Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 June	25 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infomentary[edit]

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

The only cited part, the "In the fall of 1984..." opening sentence and the next sentence, is a copy-paste WP:COPYVIO that doesn't indicate it was taken from the source. Removing that, the rest of the article appears to fail WP:NOR. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 23:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neologism that hasn't been widely adopted. Only about 1,000 hits for it on Google. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reference is not even about the named subject. This tastes of original research.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as there's not much coverage for this with only News and Books finding results and nothing at Highbeam and thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 27 June 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. Several people suggested a merge, but I found nothing worth merging; the proposed curriculum is still in the testing stages and does not actually exist yet. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals of Robotic Surgery[edit]

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

Maybe belongs at Wikiversity. Not seeing enough independent sources. Should be merged to robotic surgery / deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete not an encyclopedia article but rather some kind of curriculum. I thought about speedying this. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article, and not a topic I'd expect to see in an encyclopaedia. Robotic surgery is clearly a topic meriting coverage, and (given sufficient coverage in third-party sources) the teaching of robotic surgery might well be - but an article on a curriculum for the teaching of robotic surgery? Surely not. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article actually appears to be about a proposed certification program in robotic surgery, which apparently does not yet exist. In the same manner that one can become certified as a thoracic surgeon or as an orthopedic surgeon through specialized training post medical school, one should be able to become certified to perform robot-assisted surgery. That being said, the article doesn't need to exist, and the existence of a certification program can be mentioned in robot-assisted surgery should such a certification program ever actually be launched. Since no such course has yet been launched, I have to go with delete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Curriculum article of unclear notability, unencyclopedic as written, lacking independent references with the possible exception of the Tanaka paper. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this program/curriculum. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Also WP:CRYSTAL issues, as this is curriculum is still in testing, per article's Validation Trials section.Dialectric (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There is some interesting information in this article. If I were getting this type of surgery, as a reader this might be useful to find out about some of the training that a physician receives. Merge with robot-assisted surgery.

Bfpage |leave a message 10:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, there is no indication that any significant number of practitioners of robot-assisted surgery have received the training described by this article. It is a proposed curriculum that is presently undergoing validation. It may turn out in the end that the powers that be find that this course is not effective and don't adapt it at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge any text that is useful from article with robot-assisted surgery.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 25 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tsem Tulku[edit]

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

Seems to be entirely "sourced" from his own websites tsemtulku.com and kechara.com. Lack of notability. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - As nominator.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote: your nomination is your !vote. Comment at will, though. Esquivalience ^t 23:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-using the web of trust, it says that the websites are scams. Of course, it is user-generated, so don't blame me if I am wrong. Even if it is wrong, it is self-published.--ABCDEFAD _✉ 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ABCDEFAD _✉ 22:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete unless it can actually be improved and my searches found nothing explicitly good here, here and here. I'm not an expert with the article's subject but I'm not seeing much improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, self-published, clear COI on page; this is entirely self-promotion of a non-notable individual Ogress _smash! 08:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 29 June 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. Given that this is an old game, recreation of this article would be reasonable if sources were uncovered. Sam Walton (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gapper (video game)[edit]

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

No WP:RSs (only Google Books hit just mentions in passing, no news, websites are just legally grey abandonware sites), fails WP:GNG. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This has been added, which is not a legally grey abandonware site, but the primary purpose of slider.com does not appear to be an encyclopedia (rather a search engine), and I cannot find out who their editors, authors, contributors, or sources are. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have since updated the article to include additional references and content about the game, which I believe is of value worth keeping within Wikipedia. The mentioned Google Book hit above is not talking about this game and is not relevant. It was a MS-DOS product created back in 1986 and was a PC game that many people loved. If you look at a simple Google search, you will see any number of hits related to this game: [[1]]. Angrygreenfrogs (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hits on Google does not indicate whether a subject is notable -- books actually do a better job of that. You added one source, which cannot be demonstrated to be reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the article, removed anything that could be called original research, added 5 sources, including one from Mobygames, which is more relevant. Beyond that it'll simply be a personal judgement call as to relevance. Angrygreenfrogs (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources do not meet our reliability standards, and are legally grey abandonware sites: Demu, theisozone, MyAbandonWare. theisozone appears to have plagiarized Mobygames.

Mobygames is not reliable.

You need to provide evidence that Slider is written and edited by qualified individuals. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, MobyGames and Slider are the best sources of information about Gapper. If they are unacceptable sources, then I'd be stuck there. The author of the article on MobyGames is original content and was written by this guy: http://www.mobygames.com/user/sheet/userSheetId,49363/ and unfortunately I can't find any information about the author of the article on Slider. Angrygreenfrogs (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of importance. --Anar chyte 08:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. MobyGames doesn't have a single review of the game recorded. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 15:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This paper is the full citation of the passing mention in the nom. – czar 15:30, 30 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 B36 Tórshavn season[edit]

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

Contested prod with the reason given that the season meets WP:GNG as they are playing in the UEFA champions league. In fact they are playing in the first qualifying round. The two games they will play in this round do not meet GNG as they are not games in the competition proper. In general the club do not satisfy the generally held consensus that only football teams playing in fully professional leagues are sufficiently notable in themselves to justify individual season articles. Fenix down (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep via WP:GNG. It is still the Champions League regardless of what round. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please show where consensus is documented that playing in the first qualifying round matches in the champions league means a club's whole season is notable for an individual article. This has never been documented and makes no sense. Why would one or two qualifying games make a season notable? Fenix down (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, it is a one of the world's most prestigious club competitions Quidster4040 (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For which they have yet to qualify. Either way, GNG doesn't work like that. You cant say an entity is doing x therefore GNG is satisfied, where is the significant non-routine coverage of the season off the back of this? Fenix down (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 08:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not playing in a Fully professional league and to play in first qualifying round of Champions League is not notable enough (it is qualifying). If a team has reached the competition proper I would say it can pass WP:GNG but the likelihood if this team doing that is practically zero and article is currently not notable. Qed237 (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 The New Saints F.C. season[edit]

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

Contested prod with the reason given that the season meets WP:GNG as they are playing in the UEFA champions league. In fact they are playing in the first qualifying round. The two games they will play in this round do not meet GNG as they are not games in the competition proper. In general the club do not satisfy the generally held consensus that only football teams playing in fully professional leagues are sufficiently notable in themselves to justify individual season articles. Fenix down (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep via WP:GNG. It is still the Champions League regardless of what round. Quidster4040 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please show where consensus is documented that playing in the first qualifying round matches in the champions league means a club's whole season is notable for an individual article. This has never been documented and makes no sense. Why would one or two qualifying games make a season notable? Fenix down (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 08:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not playing in a Fully professional league and to play in first qualifying round of Champions League is not notable enough (it is qualifying). If a team has reached the competition proper I would say it can pass WP:GNG but the likelihood if this team doing that is practically zero and article is currently not notable. Qed237 (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSEASONS. JMHamo (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 June 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfraz Musawir[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 00:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - He has actually gotten coverage over the years as shown here, here and here but nothing particularly in-depth and significant. SwisterTwister talk 17:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has received in-depth coverage in Pakistan. sami ^talk 19:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom. And I keep on having to undo this edit telling them you can't use Wiki as a ref. Wgolf (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have a simple argument. I open the search and see that about this artist has articles not only in Pakistan but also in other languages. So he's famous enough to take a place in Wikipedia. But information is not enough, really. I would like more. So I would put a considerable demand revision of this article.

Shad Innet (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the basic criterion for fine artists is major rcritical work, or works in major museums He has neither. The prize might be significant, but I have no information on it. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject appears to be notable such as DAWN 2004 DAWN 2011 THE NEWS. I agree with Shad Innet for revision of the article. sami ^talk 19:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable biography as per provided references. The page just needs to be well cited. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are well known or international art or news sources, poorly referenced. A quick google search for news results in little to no results. Jooojay (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The references I cited above are reliable. sami ^talk 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sami ^talk, you cited a blog that features news and one local newspaper... If this is an international artist, there should be international art news. Jooojay (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cite a blog(s). DAWN (newspaper) and The News International are reliable sources. The subject passes general notability criteria easily. The main concern of the nominator is poorly referenced BLP. The sources I cited backs the claims made in article. Instead of deleting the article, article can be improved and the information that poses threat should be deleted. sami ^talk 09:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know 3 relists is unusual, but the debate seems to be at a juncture where the critical question is whether the sources cited meet our standards. I'm going to let this run for another week in the hope that we can converge on a clear answer to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the fifteen references currently in the article, the one from DAWN (newspaper) fully seems to meet the criteria for contributing to notability, and the one from The News International is not really substantial enough (though it is more than a passing mention) but otherwise probably would. Most of the others seem to be from museums and galleries that have organised exhibitions of the subject's works and, while adequate to verify the exhibitions, contribute little or nothing towards the subject's notability. So currently the article seems to be rather the wrong side of borderline, and some quick Google searches have not produced sufficiently more quality English-language sources to be anywhere near certain of pushing it over the borderline. However, I suspect that my Google searches may have missed even some good English-language sources, and another couple of sources as good as the Dawn one, whether in English, Urdu or any other language, would probably be enough for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability threshold as well as WP:ARTIST. Quis separabit? 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this by doing just a cursory search [2], as well as a mention in The Herald - Volume 36, Issues 1-3 - Page 133. There would also be more sources available in Urdu which can and should be cited here, to counter the systematic bias caused by a lack of English sources. Mar4d (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, no. The sources that folks have been posting are fleeting mentions at best, and in no way meet the standard of "significant coverage" the GNG requires. Perhaps there are sources in Urdu, but of course we can't keep an article at AfD based on speculative suppositions: either the sources have been proven to exist or they haven't. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:44, 6 July 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 as A7. This is pretty much a YouTube poop video. I can't see where any DVD of this was ever made (despite the claims) and if there was, it's likely a homemade DVD since I can't imagine any legitimate company agreeing to release this since it'd be a copyright nightmare. I'd tagged it, but realized I could delete it as an admin. I'll reopen this if anyone can legitimately show that there's a chance that this would end with anything other than a delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barney with Bad Words[edit]

