Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 August	30 August >

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willy Calderon[edit]

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

Non-notable musician who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Article text is copyvio lifted straight from the two major sources quoted in the references, the biographies on MTV (which itself is a straight copy of the biography on Calderon's own website and therefore not independent) and Gon-Bops Percussion who sponsor Calderon. It is claimed that Calderon is a "Grammy award winner", but this appears to be a reference to him being part of the backroom editing team that worked on the score for The Dark Knight – that award for Best Score Soundtrack Album for Motion Picture, Television or Other Visual Media went to Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard, and Calderon and the editing team were not mentioned by name. He has certainly worked with many notable names and comes from a musical family, but all this is WP:INHERITED and does not make him notable. And judging by this edit from January 2015 the article creator has an undeclared COI. Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier discussion with nominator on my talk page. Erick (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to IESE Business School. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doing Good and Doing Well[edit]

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

This very clearly appears to just be propaganda/an advertisement for a 2-day yearly conference at a very minor school. I see no reason it should exist.El cid, el campeador (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to IESE Business School to forestall recreation - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to IESE Business School; not independently notable and content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimi Kendall-Jones[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Ueutyi (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film she's acted in is showing up as a red link. Can't find any news sources about the film, let alone the actress. Minima © (talk) 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way, way WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I don't see what WP:TOOSOON has to do with anything - the film in question was already released (supposedly), it's just not notable and neither is she. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one role in a possibly notable film is not enough to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Singularity (film)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NFILM at all, and this is after it was PRODed and editors tried to rescue it. Of the five sources, only one is independent and that's an interview with the director in a transhumanist source. Almost none of the substantive information in the article is cited to anything. The peacock quote in the lede section is from a transhumanist organisational blog. I'm willing to be convinced, but this article's never had anything that does; the relevant criterion is Wikipedia:Notability (films), and "keep" arguments should address that or WP:GNG. I must note that I'd quite like this to be article-worthy, but I have to say it honestly doesn't look like it yet - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some more sources: [1] from the IEEE Spectrum, [2] from The Globe and Mail, and [3] from Forbes. The Forbes link is from their contributor network, but the author is tagged as a staff writer. The executive editor of the IEEE Spectrum appeared in the film, but I don't think that invalidates their review. There's also [4] in H+ magazine, but I'm not entirely sure it's a reliable source. It seems like it is, but I try to stay away from possibly fringey stuff like this and have little experience with it. With The Atlantic's interview, I think this may be enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Transhumanist sources (IEET, H+, SingularityHub etc) are pretty much walled-garden and WP:FRIND applies. The wider stuff is promising though - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient notability; some more sources: [5], [6], [7]. --Fixuture (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by above commenters. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all this is excellent thank you :-) Can we get these sources properly into the article and get it into shape? - David Gerard (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a basic reception section. I left the majority of the article alone. When there are that many cleanup tags sprinkled throughout an article, it usually means there are content disputes simmering, and I don't really want to get involved. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, that was me tagging every bad source :-) No, the article's been very quiet for editing (which is the problem really). The sources above are pretty good and I'm pleased to have probably been wrong on this one - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan Flynn[edit]

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

Anime voice roles are all minor characters, and her live action work is mostly indie films and minor characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the prima facie notability is actually fine with me, but we have nothing in the way of solid RSes for this BLP - needs much better, like, anything - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, despite this, her roles do not appear to be major. I can't spot any other news coverage online. The article suggests it is a publicity piece only. Sionk (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She stars in the film The Girl which is by author Catherine Cookson, but that's about it for starring. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few major roles and almost no coverage. Esw01407 (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (weak one) as per above, although my sweeps found a mention here and another here and there's a blurb here which suggests she is, indeed, a working actor. Plus there's lots of image consistency (one of my unofficial measures of notability). She's played opposite Scarlett Johansson. She has a brief profile with her photo in the Daily Mail. One thing is little off, is why her pageviews spike sometimes into the hundreds; for me, that's a sign that we may be wrong in deleting her article. Still, overall, sources don't quite meet the general notability guideline so unfortunately I have to write the big D.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if she's really starring in The Island (2005 film) as she is billed last in the credits for that film, and her character is not even mentioned by name in the plot? Roger Ebert review AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jor (music)[edit]

