takes to load with four hundred odd photos and the painful sorting therein. And pointing out that it is not likely that any more detail will be added to that page in the absence of this article. Also, vaguely hinting that the other elements of that list would probably be deserving of their own article, such as List of hometowns of current members of the House, in which simultaneous and former hometowns would add politically significant nuance, as this list does. Star Garnet (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A huge portion of !votes were given considerably less weight in this discussion due to WP:ATA, particularly in the keep camp. Ultimately, many of the concerns brought up were editorial and WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Mkdwtalk 02:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regressive left[edit]

Regressive left (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)

Blatantly obvious synthesis, and the sources that aren't being drawn in synthetically are poor. Bill Maher uses a phrase on his talk show, clearly it's a real thing that Wikipedia needs to document. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator's comment: This has been linked from at least one Gamergate forum, which is the obvious reason it's getting a ton of non-arguments from SPAs or otherwise low-activity accounts. These users don't care about WP:N, WP:RS or WP:NOR; this is a political battle for them. I encourage the closing admin to weigh the arguments here, not vote-count "censorship!!!11!one!", "it should be kept because it definitely exists for real", "polemical talk shows are reliable sources", etc. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dude !!! What are you thinking? I was the first person to indicate Keep. I do care about the pillars. And in my humble opinion the other Keep input has seemed to be able to tap into Wikipedia policy reasonably. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's objectively true that most of the keep voters here fit that description, and they keep coming. Is there a reason you're so defensive about being associated with them? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. I suggest to you that I am not being defensive. The association you mention is in fact precisely the same as for you and I: you and I are working on the article. Period. I appreciate, in the hypothetical, that there could be an effect from some link about which I know nothing. However, I suggest that it is not "objective" to characterize opposing input as "a ton of" irrational non-arguments, political, or manifesting lack of respect to the pillars. I tried to convey to you that perhaps you were using your brush too broadly. Rather than availing yourself of the opportunity to refine or tone down your contentions, your point stands in its original bright raw energy. The big paintbrush approach will be weighed on its merits and possible demerits by the closer. I would say to you that when I initially came to this article I could relate to the reason you undertook the AfD, but as you know from life, there is a distinction between holding to your principles and recalcitrance. Since this AfD doesn't need to get cluttered by a diversionary debate, I will stand down here. FeatherPluma (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I would point out that the person who coined the term has been canvassing for support on Twitter, here. --
Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Twitter user Imperien Cypher (@imperien) has attempted to rally his supporters here. The French Rat (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more than a dozen or so people are actually sourced saying something even similar. It's really just a neologism, and too much of the article is a vehicle for polemics or partisan quotes that are only tangentially related. Plus, the material could just be reinserted elsewhere (?) GABHello! 07:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On a quick first pass and by looking at additional sources, it really is quite evident that this term is being used over time (years) in a consistent way by some very well-known people. It is being used to convey a culturally important concept. A referenced article on notable people using conceptual language to explain our world is precisely what encyclopedias are supposed to be all about. This term is not a blatant invention by a crazy person in their garage, sniffing galaxial neoligism glue. The article does need clean up and some expansion. There are already some reasonably notable references but this can also be improved. The tendencies pointed to that are seen as stepping toward synthesis are eminently correctable. I have started on some clean up. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually come back and amplify myself at AfD discussions. But I do so here because perhaps it isn't clear that the essence is that this article is not just a quote farm. The various video media analyses are not randomly independent content that happen by chance to stumble on the term. Misframing these discussions as isolated opinionated polemics would be far off the mark, and would suggest these sources were possibly dismissed automatically rather than carefully reviewed. In what I have looked at since embarking on this, these sources are media analyses of the concept by prominent notable individuals. They are of an order closer in gravitas to e.g. Christopher Hitchens on video than to trite polemical sources. I judge that they do in fact represent modern secondary sources in that they reference the concept's origin, and then analyze its coherence and then use it as a springboard to analyze its deductive implications. Of course, this isn't the typical print sources like the New York Times that we would usually prefer. That needs to be said. Nor do they have the imprimatur of any editor, and that's a big issue, unless we argue that The Rubin Report is a firm RS, which we are not arguing at all. But then again the article isn't absent any print references. It's a matter of judgment whether the multiple existing print references in e.g. Washington Times and two Independent articles are "substantial" or not (and a quote in Newsweek). The WT article is all / only about "regressive left" etc. I would also say that someone wants to seriously challenge the video media references as mere polemic rants, I'd be happy to look at the respective media again and review what these various analyses say, "line by line" / "time stamp by time stamp" and discuss it comprehensively and collaboratively. By the way, I am not an advocate for the concept, as some off-AfD input suggests. On the contrary, I am dispassionate in considering the merits of this AfD and have put hours into diligently coming to my recommendation. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NEO, which this falls under, requires coverage by secondary sources analyzing the term itself; all your sources are primary sources using the term. Nobody doubts that there are people who use the term, but we require secondary sources discussing it before it can be included on Wikipedia. --Aquillion (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Aquillion, for the input. In the article, after yesterday's updates (before your input), we cite (4 times) the relevant thematic analysis by James Bloodworth (28 June 2013). "Why is the left so blinkered to Islamic extremism?" The Independent. That source was in the article before, but with a lesser footprint. Bloodworth uses the (harsher sounding?) synonym "degenerated progressive". I suppose a reasonable case could be made to add this to the introductory sentence, but I didn't do so because as a source it gives a clearly expressed, detailed, analytic opinion (which, as it's politics, can be deemed right or wrong) on this article's topic but uses the synonymous wording once only. More broadly, we would contend that the article is not a dictionary entry about the specific form of words "regressive left", but is an encyclopedic handling of the cultural phenomenon that the words describe. When we started in on this AfD, the article was enough of a mess that the nomination was understandable. Despite undergoing some trimming of certain elements, it's overall 43% larger than at AfD initiation, reorganized, and has abundant video and print sourcing. And we also referenced the thematically relevant Bruckner, Pascal (2010). The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1400834317. We haven't explicitly reproduced in all its detail Bruckner's (revulsion)/opinion as to the "reversal of the burden of proof" because this article is for a general readership. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pretty much for the same reasons FeatherPluma outlined. Even if the term is somewhat of a neologism, the phenomenon it describes is real and worthy of documentation. And I don't see much evidence of SYNTH in the article. Amateria1121 (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Response to nominator's comment: That kind of not-so-subtle implication typifies why articles such as this one become a political battleground for both sides: those who oppose such terminology and those who support it. My comment pointing out that SYNTH is not an advocacy tool, and the comments of others questioning the premise of the AFD, were drowned out by the clarion call referring to the malign influences of Gamergate, sockpuppets, and "low-activity accounts". The arguments against deletion may be rather evidence-free, but then again, so is the argument for deletion. Simply stating "delete because SYNTH and RS" without elaborating doesn't really do much in terms of justifying an AFD. In the case of SYNTH, it's difficult to prove the negative case, and no proof has been offered for the positive case. Although I agree with the nominator about RS, surely tagging the article with {{Unreliable sources}} or {{Partisan sources}} would suffice for now, instead of outright deleting the article. If those tags were left unaddressed for some length of time, then yes, perhaps AFD would be the next step. But to jump straight to AFD seems like an overreaction. Amateria1121 (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"This neologism doesn't have reliable-source coverage, and spurious attempts to pull in other sources to claim notability are falling foul of NOR" is a pretty standard reason for deleting anything. I don't think tagging would help because it wouldn't be asking users to go out and find better sources, it'd be asking them to hang onto an article that doesn't meet WP's standards in the hopes that the term would one day be in common use so that sources might exist. That's bad policy and, frankly, advocacy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably true, hence why I argue the politicking goes both ways. I understand that there may be a rush, by some, to legitimize the term by writing up an article on it, and that under such conditions users would not necessarily follow OR and RS to an acceptable degree. But that does not necessarily invalidate the topic. See WP:WORDISSUBJECT; regardless of the current state of the article, the so-called "Regressive Left" describes a phenomenon as legitimately noteworthy as the so-called Homosexual agenda. You say that tagging the article is likely insufficient, and that in many cases is true. But for this article, I think it would be best served in the longer run by retooling it to focus more on the topic and less on the term (again, see WP:WORDISSUBJECT). That would open up a, perhaps not wealth, but at least some better sources for inclusion and citation. Leaving the article to focus on term would indeed make it ripe for the type of "speculative advocacy" you describe, but if the article's deficiencies can be edited out (as I believe they can), then deletion is not necessary. Amateria1121 (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that the "regressive left" exists or doesn't exist - what I'm saying is that even the neologism doesn't have enough currency in reliable sources to write about per WORDISSUBJECT. Ultimately, an article with either focus is still subject to WP:N, WP:RS and so on. (But if the sourcing isn't sufficient even to write about the neologism - which I don't think it is - how much further away it is from being able to write about it as a real phenomenon.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a bit of chicken-and-the-egg here. Does the term presuppose the phenomenon? It's a neologism, and yes, the neologism in and of itself is probably not worthy of documentation due to lack of RS, at least. But if the phenomenon itself is within the scope of WP, does a description of it necessitate using the term (and the related primary sources)? Or could such an article incorporate both reliable sources and use the term as a convenient label? I believe so, and that doing so doesn't necessitate the deletion of the article as it is now. I can see how a position with such future expectations could be seen as bad policy. But if the article is being actively worked on and improved (largely thanks to FeatherPluma at this point), I maintain that it's a reasonable position for now. Amateria1121 (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep. There are plenty of sources. If the nominator has OR concerns they belong on the article's talk page. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I wrote the above I was not aware of the canvassing concern so I'm retracting my SNOW suggestion. However I still find the WP:NEOLOGISM argument pretty weak. The term itself has received significant coverage by people other than Nawaz. It has in particular been notably discussed, in depth, by Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris. These are WP:BIASED sources and care should be taken accordingly. However, those who want to argue that the sources aren't "reliable" enough are not considering what reliable means. They reliably explain the concept as set forth by Nawaz, as well as endorse it. In turn, their views have been widely discussed in the public sphere, for example:[52],[53]. Yes, all the sources necessarily flirt with the line between fact and opinion, because this is an inherently polemical topic. That doesn't mean it isn't notable or shouldn't be covered. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, was I wrong. On close examination, there is really nothing to keep in this article. The whole "Origin" section belongs in Majid Nawaz, the connection to Islamo-Leftism is pure OR (and wrong), the next paragraph is based on a summary of a partisan report, and the remaining four paragraphs have mediocre sourcing and are not the basis for an article. I would say cut out the fluff and merge and redirect what's left over from the last few paragraphs to Criticism of multiculturalism#Multiculturalism and Islam. I have no objection to a real article on this subject being written, but this isn't one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammy1339 I think, from what you have said, that you agree with the general concept that there, on occasion, exists a phenomena of "an inherent hesitation to challenge some of the bigotry that can occur within minority communities [...] for the sake of political correctness". This is an intensely important subject that, just in the UK, has resulted in social services and police failing to address problems. This NP front page speaks of "1,400 child sex victims in one town" with "Social workers too scared of being branded racist to act". There is a very legitimate and notable phenomena of which the main term applied to it is "regressive left".
https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/674477682277486594 and a [54] great deal of similar content just in connection to this one thinker. GregKaye 16:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@GregKaye: I don't think the topic is non-notable. It's clearly part of the current political conversation, and SV's video [55] from her comment below is very strong evidence of notability. I think it's almost certain that we will have academic sources very soon, but that's my WP:CRYSTAL. Currently, however, we have a situation where the only substantive parts of the article are entirely based on op-eds, talk shows, and primary sources. A stand-alone article should not be based solely on such sources, though they can be used to support an article. That's why I think the material should be merged. I'm opposed to deleting the history, and have no objection to having an article on this subject next week when better sources appear. I also can't rule out that there are more quality secondary RSes hiding among the massive number of GHITS. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sammy1339 WP:UCRN has little to do with academic sources but to what readers will find to be a "commonly recognisable name. Also, though this is a valid topic worthy of article space, it is a neologism and a choice of name use, whether by a top professor or the barber chatting to you while cutting your hair, will be subjective. It will be somewhat a matter of art rather than analytical science. We use academic sources to clarify which worn track is more valid.
Also, as far as academia is concerned, I see little difference if an academic, like Richard Dawkins, consistently and persistently uses a term in a published paper or in published tweets. They are all reference material only that the tweets are more commonly used and with content with potential to be more commonly recognised.
If a different term comes into more common or approved use than "regressive left" then we can use WP:RM in the normal way. GregKaye 18:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is peer-review, and anyway this is a little outside the expertise of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Again I think it's a notable topic but that the current sources are insufficient for a standalone article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of a vast amount of rape and violence, the topic is far too important not to have a stand alone article. No argument is offered here to say that the phenomena does not exist. All there is is a current quibble in regard to what the phenomena should be called but with this within the context of no second naming option being offered. GregKaye 03:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though obviously not a term as fleshed out and with a history as, say, "liberal", there are a number of articles from well-respected sources that aren't known to discuss non-real ideas. It does come a bit closer to synthesis than many articles, but is far from "blatantly obvious" in my opinion. Joshua Garner (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Sammy1339's reasoning. AFD is not the place to wage a politically motivated wikiwar. Sources are strong and numerous, if you feel excessively strongly about the subject perhaps you have a COI and should step back from the article. 