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

Doesn't meet general notability guideline. Nothing at Google News or Google Books. Notability not established. Most results at Google point to the web series itself. All references in the article are primary sources, and otherwise fails WP:WEBCRIT. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:50, 24 June 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 G4. My special admin glasses reveal that this article, while lacking a whole bunch of the BLP and common sense violations of version, the last one before the last deletion, the content in the current article is essentially the same as the content in in the "Relationship with Kourtney Kardashian" section of the previous article. Deleted and salted. If a redirect is to be created, feel free to request one at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick[edit]

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

This article has been deleted at AfD three times, and each time the consensus has been that he does not inherit notability from his relationship with the Kardashians, and has none of his own. Now here it is yet again, and this version does nothing to overcome the previous reasons for deletion. Suggest delete, redirect to Kourtney Kardashian#Personal life and full-protect the redirect so that we do not have to go through this argument a fifth time. Should he in future actually become notable in his own right, evidence of that should be presented at WP:DRV requesting permission to re-create. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. I agree with the nominator, if deleted/redirected, then protect it. The article has adequate sourcing, yes, but all of it is based on the subject's association with a pop-culture figure rather than coverage of the subject in his own right. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets criteria of WP:Entertainer and easily passes WP:GNG. This actor's character may be unpopular with many people, but for over eight years he has persisted as a regular television personality. In addition to his acting role on Keeping Up with the Kardashians since 2007, he has also become a staple for TMZ, E!, People (magazine), Star (magazine), Us Weekly and other gossip magazines, and in the process has (like it or not) become a figure in pop culture. His popularity with viewers has seen him placed on numerous TV shows including Punk'd, Fashion Police and Miss Universe 2012 (as a judge no less). As a model (without Kim) he has appeared on the cover of the May 2011 issue of Men's Fitness; and several years ago (before his reality TV personality took off) he was the cover model for the Heartland (novel series) by Lauren Brooke, see story at dailymail.co.uk Dolovis (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the author of the current incarnation of this article, so perhaps you could explain what inclusion criteria he meets, other than your own claims that he is a "staple" in various publications and a pop culture figure? I have no clue about his popularity, to be honest I never heard of this guy until today. Keep in mind that appearances don't establish notability in the same way trivial mentions in major publications don't. He may be famous by virtue of his association with someone notable, but the coverage about him seems to derive from that association. That's fine for the world outside of Wikipedia, but here we have a different definition of what "notability" means. Unfortunately WP:Entertainer is rather vague on the criteria; but looking at the past discussions, it seems that the community doesn't share a liberal interpretation of it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinformed. I am not the author of the current incarnation of this article. User:Croxx036 is. It would be very useful to see the deleted edit history for this article. It could shed some light on the the how this article might, or might not be, be improved. Dolovis (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has received enough coverage to have his own article. --Eurofan88 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the same reasons it was deleted three times previously. This is an idiotic abuse of process and of the community's patience. Appearing as an in-law on a reality show (which by definition is not "acting") or being mentioned in gossip magazines do not indicate lasting notability. Regardless of his fan club. DO NOT REDIRECT. Why was this article not SALTED?? Quis separabit? 22:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Per nom and above editor deleted/redirected, then protect it. Nothing has changed in the last 10 months since we last had this discussion. Being Kourtney Kardashian's boyfriend is not sufficient to establish notability. Sources are all related to that relationship. Notability is not inherited. EricSerge (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 Still a BLP nightmare and writing that's definitely not even trying to make a case for WP:N (apparently he just sat in his room doing nothing for 22 years until he went to Mexico in 2005; if you're trying to go for a keep, the WP:BURDEN is on the article creator to make a case for the subject's whole life for notability) and everything here is easily summed up in Kourtney's article. In fact with Caitlyn Jenner, this subject's claim to notability has actually deteriorated in the last few months; restore the redirect and salt it. Also, if anyone would like to do something about the connected disaster of an article On-again, off-again relationship, I would definitely support that. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. Dolovis (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G4 excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, and therefor does not apply. Dolovis (talk) 23:20, 24 June 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.

Congolese Genocide[edit]

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

The result was rename to Atrocities in the Congo Free State. General consensus is to keep the content branch, but that the current name should be modified. (non-admin closure) -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is at best a WP:Fringe Theory and also certainly a WP:Content Fork of Congo Free State from where much of its content appears to have been derived. The citations in the article are imprecise and often misleading - I quote from Hochschild who is ironically cited extensively in the article: "no reputable historian of the Congo has made charges of genocide; a forced labor system, although it may be equally deadly, is different" (NYRB, 2005). I suggest a redirect to Congo Free State#Humanitarian disaster —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'd also add that, for those of you who can read French, there's an useful summary of the various historiographical arguments in a newspaper here, concluding that any use of the term genocide is wrong because of the differences between the historical events and the legal definition of genocide used by the UN. I'd also note that the article author's attempts to include the events on Genocides in history have been reverted by another editor with a summary of previous discussions - which can be found here.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we do as there are articles on the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and Hitler. I would at the very least allow the article to grow before nominating it for deletion. I certainly believe that it can easily pass WP:GNG NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm failing to see how the UN's technical definition of "genocide" enjoins us in any freaking way, shape or form. Make mine Keep; this is a heavily documented business over many years. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A simple look at google books and google news will show that significant evidence exists for this genocide. You can view the numerous sources here. [3] . Book such as [4] and [5]. You will see google news providing sources such as [6] , [7] and the Wall Street Journal [8] Also Robert Weisbord stated in the 2003 Journal of Genocide Research that attempting to eliminate a portion of the population is enough to qualify as genocide under the UN convention. In the case of the Congo Free State, the unbearable conditions would qualify as a genocide. Weisbord, Robert G. (2003). "The King, the Cardinal and the Pope: Leopold II's genocide in the Congo and the Vatican". Journal of Genocide Research 5: 35–45. doi:10.1080/14623520305651. NegroLeagueHistorian (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point (and applaud your subsequent contributions to the article which makes it much more balanced) but I still feel that the fringe theory rule still applies and I'm afraid I'm still not convinced that this could not be done better within the main article. Especially since the title "Congolese genocide" is controversial at best.

Newspapers sources aside (since this is a controversial period, where people often have stronger feelings than they have knowledge), I do think more academic sources would be needed to support such a claim. I agree that Weisbord's article is a significant step, but as I judge from his authography, he does seem to use the term "genocide" very liberally indeed (does he claim that Afro-Americans were the victims of a genocide in the 1950s?) I do think that we should stick to the UN definition where possible, or this whole field will get out of hand.