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

Not enough detail or citation to specify having a page Wasabi,the,one (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as these are not valid arguments for deletion, article can be easily improved, and I don't quite understand why this was nominated. Sro23 (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fundamental concept in Hindustani music, so we should have an article on it. Admittedly the current article is inadequate, but that's a reason to expand it, not to delete. --Deskford (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article mentions that the topic in question forms part of a raga – I don't know enough about the topic to say for certain, but would it make sense to include it as part of that article? Richard3120 (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It forms part of the performance of a raga, along with e.g. alap and jhala, and indeed sometimes the term "raga" is loosely used to refer to performance, but more strictly a raga is a mode, and that is what our article raga covers. Better to cover one subject per article, I think. --Deskford (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be notable within its topic. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given one Weak Delete assertion, and lack of opposition to the final Keep assertion by either the nominator or by the other Delete !voters... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Browne (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, there are lots of them but articles are routine. Also has not played in a fully pro league game. Simione001 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG has played for New Zealand's leading club , Auckland City FC with several appearances including in FIFA Club World Cup.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as stated previously. Noteworthy in that he played a part in Auckland's shock third place finish in club world cup. Was youngest player at tournament and second youngest ever. GNG states that numerous secondary sources are sufficient for notability, which this article includes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gri3720 (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 30, 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I thought on this for some time before reluctantly making this decision. While Browne has played for Auckland City FC, the ASB Premiership is only a semi-professional league, and playing for the reserve team of a club in a fully-professional league or any national U-XX team does not contribute to meeting WP:NFOOTY. I also have to conclude that WP:GNG is failed because the requirements are significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (emphasis mine); none of the club pages are independent, no blog sites can be considered reliable, and merely being mentioned in an article fails to meet the significance requirement. I note that Browne did make an appearance at the 2014 FIFA Club World Cup, but the consensus at WP:FOOTY is that any match appearance must be between clubs which are both in an FPL or on the senior international team. Browne definitely has potential, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG per above. Smartyllama (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree that on the balance of things, he does not meet WP:GNG, and certainly not WP:NFOOTBALL (though there is no argument there). There is simply insufficient significant reliable coverage. Article is all style, no substance. Giant Snowman 20:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG, as examples of significant reliable coverage of the player contained within the article, I would specifically cite:

goal.com - profile of the player of significant length providing much encyclopedic content.
OFC - Significant interview with the player, I would argue that the OFC is sufficiently removed from the individual to count as independant coverage.
lengthy blog article - wouldn't satisfy GNG on its own, but providing evidence of coverage of the player in non-english media
NZ Herald - additional coverage, albeit of limited length.

I would also draw attention to the following sources not included in the article, but which provide further evidence that the player has received significant coverage:

The National - article specifically on the player in national PNG media.
Radio Australia - radio coverage dedicated to the player in Australia

Additionally, there is plenty of stuff out there on him from secondary sources such as the PNG FA. Fenix down (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as certainly notable for WP:POLITICIAN (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Scamman[edit]

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

NN state-level politician. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, she is neither presumed notable, nor does she have coverage beyond that normally expected. Of the two sources, one is in fact unnecessary, and constitutes coatracking, a notable achievement in an article with so few sources. MSJapan (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - To the contrary, WP:POLOUTCOMES says that political figures elected at the state level are generally presumed notable. As she is a former state representative, Scamman's article should be kept. Altamel (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No she isn't - she's a municipal rep to the state legislature, not the state rep to the national legislature. MSJapan (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the outcomes essay, the notability guidelines for politicians says that former members of a state legislature are usually notable. And I'd also point to many past AfD discussions where state legislators have been kept by virtue of their office. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Jack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene Anielski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaylord Graves, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talmadge L. Heflin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marlene Anielski, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Wolf, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Ward (politician). Altamel (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.)" What part of that is unclear? See also WP:POLITICIAN #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of a sub-national legislature, as clearly outlined in WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the entire nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOL, the "no sources" comment was false at the time of AfD nomination, and more valid sources have been added. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brie Gabrielle[edit]