86.170.32.148 (talk) 15:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term has risen into popular usage and suppressing the origins and definition based on "blatantly obvious synthesis" is quite a stretch. I see little to no OR in the entry. - CompliantDrone (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are far more obscure political movements and terms which have a page and deciding which merit a page and which doesn't is inherently biased; why do you think you should be able to decide that the "regressive left" page should be deleted, but the "anarcho-syndicalist" page should not? This article is wholly justified and has an increasing abundance of sources and cultural relevancy to assure it is now a permanent page. Thesqueegeeman (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page should be kept because while 'regressive left' may to some be an obscure political term, the deletion of this page may bring in to question the existence of a multitude of other, potentially even more obscure terms. The page, to my knowledge appears to be about a relevant topic and is well cited. There is no reason to delete it. Asm20 (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Short and sweet, the only people who want to delete this article are those who are best describe by it!CubBC (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is evident from analysis of the edit logs that the page has come under concerted attack by certain people who have a vested interest in the removal of the page. Of the 11 official reasons[56] for deletion that serve as code for deletion, the only one that appears to have been mentioned is that this article fails to meet the notability guidelines. This criticism clearly carries little weight considering the term in question has been mentioned several times by notable public figures and intellectuals. The fact that this term is new and is its meaning is evolving and slowly entering the more mainstream lexicon is a reason for, not against, its existence. The guidelines for notability are met: there is significant coverage, it is reliable and cites from many respectable external sources. Thus, it is manifestly clear the article shoudld remain. Given the problem this article has clearly had with malign edits from those on either side who are not independent of the subject[57], a better course of action would be to bestow semi-protection upon the article. Mrkingpenguin (talk) 23:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The regressive left want to delete an article on the regressive left. Quelle surprise.=== Jez === (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing much to add to what the other "keep"s have said already. As for the bit about linking on a forum, I suggest OP reads Streisand effect. I also enjoy how OP labeled his opponents SPAs preemptively. I wish OP well in life. --DSA510 Pls No Bully 00:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Though the term is new, it is being adopted by those who aren't on either side - Youtube news shows such as David Packman Show and Secular Talk have both covered this term. The phenomenon of taking away platforms from ex-Muslims and reformers who want to criticize Islam is, at the very least, observable. Arshad Manji, who considers herself a reformist Muslim, has talked about political correctness getting in the way of a useful discussion about Islam. One recent example of this would be Warwick University's (England) LGBTQ+ Society and Goldsmiths Feminist Group both showing solidarity with Muslim students who heckled and disrupted the event where Maryam Namazie was speaking about Islam . In this case the LGBTQ+ society and the Goldsmiths Feminist Group would fit the label of regressive left. Anaverageguy (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see a referenced article, it seems to me that this passes GNG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term itself isn't that new, though it could be argued that the widespread usage of it is. Plenty of reliable sources and a great foundation to build a decent article... the real question is if a simple summary in another article would be more appropriate (also discrimination is a slight stretch, it's a categorization term, though I can see where that's coming from). Regardless, none of this really applies to AFD, it certainly isn't WP:OR. Also, while it's true GamerGate is one of the catalysts for its recent usage as mentioned above, it is merely one of many. Ryan Norton 02:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article, despite its pitfalls in relying on quotes rather than paraphrasing, is far from the warrant of deletion. It is undeniably notable. Cognissonance (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator cited synthesis in her nomination. If there are indeed synthetic conclusions within the article, they can be solved by cautious editing—not deletion. fdsTalk 04:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page is properly sourced and the term itself is seeing growth in usage. The Phool (talk) 08:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has enough citations from articles, features, columns and talk shows. It is a real term, used to describe a real phenomenon. The fact that the nominator feels threatened by the very existence of this page only serves to prove the point of this term. Objections should be on the content, not the page itself. --Fasi100 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For me, this is in principle WP:WORDISSUBJECT. WP:N is established from my POV. I don't see any WP:OR in the article. The only valid argument is WP:RS, However, insisting on WP:RS inevitably makes WP silent on a real concept, until such time a reliable third party has published something about the concept (without using it or being partisan). I think that keeping the article tagging the lack of sources (or the fact this is a "nascent concept", or something) is better for the average Wikipedia user than deleting it. --Thomascorner (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a phenomenon that exist. There are people who hold these views who obviously do not want it appear on wiki. But these are harmful ideas and if they are not interested in appearance of such term in wiki they had to stop making excuses for bigotry and intolerance in minority communities rather than censuring internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.57.127 (talk • contribs) 06:12, January 2, 2016‎
  • Keep Descriptive of an emerging phenomenon. Clearly this article is useful as long as it remains balanced and well-sourced. Mythiran (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Do people actually follow wikipedia guidelines at all? It very clearly say at Wikipedia is not a dictionary that "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." That seems to be absolutely applicable in spades here. We have a lot of people using the term, and discussing the concept, but no clear secondary sources talking about it. I personally have no real problem with a discussion of the term, but the wiki policy seems reasonably clear here. Peregrine981 (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we have all sorts of notable terms including "Santorum" and other terms that are far more defamatory and less well-sourced as this. As long as we have this open standard, these terms are kept. --DHeyward (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while some users of this term are primarily comedians like Maher, it originated for Nawaz who is very much a serious and noted pundit. He is also a classical liberal, so this can't be written off as an anti-left epithet coined by someone like Limbaugh. I can remember the massive AfD debate here on the right-wing equivalent (one who betrays the traditional standpoints of the ideology) "cuckservative" '''tAD''' (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see why we should delete this article. Seems to be well sourced and is an interesting subject. GamerPro64 20:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is well sourced and the fact that 5 people notable enough for Wikipedia articles on themselves have talked about this at length & there's 50 MILLION Google hits indicates this meets the notability requirement and has various secondary sources to warrant its inclusion. TheTruthiness (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Looks like 47,700 Google hits to me. By my math, that's quite a bit less than 50 million. And the fact that notable people use the term does not make the term itself notable. — Red XIV (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well either you aren't good with numbers or something's messed up with your Google: About 49,400,000 results (0.29 seconds). Notable people saying "War on Terror" made it notable, notable people saying phrases are kinda how phrases become notable. --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even when searching without enclosing "regressive left" in quotes (which inflates the results by including every pages that simply include both "regressive" and "left" separately), I get: About 3,830,000 results (0.42 seconds). That's a far cry from the 50 million you're claiming. — Red XIV (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would accept the premise that USE by notable people does not inherently make it notable. But... the premise frays when they (look up who they are) ANALYZE it, discussing its implications at length, and when that gets coverage in the Washington Times and The Independent. Not an irrelevant distinction, so I appreciate listening carefully to this input and becoming aware that things had not been made properly clear previously. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable neologism. — Red XIV (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Red XIV; it's a non-notable neologism. --Jorm (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Why is this even being debated? This is a term that was first used by Nawaz in 2010 and clearly it has gained cultural currency to the extent that many notable public intellectuals across race, creed, and gender are using it in public debate, and it has sparked passionate debate in social media (e.g. multiple uses daily on Twitter). Rather than spuriously questioning its notability, it would be more accurate to debate whether it emerged as the political term of 2015. Let's be honest here: That it was flagged at all seems politically motivated, and in fact, one could argue the act of flagging this entry itself seems to illustrate the type of speech-killing tactics that those who have popularized the term observe as being a common tactic used by those they identify as Regressive Leftists. Let's hope a valuable resource such as Wikipedia does not give in to political censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrocket88 (talk • contribs)