Perhaps this discussion would also be of interest to @PBS: as another contributor to this area? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And @Elphion:, who has also contributed to a debate on another page.—Brigade Piron (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. GregJackP Boomer! 05:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are two separate issues here: (1) Do we need separate articles on "Congo Free State" and "Congolese Genocide", and (2) Is "Genocide" appropriate in this context. I don't for a moment want to hide the horrible humanitarian disaster occasioned by Leopold's Free State (or his responsibility for it), as my editing of Leopold II of Belgium should make clear. Both Leopold II of Belgium and Congo Free State cover this unblinkingly. I think the jury's still out among professional historians about whether "genocide" is appropriate; it's a highly charged word, and its application in this case is arguably not NPOV -- though it's absolutely appropriate for us to document that many people do apply it to this situation. But for this AFD, for me the primary point is (1): Congolese Genocide is currently no more than a stub. Congo Free State already discusses the consequences of Leopold's regime in far more detail, and since that's the principal historical significance of the Free State, that's an appropriate place to describe it. I don't see the point of the second article except to get the word "genocide" on the table, and we can do that in the first article. -- Elphion (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. There is enough specifically on the horrendous nature of governance in the Congo Free State to justify an independent article (although one wonders what would then be left for the Congo Free State article). I would however suggest renaming this to Atrocities in the Congo Free State, as "genocide" is controversial. The article should certainly give a neutral discussion of the use or non-use of the term. Another reason not to stick with the current name is that "Congolese Genocide" can mean more recent episodes of ethnic cleansing in Eastern Congo (the sense in which the term is used here, for example).--Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed rename is very sensible, if it is indeed retained. Note this for another example of "Congolese genocide" being applied to the period post-1996 - it's the first google hit for the term "Congolese Genocide". —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that's partly why I think "Congo Free State" is the right place to put this -- it identifies the period unambiguously. -- Elphion (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than enough here to justify it's existence as a seperate article, not seeing a POV or Fringe aspect. Artw (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell it's only the use of the term "genocide" that's NPOV. While that may be journalistic shorthand for "largescale slaughter", neither lawyers nor historians apply the term to the atrocities committed in the Congo Free State. For one thing, while seeking to make profits without regard for human life, the Congo Free State Company that ran the colony didn't target any specific ethnicity for destruction.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable string of atrocities. A standalone article should exist for the atrocities; it has been referred to and covered for a long time, and it had a significant effect, with a death toll between 2-15 million, which strongly contributes to notability per WP:PERSISTENCE. Esquivalience ^t 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Congo Free State (leaving a redirect). That article deals with the matter in a NPOV manner. As I read that article, the killing was because the king had expropriated tribal land and imposed quotas that could not be met, with a death penalty for failure. He was pledged to stop slavery, but in fact (in effect) enslaved the inhabitants of his territory. However the people were killed for rebellion, not meeting their quotas or other "offences", not just for being black. Genocide measn killing people en mass becasue of thier race. This does not apply here. The whole thing is built on an article having appears on the subject in a learned journal (which I have not seen). This colonial regime was clearly atrocious and thus guilty of atrocities, but not all atrocities constitute genocide. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename: Since genocide is a term with (supposedly) precise legal meaning, I suggest to rename it. For example Atrocities in colonial Congo. Let me note that in other languages there exist a established specific terms for these historal ongoings, for example in German you have ("Congo horrors"). It is considered a particular historical topic, and it is particular and outstanding historical atrocity, so a specific article on that topic is due.

Whether it was a genocide or not can be included as a section of discussion in the article. 84.208.101.131 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename. "Atrocities in the Congo Free State" sounds about right. The atrocities themselves form an important topic, but whether or not they are a genocide is a minor subtopic. Srnec (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Congo Free State#Humanitarian disaster. If others believe a content fork is warranted, I am OK with renaming as Atrocities in the Congo Free State as the use of "genocide" is controversial. - Location (talk) 15:53, 6 July 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. I chose not to merge or redirect since the name "Trude Hancock" is unconfirmed. However, I will retarget the current redirect page Trude to List of Kath & Kim (Australian TV series) characters. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trude Hancock[edit]

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

See Below Adpete (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe character;
adequately covered at List of Kath & Kim (Australian TV series) characters;
Dubious and unreferenced surname "Hancock";
Fails notability. One could argue that "Pru and Trude" as a duo are notable, but on her own she's not.

Adpete (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Adpete (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Adpete (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kath & Kim (Australian TV series) characters. Fails GNG but has half-decent page views. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Character is not notable independent of the TV programme. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

No redirect - Unless there is evidence that "Hancock" is the character's surname (and none has been provided), it should be a delete not a redirect. p.s. the surname was added in this edit [9] but no reason was offered. Adpete (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before December 2014 the article was simply called Trude. That could redirect either List of Kath & Kim (Australian TV series) characters or to Trudy (disambiguation). Adpete (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was just about to redirect when I saw above, I can't find any thing at all to say Hancock is his/her/ surname so seems a wiser choice to delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Segundo (film)[edit]

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

fails WP:NOTABILITY - obvious COI-driven WP:PROMO per history. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I tried to find independent reliable sources about this film, but I came up with only a few articles from the local paper of the Texas town where it was filmed.(See [10], and this Google search for a few more.) Its IMDb page shows only 21 votes and no external reviews, which doesn't create much optimism about establishing notability. On the other hand, the film does have some notable cast members and notable participants from the world of Tejano music, so I would be happy to reevaluate if someone else can turn up better sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the article was created to promote its subject in 2008. If it were truly notable, I don't see how it wouldn't have been expanded on and sourced reliably by now, many years later. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 20:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalahäst: though your concern may be valid, we must remember that as Wikipedia is admittedly imperfect and an ongoing work-in-progress a topic being WP:NEGLECTED is a not a valid deletion reason. Not to scold, but I speak through a just little experience in such maters. It does seem to have captured a little press.... but not much... and perhaps not enough to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: True, it's always possible that an article has simply been neglected, though I would argue that the chance of an article remaining a stub due purely to neglect decreases over time. The article seems to have been rediscovered a few days ago, at which point it was PRODed on the grounds that it was promotional (as opposed to simply being tagged for cleanup or improved upon). The PROD failed because the tagging editor included a rationale in the edit summary, but not in the template; another user came by and declined the deletion because they didn't check the edit summary and couldn't figure out why the article was tagged. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 07:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalahäst: I agree that the longer something sits neglected, the more likely it will never be improved, but WP:ATA tells us we need to be more specific... and I shared my examples only to show the fallacy of declaring neglect as a deletion rational. That stated, even with the inclusion of some notables in its cast and even after I fixed its format issues under MOS:FILM, I do not believe this one is savable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak delete per just failing WP:NF. Addressing article format and tagging for concerns was easy enough and while there are some sources available and unused, I do not think there are enough available speaking about this film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience (alt) (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Companions for Independence[edit]

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

This was previously kept at afd on the claim that good sources exist onGnews. They don't. Essentially everything there is a mere local interest story on an individual person they helped.

The articles is in addition so promotional and over detailed that it would be very difficult to rewrite even if they were notable. . DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was the first service dog training company. That alone makes it notable, historically. "It would be difficult to re-write" is not a reason to delete. The sources are on Google Books, not News (maybe also News haven't looked). -- GreenC 17:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"so promotional that it would need to be rewritten from scratch" is a good reason for deletion, that has been used here thousands of times each year. T DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "so promotional that it would need to be rewritten from scratch", that's just your opinion as nom (how hard is a stub to make?). Meanwhile notability exists (as a historic first organization, sources in Google Books). The guidelines are on the side of Keep. -- GreenC 20:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot it also passes because of WP:NGO meets #1 national in scope and #2 information about its activities can be found in multiple reliable sources. These include:

Newspapers: New York Times (55 results), LA Times (86 results), Washington Post (114 results), SunTimes (25 results), Boston Globe (1 result), etc.. more?

Google Books reports 3,370 results here are a couple:

Dana Deruvo Davis, The Ties That Bind: One Family's Journey, pg. 59. Tate Publishing, 2010
Mark Derr, Dog's Best Friend, pg. 309. University of Chicago Press, 2004
Joan Beder, Advances in Social Work Practice with the Military pg. 165. Routledge, 2012

~~Delete~~ per nom. I'll happily change to keep if some Google books references (from books that are reliable sources) are provided. --Dweller (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few links and sources above, I encourage you to look through them and read the requirements of WP:NGO. This is the oldest service dog training organization in the world, now a global industry. It is historically notable. The founder Bonnie Bergin is recognized as the inventor of the concept of the service dog, to put it in context (not to make it notable, rather to put it in context). -- GreenC 01:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Books refs. That Beder reference is good. The other two were quite trivial coverage, not in-depth. I'll look at the papers when I can. --Dweller (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that the extent of promotional wording is too obvious to ignore but we can stubify it. I found this book, New York Times, CNN, CBS News, this book, Fox News Insider, ABC News, Nation Time and US Today to mention few. In addition the article is of great historical and encyclopedic importance. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 07:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. I just cleaned up some of the promotional and awkward wording, and will now work on adding references that others have generously provided. LaMona (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at the article -- I think it is greatly improved and should pass notability now. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work, LaMona. -- GreenC 13:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable. A Google search shows several locations around the United States. Among the sourcing on this article are the New York Times, the Washington Post and Paralyzed Veterans of America. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really want to switch to keep, but I'm just seeing loads and loads of trivial references, which don't do enough to prove notability, no matter how many thousands of such pieces there are. I still see only one reference with in-depth coverage (the Beder one, above). Please can someone post just one, single, in-depth piece of coverage from a reliable source (not a press release or a blog) and I'll happily switch to Keep. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not defined by the length of the sources. At a minimum it can be a 2 sources with a single sentence each, so long as that sentence creates notability. In this case we have sources saying it was the first established service do training organization. That is historically notable. You may not agree but I think most people would. Also the special guideline on NGO is met in this case and the sources are sufficient to write a fairly long article with. -- GreenC 13:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this NYTimes piece help? [11] Not a press release or blog. I can't do a word count at this time but it looks to be several hundred words about the organization and its dogs, including the breeding program, the database they maintain, and details of the training program. Also, the VA is sponsoring a $10 million program to evaluate whether service dogs are truly helpful for veterans with PTSD and this org is involved in the study - see [12] (published by Stars and Stripes (newspaper)). Novickas (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thank you. Keep. --Dweller (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, consensus seemed clear. Would you like to withdraw your nomination? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My opinion remains to delete. Even if the various human interest stories make it notable, I think it is too promotional to keep as is, and might need to be started over. (A list of its geographic divisions belongs on its web page. The details of how it trains dogs if just a description of the usual method belongs in an article on dog training if not already there; if, as more likely, it is its own minor variations, it belongs on its web page if anywhere; if it is its own distinctive and unusual method, if needs to be cited as being such, and it is not.) So what I've done, to see if it can be made more encyclopedic, is to remove or condense these sections. My opinion will depend on whether they are restored. If they are, then it can not be made encyclopedic by normal editing and is a G11 candidate. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 30 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 FC Buffalo season[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article fails WP:NSEASONS, not in a top professional league. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 FC Buffalo season. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - aside from the inherent WP:NOTSTATS issues, this club does not play in a fully professional league. Consensus from numerous AfDs for individual club season articles is that no club from a non-fully professional league should have season articles unless they can pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 08:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As said above it fails WP:NSEASONS and it is also only a list of stats. Qed237 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 FC Buffalo season. It would have been deleted then had I noticed it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clarification: You couldn't have included this article in that nomination, since it was created until ten days after the afd was closed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the previous version of 2015 FC Buffalo season a couple hours after the 2014 AfD closed when I was helping to remove links. It had existed for a couple months (although I can't remember exactly how long). So I proposed the 2015 season for deletion and it was deleted 7 days later. 3 days after that, it was recreated. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cancun Ridge[edit]