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

Gabrielle is a lot more borderline than many Miss USA contestants. She has appeared in 3 movies Wikipedia has aritcles on. However only in one of them does she appear to have been a leading cast member, so this is still below the two significant roles in significant films required by the entertainment guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: She has an acting career and has acted in movies with Wikipedia articles. Also, she competed in the most notable pageant in the USA. I'd say she's notable. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Miss USA is not the most notable competition in the US, Miss America is. Also, having roles is films with Wikipedia articles is not enough, the roles have to be significant, and only in 1 film does that appear to be the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Florida USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jjj1238 PageantUpdater (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shower#Wet room. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wet room[edit]

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

DIcdef, but oddly the one cited ref (a dictionary) doesn't agree with the definition in the article; but rather says a "wet room" is a European-style bathroom-with-integrated-shower. Which is a fine thing to have an article about, but I'm not sure "wet room" is the right title, and at any rate this article (falsely, I guess) claims "wet room" means something else. WP:TNT. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs to be rewritten completely. A "wet room" is literally a walk in shower essentially.--Savonneux (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect See the history. This was a redirect for years until a few days ago when this unsourced article replaced it. Restore to the pre-existing redirect. MB 04:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems very simple to redirect this article to shower, but many wet rooms problems are not linked to showers ... Pano38 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Room which is wet" is not a remotely notable subject. We don't have articles for every possible adjective-noun combination. The only remotely notable thing here is the bathroom architecture, which is adequately covered by the redir. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to previous. As the article is currently written to just describe any room that is wet, XYZ type articles are generally not considered notable (the exact wikilink escapes my recollection if anyone recalls where it's located). Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find sources such as Kitchen and Bath Design and the concept is used in official building regulations. Andrew D. (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point. This can all be covered in the article to which this was previously redirected - if eventually someone expands that section enough, I have no problem with a standalone article on that subject. But the editor who recreated the current page did so in order to change it into a general discussion of rooms and wetness, which is not an encyclopedia-worthy subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I created this article mainly to focus on the specificity troubles linked to humid rooms (for bath but also in the industry - fish, vegetables ... -). electrical troubles and risk of falling on the floor. Anyway delete it is you think this is not encyclopedic ... Pano38 (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shower#Wet room as before. I don't see value in the existing article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the lack of opposition to the final Keep assertions, and added discounting of the ip comment.... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me or my son ever again[edit]