    • I would argue that the support for the article is what's political in nature. The term is an oxymoron that Nawaz and Sam Harris are trying to force into common usage through sheer repetition. — Red XIV (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Polite flag to closer: sorry I keep popping up. Article now has additional print media sources. I found material in Sunday Express and noticed that one of The Independent. articles had some "deep think analysis" along the lines of the confirmation bias of the "degenerated progressive". FeatherPluma (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redxiv, you can argue support for anything on this site is "political." Regardless, this is a political phenomenon that has been widely identified in the popular debate, not (as falsely argued by some comments) only by Nawaz or Harris or Maher. Also interesting that the entry for the neologism New Atheism, arguably a spurious term, doesn't get flagged by the same people who seem to object to the entry for Regressive Left. - myrocket88
  • KEEP - The term describes a phenomenon that many leftists face in the west, should they be a minority and choose to speak about or try to bring change to certain *regressive* aspects of their "native" culture/religion/etc; the regressive left allies with reactionaries and attempts to silence or attack them. One blatant example of this is a white atheist commentator suggesting Maajid Nawaz is not a real muslim, but there are many other examples of this, especially in the UK (where feminist & LGBT university societies condemned ex-muslims after they were harassed by regressive muslims). There are many examples of leftists that have noted this phenomenon beyond Nawaz and Dawkins, such as Nick Cohen, and use this term to quantify a schism in the left. Wikipedia likely has hundreds of articles that describe elements of mainstream political camps, so I don't see why this one should be excluded, at the expense of minority leftists that the Regressive Left(tm) treats as inconvenient exceptions & "native informants", "traitors" to the cultures they apparently view as homogeneous blobs incapable of change or reform. Atomicdryad (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One additional note; rightwingers are starting to appropriate the term to describe opposition to *their* regressive views as "the regressive left". There *is* a difference. This makes an article that accurately defines it all the more important. Atomicdryad (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete; trivially fails WP:NEO due to the lack of secondary sources. This is a recent, non-notable neologism with no significant coverage in secondary sources. Additionally, note to closing admin: This AFD has seen extensive off-site canvassing, including by the person who coined the term, here. Wikipedia, though, is not the place to document every new political buzzword. --Aquillion (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just expanded the lede some to define the term better. This term describes a lot of people. It is accurate to describe this as the Tea Party of the Democrats. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is just the usual suspects, trying to deny free speech to anyone who disagrees with them. Nothing to do with 'Wikipedia rules', which they apply with blatant double standards. They are acting rather like, well, regressive leftists. They don't want the contradiction between their support of Islamism and their pretended concern for women and gay people to be disclosed, because then people may see that they are actually all about virtue-signalling, and in some cases criticising and ultimately destroying Western civilisation (cultural Marxism: another page they've censored). See also whinging on this very page that "the majority are against my PoV, but most of them should be disregarded because I think they're Bad People". Pathetic. I suppose all the 'Keep' posters are 'racist' as well? We are having a well-overdue rebound in the cultural wars, and regressive leftists need to get used to that. You can't hide the truth forever, no matter how much of a narcissistic bullying scold you are. BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC) — BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment on content, not contributers, please. clpo13(talk) 16:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If, as is stated at the top of this page, "consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes", then what does it matter whether a contributor has "made few or no other edits outside this topic"? Does that in any way affect the merit or otherwise of their argument? This playing of the man and not of the ball is the kind of tactic that I have come to expect from, dare I say it, regressive leftists. FWIW I read Wikipedia more than the average person I'm sure, but this page (which I came to from within the encyclopaedia) is the first time I have felt sufficiently strongly about an issue to say anything. I didn't realise there would be an insinuation that I had come here as a result of 'canvassing' or whatever, and that therefore what I said somehow carried less weight. How very welcoming. We all have to start posting somewhere. BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islamo-Leftism. I decided to see if I could find RS for "regressive left" that did not originate with MN, ending up with this, and this, and this. It doesn't have as much currency as I would like for a keep statement, but most sources use it to describe the same concept. (I found a non-RS minority that tried to extend it beyond Nawaz's meaning, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.) Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those two concepts seem very at odds with each other. At best Islamo-leftism is a subset of the regressive left. The Islamo-left align with Islamism because they have a mutual interest in destroying western cultural institutions. The regressives appreciate islamic culture, but they don't have any interest in it pervading their culture. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the discovery that the ORA.tv counts as RS below, it's hard to find RS extending it beyond that concept. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Islamo-leftism is unequivocally unrelated. That term describes an unlikely marriage of Marxist and Islamist ideology in parts of the Muslim world, which plainly has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. A better merge target is Criticism of multiculturalism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: when I was writing that, I was more or less thinking of the article's lede, which describes Pascal Bruckner's position, which sounded like what MN was talking about when I was reading it. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 03:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has become a commonly used term to describe a position, 5,000+ google news hits. Also ironic that it accurately describes the POV editing of the user that nominated the page for deletion.--Loomspicker (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a large portion of GN hits pick up sidebar links to an article on one source, showing several unrelated articles in the search, disqus comments on Deutsche Welle. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 20:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is a video of Nick Cohen talking about the regressive left with Dave Rubin. Rubin uses the term at the start, and they discuss it more from c. 5:00 mins. Cohen says he wishes he had thought of it. SarahSV (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't doubt that the term gets used, but there seem to be no reliable sources about the term's use in general or evolution from Nawaz's 2012 coinage to its current usage as a generic snarl word roughly equivalent to "SJW." Instead this article is synthesized from primary sources. Notably, the "Analysis" section draws heavily from pieces that aren't even about the term. There may be an article to write about this concept, but this one isn't even close to being it. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me as though "snarl word" is the only snarl term being used here. "SJW" is proudly used by many SJWs themselves, and "regressive left", whether you like the term or not, has a widely understood definition: those elements of the left who excuse and embrace Islamism, despite its implacable opposition to gay rights, women's rights, free speech, freedom of religion, and other causes that the left claim to stand for. These people contradict themselves in such a fundamental, absurd and obvious way that some phrase was bound to be coined to describe them. You cannot expect us all to pretend the phenomenon doesn't exist just to spare your feelings. If you think the article needs improving, and you can do so fairly and within the rules, then no-one is stopping you, and there is no need for silly deletions. It's probable that in this big old world of ours, "regressive leftist" is sometimes used as a generic snarl term, but are you really going to say that the same doesn't apply to "right-wing", "far right", "bigoted", "racist", "fascist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", "hate speech", "Islamophobic", "troll", "denier", etc? Should we delete articles on those terms as well? BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is not whether or not the term is useful. The point is not about sparing people's feelings. Nor is it about whether the term is sometimes used as a "snarl word." The point here is whether or not there are enough secondary reliable sources discussing this term. Those would be needed to improve the article and make it a balanced, useful, encyclopedic entry. We're all ready for you to produce the sources. Peregrine981 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to go too "other stuff exists," but right-wing, far right, bigoted, racist, fascist, xenophobic, homophobic, and Islamophobic are all redirects, largely because we don't have articles on those as terms. An article on leftist attitudes towards Islam would be a perfectly fine place to redirect this towards. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Winter's Tulpa: Racist redirects to racism, xenophobic redirects to xenophobia, right-wing redirects to right-wing politics.... "Snarl word" is not the right argument. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BeenAroundTheWorldAndIII "SJW" is the definition of a buzzword. It's internet slang with no standardized definition, and can mean different things depending on who says it. Nobody actually self-identifies as one outside of being ironic to make fun of the people who use it as some kind of insult. "regressive left" in it's current usage is a similar kind of snarl word, and has no actual agreed upon definition because it's a slang commonly used by people looking to attack rather than have discourse. CitrusTachibana (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 500+ sources that pass WP:RS, not really sure why it's being considered for deletion anyway. Phatwa (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Phatwa How does number of google hits make any difference? We are urged specifically not to use this as a criteria for inclusion on its own. How many of those RS are secondary discussions OF the term, and not simple mentions of the term? I'd be eager for you to include these great sources in the article itself. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons presented in my 16:04, 4 January 2016 edit above. Phatwa perhaps, in some cases, for the motivations that helped develop the regressive left influence in the first place. GregKaye 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it is unfortunate that this has been canvassed outside Wikipedia, but there is evidence that the term has entered widespread use, enough for this to meet WP:GNG. sst✈ 16:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand this is a heavily polemic topic, however it's an article that is well sourced and easily meets WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy smokes. Delete. NN, NEO, socks and SPAs galore. It's like the mid-00's all over again!  RasputinAXP  00:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Strong use of synthesis. Well below the standards of Wikipedia articles. As others has mentioned this completely fails WP:NEO. This is a non-notable neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also a large portion of hits pick up sidebar links to an article on one source. I also want to point out that this talk page has been linked on /pol/, and one of the neo-reactionary subreddits which is where the majority of these votes are coming from. CitrusTachibana(talk) 05:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC) — CitrusTachibana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete We do not need articles for every possible adjective and noun combination. TFD (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CitrusTachibana You mention "non-notable ..." but, as far as the topic is concerned, a large number of attacks and rapes have occurred in context of evidence suggestive that the officials concerned were intimidated by potentials of accusations of prejudice. Many people suffer because of racial and other abuse and there is an issue here with the potential to prevent these issues being addressed. The contention that is made in the article is that the issue has long existed, even in connection to a variety of faith or cultural topics, but it is only just been highlighted. In this case I think that cases of obvious name changes are relevant. I'm not in anyway implying that the article is of the same prominence but in the context that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was ordained as Pope Francis it was instantly clear that this should be the article title. The issue is real and the neologism term used to describe the phenomenon has gained significant traction. If it fades out, which I don't think it will, the article can be deleted in a couple of years. Ping: RasputinAXP TFD GregKaye 12:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that people are conspiring not to prosecute crime for fears of accusations of prejudice is a blatantly false partisan spin designed to fear monger toward minority groups. It is also not relevant to this discussion, nor are our opinions. What is relevant is that this lacks reliable secondary sources, features heavy synthesis, and completely fails WP:NEO. This is a non-notable recent neologism, and has never been cited as being said by more than 5 people. WP is not a dictionary for every variation of slang and/or adjective-noun that is ever used. As someone else mentioned, for similar reasons to the logic mentioned here, right-wing, far right, bigoted, racist, xenophobic, homophobic and so on are all redirects. CitrusTachibana(talk) 23:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've just been going through the various !votes here and found myself surprised that I recognize an unusually small number of names. Sure enough, there's a huge number of SPAs and accounts with a few more edits than an SPA who haven't otherwise made any edits recently (I think these have been called "zombie" accounts). I mention this because otherwise it looks like an overwhelming keep outcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be someone with one of those low activity accounts so may be I should address your concerns. I contribute to articles that I find interesting and relevant to my own life. There are periods when I find making contributions easy and then there are periods where it's impossible. But I try to fix things whenever I can. I should also point out that my account is not an SPA by any means. My vote to keep this article was influenced by constant defense of Islam by liberals because their interpretation of it happens to be benign. But it goes further than defending Islam. Ex-Muslims and reformists are frequently disinvited and maligned by universities due to pressure from their campuse's Islamic groups. This has happened to Ayan Hirsi Ali (giving her and then taking away an honorary degree), and Maryam Namazi (she was disinvited to speak, also was heckled at a different talk by Muslim students - the campus's feminist and LGBTQ+ groups sided with the Muslims). I can make a much longer list if you don't find these few events compelling enough to validate the term in discussion. I probably shouldn't be using anecdotal arguments here but as an ex-Muslim, I want to hear people representing me in public and so far, we have been constantly told to shut up because our views on Islam don't align with the mainstream perception of it. I hope that clarifies that even if the keep vote is coming from a low activity account, the argument made in the vote should matter more than the logs of the person making the argument. - Anaverageguy (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Anaverageguy That's all very interesting, but with due respect the situation of ex-muslims on campuses is not relevant to this discussion. The discussion here is about the number of secondary sources available to discuss this topic. Do you know of some secondary sources that would be relevant? That is what would sway my vote, and what is important to establishing if we should maintain an article, not the importance we as individuals place on the topic. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why I mentioned my personal motivations was because there are too many people pleading to dismiss keep votes from low activity accounts. I don't see why votes from low activity accounts should be dismissed given that they contributed sometime in the past and plan on contributing in the future. As for secondary sources, it's a term that's more commonly found on youtube shows and twitter discussions rather than a scholarly magazine. However, even before this term was coined by Majid Nawaz, there was discussion within reformist community about the silence of the liberals in regards to Islam. The words "regressive left" never popped up but the attitude was discussed. I will research for more resources and put them in the talk page. Anaverageguy (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article still needs some work, no one has made a strong positive case for deletion. Enlightened editor (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning to delete. As ever in AFD debates, "Keep, meets GNG", "it has sources", "I hear it all the time", "the world needs to know about this debate" aren't answers to whether a page meets WP guidelines for existing. WP is not a dictionary, a resource for explaining to people what the latest neologism is or a place to thrash out political debate. The term is a polemical, pejorative and recently coined adjective-noun composite occasionally used by some liberals to chastise leftists with whom they disagree. It has no purchase in academic classification of poltical tendencies and is not used, AFAICT, by third parties outside of the debates in question. N-HH talk/edits 19:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, insofar as there is a coherent underlying topic, it already seems to be covered to some extent under Left-wing fascism and Islamo-Leftism. The existence of these pages highlights the "dictionary" problem: WP is taking multiple, related phrases and explaining how each of them are used, in their own entries, rather than focusing on a single topic or genuine category. N-HH talk/edits 12:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaecyn Bayne[edit]