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

Non notable business failing WP:CORP Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sources confirm existence, but there is no in-depth coverage, not even any prose in the independent sources available online. I presume the "Back Roads Australia" source is the same, but even if it gives in-depth coverage, it fails WP:GNG. There are no other indications of notability, appears to be routine farming operation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a staunch inclusionist in this area and I can't see a straw to grasp at here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As far as I can tell, this is just someone's farm. Absolutely no indication of notability, either in the article or from a Google search. Adpete (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage, if any, in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 11:53, 26 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Burkhalter[edit]

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

Local politician/law enforcement official. While there is plenty of local coverage, fails WP:POLITICIAN.

The only major contributor to this article is a WP:SPA ,Taylormarie2010 (talk · contribs), who is likely someone with a connection to the Sheriff since it reads like an election brochure. The Dissident Aggressor 14:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic presumption of notability to all county sheriffs just because they exist — to get such a person into Wikipedia, you need to be able to write and reliably source an article substantive enough to demonstrate that they're more than locally notable, for more than the mere fact of being a sheriff. But nothing that's been written or sourced here does that. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't head an especially significant organisation. Floyd County Police Department (which handles actual law enforcement) only has 79 officers. I can't imagine the Sheriff's Office has many more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 1 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zefferino Tomè[edit]

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

Can't find any sources on Google. The article doesn't check out either: it claims the person was a Christian Democrat, meaning presumably a member of the Christian Democracy (DC) party. Except the party was founded in 1943, 63 years after this person's death. Seems highly suspicious. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. The Italian Wikipedia lists someone with the same name, birthplace, and party affiliation but dates 1905-1979[13]; the Italian Senate website supports the Italian Wikipedia saying he was a senator 1953-58.[14] Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and keep It appears to be vandalism of an earlier article; therefore revert to the earlier version with the correct dates[15]. (A member of the Italian Senate is automatically notable.) Colapeninsula (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - now the vandalism has gone. I've reverted to the original dates, should be possible to check whether the article was OK before vandalism. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WereSpielChequers. Will close this AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 26 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajat Kumar Das[edit]

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

Claimed website administrator of a website of a political party! That's hardly notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I sense this is a self-bio and was probably started as a personal webpage as a "web administrator" is not that notable for Wiki; my searches found absolutely nothing to suggest this can be improved to said Wiki standards. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and WP:NOTRESUME. Bearian (talk) 11:24, 1 July 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. —SpacemanSpiff 20:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Idea Factory[edit]

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

Not notable think tank/company. The Theosophist (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I was about to put a speedy delete tag on it as I felt it met WP:G11 before I saw this. gbrading (ταlκ) 11:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbrading: This is only my personal view but I hate using G11 because it is never possible to determine objectively if the author is indeed associated with the subject or just assumed in good faith that it/they were notable.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft/userfy if wished simply because although this has received recent coverage here (News) and browser, I think this wouldn't be sufficient and we should wait until more coverage has accumulated. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above comment. I just declined an AfC submission about this same topic. Now that I think about it, Gsjassal19 and Saptarishi12345 might be sockpuppets. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or return to user namespace per SwisterTwister.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:10, 1 July 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imran H Sarker[edit]

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

Fail to meet the requirement. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well he doesn't seem to be very uncontroversial... but I've cleaned up the article a bit and added one more reference. In addition, I've found with some minimal searching, I've found this link which lists atleast 20 articles featuring him directly, so I don't think he's not really unnotable. – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 13:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT, only known for his roles in 2013 Shahbag protests. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's been in DhakaTribune news as recent as September 2014 which goes beyond the Shahbag protests. Further link: Priyo news – Nahiyan8 (talk | contribs) 13:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:ONEEVENT. Happiest persoN (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly ONEEVENT - Being a doctor and making a baseless claim doesn't grant you an automatic right to an article, Can't find any evidence of notability beyond this minor crap so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 2 July 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. —SpacemanSpiff 20:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Esha Tewari Pande[edit]

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

Patent nonsense, Half of the sources are not notable. Many linked sources are written by Esha Tewari Pande herself Shobhit Gosain ^Talk 07:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: looks like WP:Promo. Article focus is on awards from a website without its own article. Timeraner (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional article relying on flaky sources that do not establish real notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as most sources are not reliable and those that appear to be either do not back the claim in the article or are trivial mentions. While there's an argument to be made for the notability of certain national pageant winners, there's no such consideration for runners-up. - Dravecky (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and draft if actually needed - The article is neat and sourced and while I'm sure she's achieved several good things, there's no solidity and my first searches instantly found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 26 June 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. I have given no weight to the arguments about whether this renomination was vaid, as both policy and consensus is that this is not disruptive. In the discussion about the article, the arguments that the article does not have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet the notability guidelines, are stronger than the keep arguments that do not effectively refute this. Davewild (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Armstrong (diver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previous AfD was closed with no consensus, though closing admin noted there didn't seem to be evidence of notability. Subject's supporters argued he is important because he took part in important recovery dives, but subject of article simply has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, nor qualifies via any other criteria. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close. The previous deletion discussion lasted from 10 May 2015 to 3 June 2015 and was re-listed twice. Nominating again after less than a fortnight is a disruptive bad-faith attempt to game the system because of a dislike of the result. Wikipedia:Deletion review is the appropriate venue if dissatisfied. This nomination should be procedurally closed as a waste of editors' valuable time. --RexxS (talk) 10:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous was closed as no consensus, which is not the same as keep. Therefore deletion review is not appropriate, nor is it appropriate or civil to accuse me of a "disruptive bad-faith attempt to game the system" because I didn't like the result (there was no result). There is also no time period required on renominating an article. Please familiarize yourself with AfD guidelines. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be so condescending. The previous nomination was closed 12 days ago after two re-listings as "no consensus" and the page was kept. That was the outcome you didn't like. Wikipedia:Deletion policy states "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.. This is a disruptive renomination and this debate should be closed. DRV is the correct venue. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The recommendation to close this AfD is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_renomination. I happen to agree with those who feel that, given the prior AfD was "no consensus", this AfD is not inappropriate. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "No consensus" is indeed not the same as "keep", but it's also not the same as a NPASR close; NPASR wasn't invoked (and almost certainly shouldn't have been invoked) by FreeRangeFrog when he closed the original discussion. The first discussion had plenty of participants, including the nominator (who hasn't presented any new arguments)~~, and I'm inclined to say this should be speedily closed~~.
I see no reason not to assume good faith by the nominator, though. Sideways713 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Since FreeRangeFrog is OK with the renomination, and we have a fresh new deletion supporter, I no longer support a speedy close; at this point it's better to just let this second AfD run its course. Sideways713 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm surprised this got by one AfD. The only possible notable source given is "founding board member of Rubicon Foundation", which isn't sufficient. The foundation's own site only mentions him by name a few times, with no coverage. It also lists him as a vacating the board, stepping back to "advisor" only. To be notable, we need independent sources covering his personal contributions. This article has been on WP for years, and none have been found. I'm impressed by Mr Armstrong's skill and experience, and envy his achievements, but there's not enough third-party coverage to build a standard WP article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On Wikipedia the concept of notability depends on a subject being brought to the public's attention by independent sources. There are examples of these in the article. In 2010 The Learning Channel produced a documentary called "Return To The Bermuda Triangle" where the producers of the documentary interviewed Armstrong and filmed him diving over four days for a section of that documentary. A similar, if less prominent example, is the History Channel's show Mega Movers on the recovery of a B-52 bomber from a depth of 150 feet which featured Armstrong. We seem to have lost the online ABC news coverage of Armstrong's search for Gertrude Tompkins Silver, but I assume in good faith that the coverage existed at the time the article was written. The Rubicon Foundation maintains probably the largest collection of medical information concerned with diving, aerospace and space. To have been a founder board member of that organisation was a notable event at the time, and although it seems that Armstrong has now stepped down to an advisory capacity, we maintain a policy that notability is not temporary. Scuba diving is a niche activity and we don't expect much coverage even for prominent figures in the field, but when we can point to multiple instances of an individual actually attracting some public attention, we ought to be able to sustain a Wikipedia article on that subject. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We all agree that "notability is not temporary"; my note that on Mr Armstrong vacating the Rubicon board wasn't meant to imply he somehow went from notable to non-notable, but that there was no longer an opportunity for him to become notable via that position. Having that position, alone, is not enough, just as Dr Richard Walker, the person replacing Mr Armstrong, will not be considered notable by WP just for having that position.