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

The article fails the notability criteria set for web content per WP:WEBCRIT. There are hundreds of memes created each year so it being the "meme of the summer" per several sources is not enough. Catlemur (talk) 09:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my view it complies with the criteria in WP:WEBCRIT. It complies with the first part in that there are multiple sources listed of which the meme is the subject (these sources are not exactly brief either, they go in to some good detail), and it complies with the second part – as stated, multiple identifications as the "meme of the summer 2016". Multiple publications, 3 of which are in the Alexa world top 1000, writing detailed coverage of web content makes it notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --User:Kris159 (talk – legacy) 10:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely un-notable and a random meme at best with an article probably written by the meme's creator Torqueing (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not allyourmemes.com. 118.15.95.75 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment *Sighs" not this crap again. I won't bother making a keep or deletion vote here, but I can rest assure to you, Torqueing, that I created the article but did NOT form the meme, and no valid argument has been given here to delete the article. Kris159 says it best here: I made the article because the meme ACTUALLY HAS SOURCES FROM INDEPENDENT PUBLICATIONS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY COVER THE MEME, and that should always be it. I also have no regrets in creating the Tea Lizard article for this same reason alone. The rationale for deleting an article about a meme because "There are hundreds of memes created each year" is pretty much the same thing as deleting an article about a musical album because hundreds of albums are released every year; there's no proper consideration of the notability or the amount of coverage here. This other argument the nominator made on the article's talk page renders to nothing more than WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, and only shows he wants the article to be deleted only because of how he THINKS the article is important to have on the encyclopedia without taking into consideration the amount of coverage in reliable sources, as previously mentioned. I think it's fair to say that Wikipedia, as far as coverage of Internet topics go, now consists mostly of users that base the notability of a subject on how only THEY THINK the subject is important, not how much reliable coverage a subject has actually received. Not a good sign for the future of the online encyclopedia. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna say do something other than Delete for the reasons I gave above. editorEهեইдအ😎 02:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Every time EditorE leaves a comment it follows the same pattern, he claims that " no valid argument has been given here to delete the article", and then proceeds to use CAPS LOCK to virtually shriek at people who disagree with him. The accusation regarding my talkpage comment is not only baseless but irrelevant since I did not use the comment here. You are in no position to know what I intended by it. The so called "Independent Publications" are on the same level of Buzzfeed, playing on short term popularity and trends that last for a month or so to attract attention. Just as in the case of Tea Lizard this meme does not have what it takes to have a lasting impact as in the case of Unexpected John Cena. Claiming that this meme will become popular enough to be included here is WP:CRYSTAL while retaining it for any other reason is WP:RECENT.--Catlemur (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Before I respond here, I'd like to clarify that when I used CAP LOCKS here, I'm wasn't yelling, I was only using the CAP LOCKS as highlighting the most crucial parts of my comment. Then again, I could've used bolding to do the same thing, but still, it's funny how I have "no position to know what" you intended by your statement on the talk page, but it's OK for you to "know" what I meant to do by using caplocks. Congratulations, you deserve the 2016 world medal of Best Hypocrite of the Year. :D I would be using exclamation points if I was yelling.
  - Now that that's out of the way, the popularity of the meme has gone on long past March 2016, as a big enough indication by the independent The Verge source, and even so, assuming that the meme will have "short term popularity" that would "last for a month or so" would be a WP:CRYSTALBALL statement in the first place as well. It's also OK for you to assume that actual independent sources significantly covering the meme, keyword being "significantly", like Paper magazine, The Daily Dot and New York magazine "are on the same level of Buzzfeed" and that the meme "does not have what it takes to have a lasting impact as in the case of Unexpected John Cena", but I can't assume anything? Not only are you giving me more evidence that you're a hypocrite, but you're also giving me more evidence that your judgment of notability is only based on your non-notability-based assumptions. I know not every meme gets covered in reliable sources, however, when a meme does get covered and analyzed by a lot of sources, I'm going to make an article about it whether you think it's crucial to do so or not. That's how Wikipedia works. I don't know which part of WP:RECENT or WP:WEBCRIT you're reading that's leading to your reason for deleting the article, but I hope that those parts of the policy are removed immediately. Nonsense like starting this nomination only accomplishes disrupting and ruining the coverage of Internet culture on Wikipedia. Hope you're feeling proud of yourself, :) editorEهեইдအ😎 16:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that you read the following guideline before proceeding: WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Instead of WP:REHASHing your rage laden, Tea Lizard tirade.--Catlemur (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm well aware I'm being "WP:UNCIVIL" in your eyes, and it's fine for you to judge behaviors of users. However, that doesn't mean I can't do the same thing, and I have no shame in doing this "uncivil" commenting that really isn't raging in this discussion and only sharing how ridiculous you're acting in the first place. Really, the only way to get the point across is by being this harsh, there really is no other way I'm gonna convince you. If I was gonna be WP:CIVIL, you'd probably continue to start invalidly counter-arguing, but that's just assumption. I also don't how you wouldn't also find arguments in the Tea Lizard deletion discussion like "shame on DYK for running this" and "It is embarrassing that this made it through the DYK process." as WP:UNCIVIL based on this same logic. I know I may be "uncivil" here, but again, I have no shame in doing so and being judged by others is a golden expectation when you're on the Internet.. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the meantime, I'm gonna stop making comments here and go play the Ninja Gaiden NES games instead. Enjoy the discussion, participants. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Kris159, this article's notability is established by several of its sources which discuss various aspect of the article's subject in detail. Unless there is a consensus otherwise, there's no reason to subject coverage of memes to harsher treatment than we would other subjects of equal novelty. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets requirements for coverage in reliable sources such as The Daily Dot, New York (magazine), Paper (magazine), and The Verge.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG per above with ample coverage. No evidence of a WP:COI like some users are claiming - please remember to assume good faith. Smartyllama (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khargra[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boz. No indication of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Aoba47 (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. GentlemanGhost (converse) 06:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per BOZ, above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth United F.C.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:FOOTBALL The creator created the article for a sunday league team, The citations are suspect and I found no real information in a google search. Govvy (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements and lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've restored to the article a couple of sources that were removed by the nominator, one of which was a reference to the history page of the Devon County FA, and added another. They confirm that the first incarnation of the club was a pioneer of football in the West Country and was one of the eight founding members of the Devon FA. Convention for English football club notability is entry into a national cup competition: reliable source FCHD present in the article confirms that the second incarnation of the club entered the FA Cup on multiple occasions. Nominator's statement that the creator "created the article for a sunday league team" is mistaken, as can be seen from the page history: this, from July 2005 is the first substantial version of the page, and the first attempt to introduce the Sunday League team came nearly three years later. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ReplyHow can they be founded in 1886? That's when Argyle was founded! That's the first problem with the first citation you restored. Yes, United played against Argyle according to citation2, but if a new incarnation in 1944 is when they played in the FA Cup 3 times to 1950. Then after that? There will continue to be no article after a few basic facts. How can this be wiki content? How is that Notable? It seems to be there is no notability for the article. Govvy (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've lost me, I'm afraid. The article says United existed by 1886, because that's when they played Argyle in that club's first home match. It doesn't say it was founded in 1886, but even if it had, there's no reason why two clubs can't have been founded in the same year? As to notable content: most articles about football clubs start as a stub with just about enough content to confirm the club's notability. They get expanded when someone cares enough to do some research and expand them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club meets our generally accepted notability criteria of having played in a national cup (three entries to the FA Cup). Number 5 7 22:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in a national competition Spiderone 07:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:FOOTYN, club has played multiple times in a national cup competition, needs expanding not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per argument put forward by Struway. Article passes WP:FOOTYN as the club has played in a national competition. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:FOOTYN and WP:NFOOTYCLUB. Smartyllama (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have played in a national competition passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As already mentioned they appeared in the FA Cup on multiple occasions. I've also updated the article to show they were playing matches at least as far back as 1877, so they were clearly pioneers of the sport in the area. — GasHeadSteve _[TALK] 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussions may be continued on the article's talk page for content focus, and in the case of failure to reach a consensus, there is no prejudice against an early re-nom. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 04:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-reflection[edit]