Jaecyn Bayne (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)

Although seeming notable and acceptable at first, I actually see nothing to suggest this isn't anything but puffery and namedropping connections; the best my searches found were only some passing mentions here. Notifying past AfC decliner Ktr101. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how he has become more notable in almost three years (especially since a rather new editor was the one who moved it), but the amount of notability is pretty much the same as before and I do not see a reason to keep the article at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches turned up only passing mentions, and regurgitated press releases on News, nothing on Newspapers, Scholar or Highbeam. Books only had a hit back to the Wikipedia article. Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 31 December 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. Never close on one !vote but sources do confirm notability and the nom's not questioned anyone so may aswell close as Keep 

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Wong[edit]

Janice Wong (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)

Questionably notable and improvable biography article as my searches found several links at News, Books, browsers and Highbeam with "Janice Wong Singapore pastry chef" but mostly expected coverage and perhaps nothing for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 30 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rain Fell Within[edit]

Rain Fell Within (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)

Questionably notable and improvable as my searches found nothing better than this and this (FWIW, I also found a forum here), despite searching at News, Books, browsers, Highbeam, Kerrang!, Terrorizer and Blabbermouth. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't really find anything to show that this band is notable enough for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see a few reviews on blogs, but that's about it. Doesn't look like they ever attracted any mainstream attention in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:27, 31 December 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) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ittersagen[edit]

Pete Ittersagen (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)

Nowhere near reaching any know notability standard. Maybe if this was Wheatonwiki..... John from Idegon (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Sources linked to in the article confirm that Ittersagen played in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Ejgreen77. See Ittersagen's profile at pro-football-reference.com here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject played in three NFL regular season games for the Tennessee Titans in 2010, thus satisfying the specific notability guideline for American professional football players per WP:NGRIDIRON. For verification please see NFL.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooke Purvis Artist. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Purvis[edit]

Brooke Purvis (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)

Person is only really notable for burning his loans. Per WP:BLP1E that isn't enough. In addition, the creator tried to go through the AfC process where they were repeatedly declined on notability grounds. See Draft:Brooke Purvis Artist. Majora (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read your deletion rationale as "only really notable for burning his loins". Which would have been a better performance. freshacconci talk to me 14:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this has been deleted before after the previous AFD discussion on 10 Dec, and I have thus G4'd the page. Primefac (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:37, 30 December 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 Snow Keep. - Article's been left open a week so kinda pointless Speedy Keeping it so just Snowing it instead. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tani E. Barlow[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tani E. Barlow (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)

There is very little information about this person. Sources seem self published, except a list of articles attributed to her (trouble with WP:BLPSOURCES). Thus subject of the article fails WP:NACADEMICS since she has not won any national awards or particularly had a specific impact on her field. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over the first AfD, I have to say that I find that this person in question has not made a significant impact to any field, and that simply having a lot of hits on any search engine does not give one notability especially academically. Cocoaguy ここがいい 04:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited publications on women in China; Google scholar gives citation counts 183, 149, 149, 114, etc., very high for humanities) and #C5 (named chair at a well-known research university). She also has a case for #8 as editor of Positions but it's less clear because the journal might not be well-enough established yet. Any one of these criteria would be enough by itself. The previous AfD was indecisive, and the nomination statement cites WP:PROF, but the nominator appears not to have read it carefully because the pass of #C5 especially is unambiguous. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per David. EricEnfermero (Talk) 23:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Might have been borderline before when she was apparently still at her previous job, but it's crystal clear keep now that she's moved to Rice with a named professorship.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- doing a snow pile-on to emphasize how clear-cut this case is by WP:PROF guidelines. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would, btw., assert that the C8 a pass also -- the journal has received three substantial awards and a major press. This seems enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries bordering on two or more oceans[edit]

List of countries bordering on two or more oceans (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 distinction of multiple oceans seems rather weak - what's the difference between bordering one ocean and more than one? (Also, the list considers seas to be oceans, and Antarctica is not a country.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Seems to fall under Wikipedia's inclusion of gazetteer sorts of information (which includes some trivia). As a list it's narrow in scope, not covered elsewhere, and has a clear inclusion criteria (are seas not typically considered divisions of oceans -- and oceans, in turn, part of "the sea(s)"?). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the article wasn't previously tagged for the Oceans WikiProject, so it might not show up in Article Alerts, I've left a comment on that WikiProject talk page concerning this AfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like original research, it doesn't have any sources whatsoever. It's also unclear what it actually considers an ocean: the references are footnotes like "Morocco, Spain and France border on two oceans only if the Mediterranean is an ocean, not just an arm of the Atlantic". --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted some of the most inaccurate stuff. I don't think France and Morocco are on 3 oceans, or South Africa is on 3 oceans. By the logic employed for Denmark, Russia is on about 4 oceans. Here is what it said before my changes [63]. "Oceans" seem like clear things until you try to define the edges. A list of countries facing more then one body of water would be easier to define. The talk page clearly shows the problems with this OR page. [64] Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thank you to Rhododendrites for pointing out that the 1st pillar says that geographical gazetteer information belongs in WP. Full disclosure: I have made 27 edits to this article over nearly three years. My main contribution, I believe, has been to improve the format considerably over what it was when I stumbled upon it in early 2013. I have also reverted vandalism, but have tried to take a very light touch to what other editors have contributed, not wanting to assert any ownership over the article. Consequently, I chose to not revert some of the questionable additions. I welcome the attention that this nomination has provided, and the involvement of other editors who have taken the initiative I was too timid to exercise and removed questionable entries. This has resolved two of the objections mentioned by the nominator (considering seas to be oceans and considering Antarctica to be a country). Regrettably, the article includes no references attesting to the notability of bordering on multiple oceans. Intuitively (IMHO) bi-/tri-coastal countries have had their national ethos shaped by aspiring to extend the population and/or the transportation network from one ocean to the other, for example, Manifest Destiny in the US, the transcontinental railroads in the US and Canada, the trans-siberian railroad in Russia, the Suez Canal in Egypt, the Panama Canal in Panama and Columbia and now the new canal in Nicaragua. The significance is a bit weaker when two oceans come together at an arbitrary point: the Cape of Good Hope and the Straits of Magellan are significant in the history of navigation, but IMHO have less of an imprint on the national psyche of South Africa, Argentina and Chile. Question: which of these three sorts of references should we strive for:
    1. Attestation to the facts (verifying that Panama borders on the Atlantic and the Pacific)
    2. Attestation to the notability of specific instances (Manifest destiny impacted the US)
    3. Attestation to the notability of the general case (Countries bordering two oceans share significant similarities)
    I've always wanted something in category #3, but I haven't found it. I've not bothered with #1 as it seems obvious. And until today, it never occurred to me that #2 might be helpful to this article. Anyway, in the absence of #2 or #3, it seems the best keep argument is the one mentioned by Rhododendrites, the same one by which we include the articles List of extreme points of U.S. states or even Extreme points of Bhutan. Such articles seem only to include references establishing matters of fact (type #1), never anything establishing notability (#2 or #3). YBG (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC) (re-edited before any comments made by others YBG (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Changing vote to weak keep. As Wikipedia includes gazetteer-like information, it might be worth having after all. I do think it is necessary in this article to be clear about what is considered an ocean. --Soetermans. T / C 11:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Norwood[edit]