Also, appearing on TV and attracting public attention does not fit the WP definition of notable. I fully agree that Mr Armstrong deserves and "ought" to have an article on WP; but WP cannot work that way. It can only work through WP:V, which needs WP:RS, which are lacking here. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note on the closing situation. When an article's kept at AFD, quick renomination is disruptive, but when it's closed as no-consensus, it's entirely appropriate to renominate it so you can get consensus. Deletion review would be out of place: it's for when you disagree with the conclusion (you think FreeRangeFrog shouldn't have closed it as no-consensus), not for when you're trying for consensus when it wasn't achieved before. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the admin who closed the previous AFD I have to say I don't have any problem with this. By definition, in my view, a "no consensus" close is fair game for an immediate renom. I'd only have a problem with it if I had closed as keep. But the discussion was what it was, and we don't get to supervote either way. Often the problem with AFDs is a lack of participation, so hopefully this one will be more unequivocal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable, and sources are quite acceptable. BMK (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reminding people that AfD is not a !vote. Simply saying "subject is notable" is insufficient. The subject of this article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. He has not been the subject of a single article or even a Q&A, or even a 90-second story on the local news. Armstrong himself was not the subject of any documentary, but was interviewed along with many others, about the dive they had been on. That is not significant coverage; which is defined at WP:GNG as addressing the topic directly and in detail. That means that he himself would be the subject of the coverage, which he was not. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: Subject is really double-plus good notable. He's the bee's knees, the cat's meow. He's so damn notable that Presidents doff their caps for him, and spinster aunts go weak as he passes.
How's that? BMK (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I abstained from voting the last time for COI but it appears to have been counted as a keep anyway. Since I thought it was a worthy article or I would not have placed it here to begin with, that makes since. I understand the rules for notable subjects but given the field I am in, maybe I am more tolerant of inclusion for subjects like scuba diving that do not have the coverage of a Kardashian.

My view on Armstrong is that he did play a major role in the creation of Rubicon and has been a part of several projects that have given him screen time. The article was created after I had several people asking about the team that started Rubicon since I am the only one that has been active in the public view. I did not create an article for James Wagner because he did not have anything that he had participated in that gave screen time or even mentioned his name. I have not created an article on Dr. Walker either even though he likely meets the more specific requirements for clinical faculty alone.

I did place a call to Brian earlier this week to see if there was anything else I could add as a reference that may push this discussion one way or the other and it turns out that he is the subject of a diving magazine article that is due to the publisher in mid-August. The article sounds to be specifically about how divers can be active in science. Unfortunately, I'd expect that article to actually be published in October of this year.

Anyway, it is a keep because of his activity in the creation of a non-profit, appearances on television that people are likely to use to search for him, and continued active involvement as a leader in various "citizen science" projects.

Thanks for the continued debate. I am learning a ton about the structure here in reading this as well. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must know a dozen blokes with the same or better credentials but looking at his references there's zilch written up about him. At leas he's got some good mates looking out for him. Alec Station (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find any evidence of fame or notability KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm just not seeing it. The sources I'm looking at are either primary, fleeting mentions, or fails WP:IRS by a country mile. What I'm NOT seeing is the "significant coverage" about the subject that the GNG requires. By the way, folks, quotes BY a subject explicitly can't be used to support the notability OF a subject, so whether TLC interviewed him regarding the Bermuda Triangle doesn't matter bupkis. They didn't interview Armstrong about himself, did they? Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:51, 6 July 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CeCe Cline[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable actress with the usual list of appearances for notable shows but no independent notability herself. My searches at News and Books found nothing and this PBS link and Highbeam are the best things I found. I could've easily PRODded this but I wanted users to comment. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or roles coming anywhere close to establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming everything is true, her parts were small bits, some uncredited. Dancing with such and such ballet, or appearing on Broadway, or being discovered by a famous producer, does not automatically imply notability. Bearian (talk) 11:28, 1 July 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. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Raynor[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. ("Counterpoint+from+Manchester"+Guardian&oq="Counterpoint+from+Manchester"+Guardian&aqs=chrome..69i57.3633j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&tbm=bks&q=Henry+Raynor+music) Dweller (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Should be assessed by Academic, I think. The thesis presented in the article is pretty middle of the road for Marxist analysis, and there is now a very robust markets-to-music analysis (e.g. Pound Notes to Quarter Notes). The present article doesn't do a very good job of clarity. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Dweller I think we have to assess this one under WP:PROFESSOR as User:Hithladaeus suggests, even though Raynor was a writer, not a professor, he retains notability as a scholar. The article claims that his major work was Social History of Music, so I typed that title into JSTOR and found half a dozen reviews in major journals. Run a google books search on Social Hisotry of Music + Raynor and it is instantly apparent that the book has been widely cited. The article needs the attention of someone who is familiar with the historiography of music. I know that there's a tag for that. Probably best to tag it for improvement, and attention by an expert and withdraw the AFD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be happy to do that. Can you give me a link for some of the reviews? I'll add it to the article and then close this. --Dweller (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added some. Here are more reviews of "Social History of Music form JSTOR:

Review A Social History of Music by Henry Raynor Review by: Robert E. Bays Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 2 (SEPTEMBER, 1973), p. 432

...Science Quarterly Henry Raynor . A Social History of Mu- sic . New York: Schocken Books, 1972. 355 pages. $12.00. One may read widely in music history and never know of the Thirty Years' War, or may get the impression that the total effect of the Napoleonic years on music was...

   Read Online
   Download PDF

Journal

Review: A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven by Henry Raynor Review A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven by Henry Raynor Review by: William Weber Journal of Social History, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Autumn, 1973), pp. 107-110

...presented as coherent narratives rather than as explorations of aspects of revolutions. A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven. By Henry Raynor (New York: Schocken Books, 1972. viii plus 373 pp. $ 12.00). An area of European history which has received remarkably little attention is the social history of music...

   Read Online
   Download PDF

Journal

Review: Music and Its Background Review: Music and Its Background A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven by Henry Raynor Review by: E. D. Mackerness The Musical Times, Vol. 113, No. 1554 (Aug., 1972), pp. 773-774

...Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven by Henry Raynor . Barrie & Jenkins, ?5 Since the appearance of G. M. Trevelyan's famous book in 1944, 'social history' has become a popular genre. This recent volume prompts us to look again at what exactly is involved in the social history of music...

   Read Online
   Download PDF

Journal

Review: A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven by Henry Raynor Musique et Société. Perspectives pour une Sociologie de la Musique by Ivo Supičić Review A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven by Henry Raynor; Musique et Société. Perspectives pour une Sociologie de la Musique by Ivo Supičić Review by: J. A. W. Music & Letters, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct., 1972), pp. 451-454

...A Social History of Music from the Middle Ages to Beethoven. By Henry Raynor . pp. Viii + 373. (Barrie & Jenkins, London, I972, 15.00.) Musique et Socie'te'. Perspectives pour une Sociologie de la Mlusique. By Ivo Supicic. pp. 205. (Institut de Musicologie, Zagreb, I97I.) A social history of music must be, in a sense,...

   Read Online
   Download PDF

Journal.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another review of social hist. of Music, major journal. (caveat: I have not read these reviews.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
another: Music and Society Since 1815. by Henry Raynor

Review by: Stephen Hart American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 84, No. 4 (Jan., 1979), pp. 1024-1028 . E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- There are also reviews of some of his work in open access, [16].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dweller, I would have done more with this article, but I really don't know anything about music. thanks for picking this up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR #3, had published books by major publishers like Macmillan and Scribner, and E.M. Gregory found several reviews, his writings about the social history of music may also pass #2. Kraxler (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teknicks[edit]

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

Not notable promotional article. Almost all the awards are utterly trivial -- awards for "fastest-growing" usually man not yet notable. Most of the refs are straight PR, eg. "Forbes spotlighted the company in a regional business insert" DGG ( talk ) 13:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing to suggest solid notability here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 22:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPBIO. Sources there currently are predominantly press releases or other primary and I'm not seeing sufficient others to justify keeping. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 24 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LEDs Magazine[edit]

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

Creating this nomination discussion on behalf of Magnolia677, who did not complete the process. I'm assuming it's for dubious notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing to suggest this has received considerable coverage aside from this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a magazine directory listing. It doesn't even make a claim to notability, nor does it cite even one source. No prejudice against recreation as a real article if it can be shown to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 24 June 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. There is a consensus here that all of the articles except for Marc-Andre Bergeron (taekwondo) should be deleted, but certainly no consensus that the Marc-Andre Bergeron should be deleted so closing as Keep for that one article. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marc-Andre Bergeron (taekwondo)[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. One of a number of additions whose only claim to fame appears to being named to a team representing Canada at a future event where participation itself does not confer notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:Peter Rehse (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ No reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) I Change my vote to keep all. The two users below have legimate reasons. If someone would strike my previous vote that would be great. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the initial !vote to prevent any confusion for the closer of this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP According to the Martial Arts notability guideline: Repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in another significant event; - (e.g. competitors from multiple nations or significant national tournament, not an internal school champion). All of these athletes are multiple medalists at other significant events (such as the Pan Am Championships, Commonwealth Championships, various opens etc. So they do meet notability.

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out in previous discussions, WP:MANOTE is not an official guideline. Although it can be used in AFD discussions, it is trumped by WP:NSPORTS which these competitors fail.Mdtemp (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable taekwondo competitor, ranked internationally, will participate at the 2015 Pan American Games, meet guideline. Same for all the other taekwondo practitioners mentioned above. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Competing at the Pan American Games doesn't meet any notability criteria. Medaling at events that are not the highest level is not enough to meet WP:NSPORTS. Recent confirmation of this can be found at the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruebyn Richards, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brianne Barry, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morteza Rezaei Ghaleh. These show consensus that winning a medal at the European championships, Francophone Games, or Asian championships is not enough to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bergeron, delete the rest Bergeron is currently ranked 5th in the world in the 187 pound division so he has had enough success to support a claim of notability, despite losing in the round of 16 at this year's worlds. That's not true of the others, most of whom were eliminated in the round of 32 at the last world championships. Neither that nor participating in the Pam-Am games is sufficient to show notability. Christopher Iliesco had the most successful run at this year's worlds, but that only moved him to 24th in the world rankings and that alone is not high enough to support a claim of notability (and it shows he hasn't yet had enough success). None of these articles meet WP:GNG and success at lesser tournaments is not enough to meet WP:NSPORTS. Jakejr (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, except keep Bergeron None of these individuals meet WP:GNG or appear at first glance to meet WP:NSPORTS. However, Bergeron's ranking in the top five shows enough notability for me. As for the others, merely competing at the world championships with 1500-2000 others is not grounds for notability nor is winning medals at lower level events. Papaursa (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only Keep Bergeron None of the others meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. It's kinda funny that the main article for this AfD is the only one that should be kept.Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All: Sorry, but Bergeron's alleged world ranking notwithstanding, he still doesn't meet the GNG -- and neither do any of the others. All that world ranking means is a claim of notability, which means a speedy isn't appropriate. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:54, 6 July 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. Especially in light of the new sources unearthed during the AfD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JackSepticEye[edit]

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

No real indication of importance, written more like an advert than a WP:BLP. As the article currently stands, it's a basic example of what most other YouTube personalities do. All or most of the references are promotional, leading back to his YouTube account and videos. Requesting deletion per WP:NOTWHOSWHO. --Anar chyte 08:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the multiple articles in Irish papers: [17], [18], ~~[19]~~. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, sources #1 and #3 link to the same exact article, and source #2 is an extremely minor passing mention. So, you've really only provided one source that provides significant coverage, on the assumption "Irish Examiner" is a reliable sources. (I've never heard of it, so I don't know either way.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sometimes I open too many tabs and accidentally paste the same URL twice - sorry about that. Anyway here are two more: [20], [21]. Also the one you called an extremely minor passing mention has this:
However, the star of all Irish YouTubers is JackSepticEye aka Seán Mclaughlin, who is ranked in the top 100 in the world. Mclaughlin (25), who also makes a living talking his way through videogames, has accumulated 1.5 billion views. Social Blade puts his annual income at a minimum of €510,000. The maximum is a multiple of that sum. If these figures are to be believed, most of us would appear to be in the wrong line of work.
It's short, but not a passing mention, and the contents indicate the notability of the subject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources above don't establish notability per the reasons stated by Sergecross73, I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to go with Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Just for clarity, the Irish Times and the Irish Examiner are the top two broadsheet daily papers in Ireland. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources such as [22] [23] [24] [25]. In particular, the Sunday Times source says he runs Ireland's most popular YouTube channel, which seems notable. Everymorning talk 22:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Shelton Woolright. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Woolright (The X Factor)[edit]

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

Page fails to meet the standard notability for biographies of living persons, and as a matter of proof, the page was also created by an on-going sock-puppet, who promotes their own agenda. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to I Am Giant#Band members with protection or simply delete - Moving may be a good alternative to deletion because if he becomes notable for The X Factor, the article can be restarted when needed. However, as for notability at this time, News was the only one of my first searches to find results. SwisterTwister talk 22:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has sufficient coverage in NZ national media to pass WP:GNG. Coverage includes both major television networks, and most major national media outlets. The article is a light on details and needs more added from reliable sources that is all NealeFamily (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be decided to keep the article, it should be renamed Shelton Woolright (musician) NealeFamily (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or even renamed Shelton Woolright Ollieinc (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NealeFamily, rename per Ollieinc.22:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:NealeFamily; move per User:Ollieinc. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move per above - Seems a sensible choice. –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 2 July 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.--MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adams Central FBLA[edit]

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

No particular notability (WP:ORG or WP:GNG) for this chapter of FBLA-PBL. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adams Central Junior-Senior High School. General Ization ^Talk 12:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the A7 CSD template that was removed by the creator and should simply have been restored by a passing recent-changes patroller. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been removed by the creator, I would have restored it. But it wasn't (unless sockpuppetry was involved). —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List_of_eating_utensils#Combination_utensils. There is a rough consensus that separate articles for Knork, Sporf and Spife are not warranted but a redirect is appropriate, while for Splayd coverage has been identified so it is keep for that article. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knork[edit]

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

Non-notable form of cutlery. I have heard of a "spork", but never a "knork". Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following non-notable forms of cutlery.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink -related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles, especially Knork, seem to meet GNG, although the others are a bit more questionable. However, in any case, I can't think of any notability guidelines for things of this sort. Therefore, although this may be a rather unorthodox !vote, I propose that we create a new article called Hybrid eating utensils and merge all these individual articles into the main one. --Biblioworm 01:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Biblioworm's proposal is attractive, but this article is at least how such articles should be done -- history, context, no advertising for a given brand -- and some indication of notability (due to historical context -- people just keep inventing them). Therefore, while a master article is a good idea, keep would be how I'd move on this article. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of Splaydes, I believe that a generic collective article is valid if the search parameters permit direct pointing when the search of "Splaydes" or the other terms is used. 58.161.229.24 (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC) Glynnis Copying comment from talk page. Natg 19 (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. It just seems like something someone invented trying to make a lot of money by copying the spork formula, but has had no real impact or widespread use. There's already an article called list of eating utensils that has these on there and I don't think "hybrid eating utensils" meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Splayds (or splaydes, or splades) are a common eating utensil in Australia. While Wikimandia (—Мандичка) states that the item "has had no real impact or widespread use", this appears to be somewhat dismissive of the continent on which they are used quite extensively. Wikipedia is intended to be international in its outlook, and presumably will not delete an article just because one part of the world does not use the item in question. Australians will not know to look for 'knorks' or 'sporfs' when searching for these utensils, so at the very least there needs to be some disambiguation. There seems good reason either to have separate entries or to combine them as 'Hybrid eating utensils' - as suggested by Biblioworm.

I see that the name for splayds is actually a company name. This is not uncommon in the history of products - the relevant Wikipedia article lists such common nouns as heroin, videotapes and kerosene. That said, maybe the article should be about the company Splayd Utensils - while nevertheless focussing upon that company's somewhat unusual and very well known piece of cutlery. 124.171.68.29 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC) Copying comment from talk page. Natg 19 (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knork, Sporf, and Spife can be redirected to List_of_eating_utensils#Combination_utensils where they are already listed. The same was recently done with another implement of this ilk, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chork. Splayd could be redirected there also; however, I did find quite a bit of independent coverage of Splayd, quite possibly enough for a keep.[26] [27] Splayd is a copyright name [28] rather than generic, so I hate to name an article after it, but that seems to be what it's called - sometimes with a lowercase S. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Splayd, redirect the rest. I took a spin on the Australian Google and found a whopping lot of sources for splayds. Nha Trang ^Allons! 11:56, 6 July 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. postdlf (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor active United States Air Force Bases[edit]

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

Cut and paste from the corresponding source, and there is no need to have what amounts to a phone directory when it would better exist as a category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - among other things, it's horribly inaccurate. Tuzla, for example, closed around 2008. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In principle a valid list, but redundant with List of United States Air Force installations. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 24 June 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 Soft delete. Article may be recreated by any administrator upon request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didier Matrige[edit]