Brian Norwood (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 deleted by WP:PROD and restored via WP:REFUND, but given that there isn't even any assertion of significance, it would probably qualify for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. This article is about an assistant coach who happens to have a couple of notable sons, although notability is not inherited. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. College assistant coaches aren't presumed to be notable, but may warrant articles if they pass WP:GNG. Here, Norwood has been an assistant coach at major Division I FBS programs (including Navy, Penn State under Paterno, and assistant head coach at Baylor) for more than 20 years. He has sons who have become notable players, but he passes GNG in his own right as he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources including national media outlets like (1) this from Sports Illustrated, and (2) this from ESPN.com. See also (3) this from Tulsa World, (4) this from Capital Gazette, (5) this from The Dallas Morning News, (6) this from Waco Tribune-Herald, and (7) this from The Patriot-News. Cbl62 (talk) 12:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC) Foregoing signature and time stamp were added manually. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks to Cbl62 for doing the legwork in searching for significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. While I think the linked coverage of Sports Illustrated, ESPN.com and The Dallas Morning News are closer to routine transactional coverage, I think the linked articles in The Tulsa World, Capital Gazette and Waco Tribune-Herald represent more in-depth coverage. Collectively, these sources are sufficient to support the subject's notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. I also note that the infobox on the pages states under "Playing career" that Norwood played in the CFL for the Calgary Stampeders in 1989. If that is true, and he actually appeared in games for the Stamps, then he would automatically pass WP:NGRIDIRON, anyways. Bottom line: either way, he's notable. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as argued above. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MIDIjam[edit]

MIDIjam (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)

As much as I am a fan of MIDI music, there is not one single magazine or newspaper article in sight that even mentions "MIDIjam". The citations that are currently here are basically pages of the official website for the application's programmer, so the software is completely non-notable. 和DITOREtails 03:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I found this [65] which looks promising, but nothing else. I agree, that, for now there is simply not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Happy Squirrel (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ernestas Veliulis[edit]

Ernestas Veliulis (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 both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 04:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 04:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 04:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - plays for club in semi-pro league, no full international, only source from Transfermarkt. No exceptional achievements to pass WP:GNG. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - here's one good newspaper article about him 1; if someone can find a second, he'd meet WP:GNG. And if not we'll likely recreate soon, as he was called up to the national team for their last international Euro qualifier. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable former Orthodox Jews[edit]

List of notable former Orthodox Jews (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 fails notability. Many of the people on the list were never Orthodox since the term Orthodox post-dated them. In addition, the article relies on OR and SYNTH. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Joseph failed to read the ongoing discussion on the article talk page before marking for deletion and commenting. His issues have already been discussed and addressed. The page is most certainly notable. Lokshin kugel (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me what I failed to read. 1) The article is misnamed. Orthodoxy is from the late-1800's. 2) WP is not a repository of lists. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete 1. Non-notable list. 2. Incorrect usage of term "Orthodox", as SirJoseph correctly mentioned. 3. Unclear what is "Orthodox"? "Ultra-Orthodox", or less than that as well? And if somebody was Ultra-Orthodox and became regular Orthodox? 4. Unclear inclusion criteria. E.g. what if somebody was Orthodox, then wasn't, and then later became Orthodox again? 5. And in general, religiosity is a spectrum and can not be defined narrowly. 6. Also, who are we to judge who is or isn't Orthodox? Debresser (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure listcruft without any objective criteria and basically a POV fork since "notable former Orthodox Jews" is not a neutral description Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't imagine this becoming a list which is (1) useful, (2) well-defined, and (3) based on sources. Including people like Jesus Christ is just farcical. Zerotalk 08:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ancient portion of list list is not historically meaningful; the 19th and 20th century portions are. The inclusion of any one individual can be decided on the article talk page. ` DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides, the list surely doesn't accomplish the stated goal. It's a list of names. It doesn't capture anything. As for the articles the links lead to, take Barbra Streisand, for example. Its sole reference to any connection she had with Orthodox Judaism is a note about her attendance, for an unstated number of years, at an Orthodox school starting at age 5. Nothing in the article conveys anything about any "experience" she might have undergone related to her having gone to an Orthodox school as a child and her not being Orthodox now, let alone any commonality between her and other people on the list. Are we intended to understand that common threads underlie the experiences of Streisand, Baruch Spinoza, and Jesus Christ? I just don't see it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--the word orthodox is a useful word, as made clear on the article's talk page. Debresser insists on not including that clarification on the page's article page for some reason, even though that statement would clarify that point. The list is meangingful on many levels. And the insistence that consensus can't be found for who is and isn't a traditionally rabbinic Jew is absurd. Most of Debresser's objections are red herrings.

the above comment was left by User:Lokshin kugel — Lokshin kugel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Disclosure Lokshin kugel is the creator of this article, and seems to be personally invested in the subject. Debresser (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure I simply do not like bullies. Debresser's statement lacks assumption of good faith. Lokshin kugel (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that most issues brought up on this page are discussed here: WP:BATHWATER. Lokshin kugel (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete  The lede has no sources to identify the topic as being worthy of notice...vague list criteria made up by Wikipedia editors do not satisfy list wp:notability.  In addition, the lede contradicts the title of the article by bundling an additional category to the list topic.  Blue links do not satisfy WP:V requirements, so after deleting the unsourced entries, there would only be two entries on the list.  I also tried clicking on a couple of the blue links, and neither of the articles identified their topic as "orthodox" (or formerly orthodox).  My limited knowledge of Judaism is that the schisms in the US are unlike those elsewhere in the world.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-crafted, unsourced, subjective. JohnInDC (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moulana Syed Hasan Imdad[edit]