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

He seems to have had some success, but I couldn't verify that he meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. French article also seems of dubious notability. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the original page was created without header (subst in step II missing), I added {{subst:AFD2}} and used the initial nomination statement to fix the page. GermanJoe (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:20, 1 July 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cutler[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are all unreliable. Msnicki (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His most recent book (published by Kogan Page) seems to be doing moderately well, and found in about 125 libraries in WorldCat. I don't see reviews (they would have appeared in the business press, but I didn't run into any). The references are mainly podcasts and book sales sites (plus a broken link). As this book seems to be his most successful, perhaps the article is WP:TOOSOON. LaMona (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was created and edited by a now-blocked wp:sock that apparently was focused on Kogan authors. LaMona (talk) 17:51, 28 June 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. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson Valley English[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article still doesn't appear to achieve notability. It doesn't meet WP:GNG's guideline to achieve "significant coverage" among reliable sources. There is only one author, Dinkin, who is repeatedly cited. Other reliable sources I've noticed merely call back to Dinkin's 2009-10 work. I went through a process many months ago of separating out the substantial amount of uncited/original research. Anyway, in the original 2007 deletion discussion, User:Angr commented that "unless you rewrite it yourself, saying 'keep but rewrite' will result in it being kept but never rewritten." As it's played out, unless we add reliable sources to bolster notability ourselves, we will see that the page never receives those sources. And so far, it still hasn't and so still fails notability. Wolfdog (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - fail; I could self-publish a study of the English spoken in my kitchen, including the vowel sounds in the word DELETE, and it would be as notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: This is a dialect band. I'm not sure about the granularity, though. The Hudson Valley is a dialectical band due to its settlement pattern and isolation, which created the conditions for a stable dialect region. The Poughkeepsie sort of American dialect was distinct (and much more distinct from New York City, historically), although post-1945 migrations will have levelled it a great deal. (There are at least fourteen "southern" dialects. Most states have five or so dialect bands.) This article is poorly referenced and not very accurate, but the topic is legitimate/notable. I don't know how well we cover other elements of dialectology, so I can't suggest a good target for a merge. (I trained in field linguistics but that was decades ago.) Hithladaeus (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hithladaeus: What is needed is reliable sources discussing the Hudson Valley dialect/band/accent/something. Do you have any? Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find recognition of this dialect - see Accents of English, for example. That cites a source from 1958 and so the topic seems well-established. Andrew D. (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of the region, but not the dialect. Accents of English designates the Hudson Valley as an important region regarding the migrations of English speakers, etc., but it doesn't seem to define or separate a unique Hudson Valley dialect. And Labov et al's analysis (2006) seems to take modern-day Hudson Valley speech (a historically designated region) and basically equate it both phonologically AND geographically with modern-day Southwestern New England English. Wolfdog (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your point seems obscure. As the region is well recognised for its dialect, the topic is valid. Here's another source which is cited by the Washington Post and explains the matter well. My !vote stands.Andrew D. (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by obscure. Although I understand that, historically, the Hudson Valley was inhabited by the Dutch settlers, its native variety of English today appears to fall under the Western New England dialect region. In other words: the Hudson Valley has no real notable features of its own that earn it its own WP page. Meanwhile, the other source you gave does not explain matters well. It gives only a total of three whole sentences on the "Hudson Valley" dialect, and lists four lexical terms, of which at least three are in no way confined to that region, and may even be widespread throughout the country. For just one example, see here that teeter-totter is not at all specific to the Hudson Valley. Even if these four terms were unique to the region, that's not enough to make it its own notable dialect. Also, the source as a whole seems questionable; it strangely claims, for example, that Cajun speakers say "New Orleans" as monosyllabic "Nawlns" and it shows a map that classifies "Chicago Urban" and "Inland North" not only separately but even in different locations on the map, when one is widely accepted to be a subset of the other (although it's not clear what would even make a unique "Chicago Urban" dialect, and it seems extremely bizarre for the source to state that one of Chicago's main influences is the "Southern dialects," except with regards to AAVE--a separate dialect). Wolfdog (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a zoomed-in example of the Hudson Valley region as classified by Labov and crew. Wolfdog (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Wolfdog in general. The Washington Post article from 2013 is the best source for a distinct Hudson Valley dialect I've found, but it's not a good one. Notice the producer of the map, Robert Delaney, is a "reference associate," i.e. a librarian. At an university, yes, but a librarian. The entire quote from the original source (linked above), not the WaPo. "Hudson Valley. New York was originally a Dutch colony, and that language influenced this dialect's development. Some original Hudson Valley words are stoop (small porch) and teeter-totter. They call doughnuts (which were invented by the Dutch) crullers and olycooks." Those are examples of a few foreign language words being adopted by the local English speakers, not a separate dialect or accent (phonetics). It is self-published as well. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself denies the existence of the topic. It starts out: "A spectrum of American English varieties is spoken in the Hudson Valley region of New York State..." I'm confident the same could be said of any region of the United States, and probably the equivalent in most of the rest of the world. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sole source of the current article, the work of budding scholar Aaron J. Dinkin, does not support the idea that Hudson Valley is a distinct dialect of American English. The dissertation defense handout (source 1) from 2009, accepts the Atlas of North American English (Labov, Ash & Boberg 2006) as its starting point, which does not include a Hudson Valley dialect. For Upstate New York, Dinkin's area of focus, there is only Inland North, Western New England (with subdivisions of Northwestern and Southwestern) and New York City, as shown on the "zoomed-in" map above. Only one source, Kurath (1949), is cited as identifying "Hudson Valley" as a dialect region. The Hudson Valley Handout (source 2) from a talk to the International Linguistic Association, conveniently located in the Hudson Valley town of New Paltz, Dinkin states the "current phonological status of Hudson Valley is unknown." Q.E.D. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:38, 6 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QI (A series)[edit]

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

This page was nominated for deletion a couple of years ago (see here), but it was part of a bundled deletion including an FA, so the page was kept.

The article contains 26 references. 4 of these are sources for notes in the article (e.g. about information said in an episode that is untrue). The other 22 just verify the broadcast date of each episode. The lack of sources shows this article fails WP:N. It is pure listcruft and fancruft and it does not belong in Wikipedia (WP:IINFO). It describes every detail of all twelve episodes of the A series, which is far, far more than should be covered. Any relevant information about this series is already covered at List of QI episodes or QI — and even if there was more to say on the topic, more content could be added to either of those articles.

It would, however, be a shame to lose such a comprehensive page which reflects many editors' hard work. ~~I have started copying and rephrasing some of this stuff over at the QI Wikia (see [29][30][31]) and I will continue this work, especially if it looks like this article will be deleted.~~ I have copied the content, with rephrasing and additions of my own, over to QI Wikia. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC) Added update in the last paragraph — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numinousneoism Art[edit]

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

Not notable enough for it's own article. Very little of substance written about it. Worth mentioning on the artists page (as it already is) but not substantial enough to be treated separately. noq (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note also that the artist's website uses his Wikipedia bio as a sign of status in an unusually blatent way. There's a case for probing his notability too. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This neologism associated with one person does not appear to have attained notability in its own right. I can find only one indication of another person using the term, in a States News Service release, via Highbeam (subscription required). Nor does its all-encompassing breadth ("The preeminent influence for creating NUMINOUSNEOISM ART are George Braque and Pablo Picasso and all previous and future art styles") indicate that it is likely to become a criterion for critical discussion. AllyD (talk) 06:36, 24 June 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) Kraxler (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Knauss[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I was going to nominate it, but it had a PROD on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: This is a very heavy heavy hitter, although the article says something absurd -- that he's on the "Board of Directors" of the US Marine Corp. Unless there is a corporation by that name, and I doubt it, this statement is . . . hilarious, even in the post-Rumsfeld years. The sources included seem to do more than just say, "He's a guy with a job," and these are the jobs that run the world, so. . . . Hithladaeus (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, they literally just show he exists, just because these jobs "run the world" doesn't mean he's notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree. I read the Forbes piece, for example, and the point I'm making is that he is currently on two boards. The concentration of capital he represents is staggering. I may be veering from "notable" to "significant," and whoever closes is free to disregard my reasoning, but in the US this kind of 0.001 of the population attains significance simply for being so distorting and "powerful." I didn't do searches for the "What a great guy!" articles that usually swarm around these sorts of individuals and wouldn't have paid them much mind, but I look at these sorts of managers as an unique (and unfortunate) class of person. --Again, I'm just one person, and I might be wrong or idiosyncratic. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTABILITY is based on sources. please see WP:Golden Rule. We have one (1) independent source - the rest are press releases or from his company. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's on the Board of Trustees of the US Marine Corps University Foundation, which makes more sense. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That makes a lot more sense, although it's a strange thing in the original article -- obviously a literary insert (symmetry) rather than a logical one (a non-profit board tossed in the midst of all the publicly traded ones). Thanks. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. He's had a variety of media coverage over the past 15 years: news stories, profiles, articles expounding his wisdom, mentions in business books. I added some sources to the article. Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage - the NY Times doesn't do interviews with non-notable people. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, though it is kind of a circular reasoning (a person on the verge of notability would become notable for WP if they were interviewed; so essentially, the NYT interviews notable people because being interviewed by them makes someone notable...). Tigraan (talk) 12:20, 24 June 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Haven Documentary Film Festival[edit]

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

Regional festival, no clear notabillity DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Either keep and properly source or, as Yale is also "local" to New Haven, Connecticut (chuckle), perhaps we can use available sources[32][33][34][35][36][37][38] speaking about this fairly new festival to write of it in the Yale University article and then redirect to Yale as the festival's host. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 24 June 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. There is a consensus here that the article needs a lot of work on it but that is all. Davewild (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Betterment (Investment service)[edit]

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

Very highly promotional, and only very borderline notable DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from company rep: Betterment is notable. Press and related can be found here: https://www.betterment.com/press/ Examples of notability include CNBC Disruptor 50 award. Suggested edit for less promotional feeling to the article: Betterment (also known as Betterment.com) is an online-investment adviser registered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission based in New York, New York. Betterment provides investment advice and automated investment management to customers. All transactions occur online - it is an execution-only service. Betterment does not have brokerage sales representatives or advisers.

Stub: In-depth stories in International Business Times and Inc. Magazine fulfill WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 19:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in the press doesn't make a subject notable as per WP:GNG by default. Additionally, there is nothing of encyclopedic importance in the content of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.122.98.53 (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit to address promotional tone. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per [39], [40]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As the notability guidelines have not been met by significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reedy Creek Emergency Services[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small non-notable department. No properly sourced information. Zackmann08 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Reedy Creek Improvement District (the legal unit of government that operates the service) unless/until Wikipedia:Notability can be established (which might be possible, but isn't asserted in the article). --Closeapple (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' The person recommending deletion has a history of going through and recommending pages for deletion that should not of been recommended^[1] and is particularly doing this to different fire services... so those reviewing this should keep that in mind and if it continues admin should consider sanctions. Zlassiter (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalamazoo_Department_of_Public_Safety

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources or mentions in news articles.96.52.0.249 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:08, 26 June 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AgileCat[edit]

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

Non-notable company with no significant and notable coverage and no good target for moving elsewhere. Basically, my searches found these results here (News), here (Books), here (Highbeam) and here (thefreelibrary) and they all have the same things in common: no actual in-depth coverage about the company and mostly talking with Peter Madden including that he and the company endorsed Philadelphia's mayor for election, etc. I'm not confident the awards are notable and I found this to support the "40 Under 40" but not an original link for the Philadelphia Style "Vanguard" (aside from a Philly Police Foundation link). This could've easily been PRODded but I wanted comments from users for a solid consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 24 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Tipping[edit]

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

Unreliable sourced BLP of a screenwriter with no notable films to speak of. Wgolf (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and move to Car Trouble as it seems A. J. was best known for this and this supported he is known for this (a search for Edith's Shopping Bag found no results). There's no notability so it could easily be deleted and there's not even any basic information such as if this person is still alive but, as this is a searchable term, it was simply lead to Car Trouble. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable enough source to be the only one for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John - The article needs a bit more than one limk to IMDB, I can't find any shred of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 02:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Canaan Fire Department[edit]

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

Tiny department in a small town that fails WP:GNG Zackmann08 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to New Canaan, Connecticut where it is mentioned - My searches found nothing to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't even see it worthy of a redirect. WP is not a directory. —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:34, 24 June 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Lounge Kittens[edit]

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

not my field, but this group does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC-- I may of course be wrong here, but I see neither awards, nor charting, nore substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In accordance with WP:MUSIC, criteria clause 1 - Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. has clearly been met with reference to multiple independent internet sources. The Lounge Kittens have also met clause 4 - Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. I shall endeavour to find more evidence for this. Cari-Su ( talk ) 08:58, 9 June 2015 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up Links now added under 'Live' heading. Cari-Su ( talk ) 17:32, 10 June 2015 (GMT)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on my input above, this article meets the requirements for WP:MUSIC and, therefore, should be kept. Cari-Su ( talk ) 09:49, 15 June 2015 (GMT)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alert Ready. I'd normally soft delete here, but I see at least one phrase merged from QEA so we need to redirect to preserve attribution. (For what it's worth, QEA is also a valid search term.) – czar 22:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Québec En Alerte[edit]

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

Procedural AFD per reversion of bold redirect.

As it stands, this article is a de facto fork of Alert Ready that only covers the province of Quebec. Canada's alert system is unique as it is both centralized and decentralized at the same time (its backed by a centralized infrastructure, but alerts are issued by provincial agencies, who sometimes have their own separate brands for alert services, such as Quebec En Alerte and SaskAlert).

All relevant details from this article have already been moved into the main article and covered from a national perspective, and with better citations. I do not believe the individual components of this system are notable on their own. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7 days and still no vote. What to do? I still added a template about the notability of the article, since they doubt it on the Spanish Wikipedia. Ĉiuĵaŭde ^Discuss 13:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no sources or even general information to assert that this subsidiary implementation of Alert Ready should have it's own article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 24 June 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) Kraxler (talk)

Upward Sports[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP, also pretty promotional Had notability and advert tag on for 5 years, time to sort it out. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I could find a few mentions of it in some small newspapers, nothing indicated WP:ORGDEPTH. Agree with nom on WP:PROMO issues. Bordwall(^talk⁄_ctrb) 17:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Not notable. Fails per WP:CHRISTIANITY and per WP:SPORT. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ashbeckjonathan: The two links you provide above are just links to the main pages of WikiProject Christianity and WikiProject Sports, which are not notability guideline pages. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll try to remember that. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashbeckjonathan: So what is your basis for article deletion, besides "not notable". Did you read any of the sources I provided below? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll change my vote to keep. I'll need to pay more attention next time maybe do some research perhaps. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I have struck your initial delete !vote above, to prevent any confusion for the closer of this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Certainly passes WP:ORGDEPTH, having received significant independent nationwide coverage in various U.S. newspapers. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Upward Sports: everyone is a winner at faith-based basketball camp". AnnArbor.com.
^ "New River Baptist Association offers sports ministry". jdnews.com.
^ "Upward Sports teaches Christian values through basketball, cheerleading". Lodi News-Sentinel.
^ "Upward Sports welcomes crowds to $20M complex". GoUpstate.com.
^ "Basketball program teaches kids skills, positivity". The Medina County Gazette.
^ "Glen Burnie East: Upward Sports at takes a swing at baseball for first time since 2011". Capital Gazette.
^ "Upward Sports breaks ground on complex off Highway 29". GoUpstate.com.
^ "Q&A: Get to know Auburn's Upward Basketball - Auburn Journal". auburnjournal.com.
^ "Sports league teaches kids about God, jumping higher". Tri-County Times.
^ "Upward Sports Program proves popular". Columbia Basin Herald.
^ "At Upward Basketball and Cheerleading every child is a winner". savannahnow.com.
^ "Lifestyle - Lancaster Eagle Gazette - lancastereaglegazette.com". Lancaster Eagle Gazette.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A plethora of reliable sources now found. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:33, 30 June 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. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Naing Oo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: many passing mentions, but no coverage WP:GNG worthy. Esquivalience ^t 01:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is article about international player. According Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following: Players who have played in any Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA (including the Olympics) are notable. Although U-20 World Cup is not a Tier 1 Competition, but, in my opinion, this is a competition of high international level and player who have played in all 3 matches (for his team) in this tournament may be presumed notable. He also scored first goal of 2015 FIFA U-20 World Cup.94.248.27.70 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly excludes youth football as a source of notability: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable. MNL (Myanmar National League) is a fully professional league according a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football.94.248.27.70 (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Played in this context means appeared in an actual match. As he is yet to make his debut in the MNL, this does not apply either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Probably notable per WP:NFOOTY, but really struggling to find confirmation of this, the comments above suggest that he essentially probably has played for a team in a fully professional league since I think it unlikely someone would play internationally without any club experience at an U-20 level, but are unfounded in the sources available to those not speaking Burmese. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL for now, can be recreated if subject meets requirements in the future. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.–Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:45, 2 July 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.

[1] ttps://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kalamazoo_Department_of_Public_Safety

[2] "Upward Sports: everyone is a winner at faith-based basketball camp". AnnArbor.com.

[3] "New River Baptist Association offers sports ministry". jdnews.com.

[4] "Upward Sports teaches Christian values through basketball, cheerleading". Lodi News-Sentinel.

[5] "Upward Sports welcomes crowds to $20M complex". GoUpstate.com.

[6] "Basketball program teaches kids skills, positivity". The Medina County Gazette.

[7] "Glen Burnie East: Upward Sports at takes a swing at baseball for first time since 2011". Capital Gazette.

[8] "Upward Sports breaks ground on complex off Highway 29". GoUpstate.com.

[9] "Q&A: Get to know Auburn's Upward Basketball - Auburn Journal". auburnjournal.com.

[10] "Sports league teaches kids about God, jumping higher". Tri-County Times.

[11] "Upward Sports Program proves popular". Columbia Basin Herald.

[12] "At Upward Basketball and Cheerleading every child is a winner". savannahnow.com.

[13] "Lifestyle - Lancaster Eagle Gazette - lancastereaglegazette.com". Lancaster Eagle Gazette.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]