Moulana Syed Hasan Imdad (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 and WP:AUTHOR .Now there are thousands of Islamic Religious scholars now it is not clear as too how the particular Subject is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : There is a very little information about the person and his contributions . Poorly sourced and it does not seem the person meet standards of notability and of WP:BLP .(Remi143(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. About the current sources source: unreliable as in self-published and only 1(!) mention in the whole 56-page pdf, but only as the one who translated some book into Urdu. This effectively makes the article an unreferenced BLP. Googled "Syed Hasan Imdad" (without the honorific Moulana): nothing on GNews, 1 passing mention in some list on GBooks. - HyperGaruda (talk) 05:29, 31 December 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 merge to The Fast and the Furious#Fast 8 (2017) . Closing as Merge as Redirects are always created after Merges anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:16, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Furious 8 (film)[edit]

Furious 8 (film) (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)

Filming hasn't been announced yet; draft is already in the works. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 02:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 02:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 02:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Fast and the Furious#Fast 8 (2017). WP:TOOSOON for a page, but a valid redirect if 'Furious 8' is the most recent "official" title. Aspirex (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content in the article is not wrong. All the information can be verified as It is cited with reliable sources. There is no need to delete the article. If it's created some time before that doesn't means it should be deleted or redirected and created after some time.--MusaTalk ☻ 08:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regardless, there is already a draft in the works which has a lot more information than this page that you have created. Since there is already a Furious 8 redirect, and because it has been confirmed that the official title thus far is Fast 8, not Furious 8 – as can be verified through the draft – it would probably be best/safest just to delete or merge with the existing redirect to The Fast and the Furious#Fast 8 (2017). 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@4TheWynne: You're saying that the draft is better so the this article should be turned into a redirect. But the article is not fully protected it can be edited by anyone and can be made better. There is no solid reason to move or delete it.--MusaTalk ☻ 09:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Data LifeSaver[edit]

Data LifeSaver (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)

PROD contested by article's creator. Article lacks third-party reliable sources of any kind, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Aoidh (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 04:28, 30 December 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. Mkdwtalk 02:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tungjatjeta[edit]

Tungjatjeta (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)

No material, references, or any kind of content at all are present in the article. The article has been in the same status since its creation. The creator was known for these kind of massive quantity stub articles, many of them have been already deleted. Mondiad (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. All the pages have the same identical problems and were created by the same user:

Ideja Kombëtare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dita Jug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Domosdova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ekolëvizja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Epeirotika Chronika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete except for Epeirotika Chronika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), of which I can verify the existence as well as holdings in US research libraries. The others don't show in any lists of periodicals that I have access to. If we can't at least verify that they exist then I think they should be deleted. LaMona (talk) 19:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please check the location where the newspaper that you found is/was published? Cause "Epeirotika Chronika" is/was a newspaper in Ioannina, Greece and has nothing to do with this one. I.e. the entry from WorldCat says Ioannina 1926.[66]. Thanks --Mondiad (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's tricky because we have no information in the WP article, but the periodical is listed as representing "Epirus (Greece and Albania) -- History -- Periodicals" in WorldCat so I cannot prove that either is or is not what is intended here. However, the mention of Albania in the subject heading makes it plausible that this is the same one. At the same time, since we have no information in the WP stub, removing the entry would not be much of a loss. I could go either way. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hear you. By s simple search I found another link that lists it as of 1926, LC class - DF which means Greece. I don't know why they don't have an article in WP Greece about it, but probably it is defunct. All the references that point to the newspaper (the Greek one, not this stub) are far back in time. [67], [68]
Comment: The Epiroitika Hronika is a Greek Epirote journal that published stuff on cultural matters in the interwar period in Greece. I placed a source from it in the Delvina, further reading section where the codex from Delvina was published in whole in that publication. The current article for deletion is claimed as a Albanian publication. In that context yes it should be deleted as no Albanian publication of that name existed. If passed on to the Greek Wikipedia project then no it can stay and they can deal with it.Resnjari (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the rest.Resnjari (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:15, 30 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Salgia[edit]

Sunil Salgia (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:FILMMAKER in all clauses. Finds poor mentions in some references like [69], [70], but not enough to pass GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible sources in Hindu are available but at this point he fails WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Vipond[edit]

Neil Vipond (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 actor. Quis separabit? 06:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability beyond a few minor roles on television (all of which are unsourced). By the way, the links to the stage plays (Endpapers and Rope) are links to ... you guessed it, articles on paper and rope. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not fully satisfying the actors notability guidelines, nothing else to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 31 December 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tórshavn Jazz Festival[edit]

Tórshavn Jazz Festival (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)

nothing in GNews and google newspapers. For something that attracts international acts you'd expect some international English coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I found one mention of this event, in a list of attractions in the context of a general travel article: "and then, in mid-August, the Torshavn Jazz, Folk and Blues Festival brings artists from all over Scandinavia and Europe" (The Scotsman 2001  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). There are also a couple of snippet mentions on Google Books. They also organise a winter festival [71]. However, while all of these verify that the event exists, they seem to fall short of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources from the Faroese public-service broadcaster (kvf.fo).--Snaevar (talk) 16:09, 30 December 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Martínez[edit]

Claudia Martínez (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)

If we trim out the info from blogs, we are down to nothing. Searches find no RS which provide independent in-depth coverage, leaving us with no reason for an article under WP:NMODEL or any other criteria. Legacypac (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article has never said more than: "Claudia Martinez was crowned Miss Earth El Salvador 2015, she will represent El Salvador at Miss Earth 2015." [72] and now "Claudia Martinez was crowned Miss Earth El Salvador 2015, she represented El Salvador at Miss Earth 2015 but Unplaced" (current)

I've now removed the three dead links (one used as a source, 2 external) that purported to support the article. Neither of the two linked websites were anything close to a RS. Legacypac (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to the usual pageant blogs. Searches for sources got nothing reliable or substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 30 December 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Bossekota[edit]

Jessica Bossekota (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 WP:NMODEL who never won a pageant. She was appointed to go to the Miss Earth event where she lost. Sources 1-5 are non-RS blogs and Facebook confirming her appointment. Sources 6-8 address the Miss Earth event and who won Miss Earth, not the subject. Articles require independent reliable sources to support the inclusion of a BLP and there are none here that address this person. Legacypac (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NMODEL and comes up short on WP:GNG. As the nominator states, the only reliable cited references don't even mention the subject. An independent search for reliable sources yielded a minor dust-up in the Congolese press over this person's eligibility.[73][74] No real depth. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 30 December 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Universal Studios science fiction films[edit]

List of Universal Studios science fiction films (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)

Redundant to List of Universal Pictures films. Koala15 (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:02, 30 December 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_December_30&oldid=1142626343"