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

This is entirely uncited waffle. The three cites it has add nothing relevant (one for a description of a painting and two for a single very short quote from Descartes). Should be replaced with a redirect to the closely related introspection. Would be nice if someone did a proper job on this but in the meantime a redirect to introspection is much better than the current junk. None of the existing text is usable. Penbat (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is self-contradictory, stating that the article is entirely uncited but that there are three cites. The article is indeed in need of improvement but this is done by ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. And, to demonstrate the notability of the topic, here's a selection of sources:

Neural correlates of self‐reflection
The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness
A three‐step method of self‐reflection using reflective journal writing
Self‐reflection in critical social work practice: subjectivity and the possibilities of resistance
College physics students' epistemological self-reflection and its relationship to conceptual learning
Empathy and the self-absorption paradox: Support for the distinction between self-rumination and self-reflection
Self-reflection as an element of professionalism
Through the one-way mirror: The limits of experimental self-reflection.
The social basis of self-reflection
Self-reflexivity in Literature

Andrew D. (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for this article since February 2014 and none have been forthcoming. Obviously there are three cites but as I have explained they are worthless. If you want to do this article properly feel free but you will find all of the existing text worthless and you will be hard pushed to differentiate it from introspection to which I suggest a redirect is made. 98% of the existing text could justifiably be deleted right now as it is uncited. The other 2% is cited but is irrelevant to the subject so that can justifiably be deleted as well.--Penbat (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I too wonder how it differs from introspection. Regarding "Self-reflexivity in Literature," I believe that would be at least as much works that reflect, rather than people? On that, I see we do have Self-reference, too. And, more formally, Metafiction, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the OED,

"Introspection, n, – The action of looking within, or into one's own mind; examination or observation of one's own thoughts, feelings, or mental state."

"Self-reflection, n. – Reflection, meditation, or serious thought as to one's character, actions, motives, etc."

The former is concerned only with one's inner life or mind while the latter is a contemplation of all aspects of oneself. For example, it is interesting to find that self-reflection is repeatedly used as a technique in medical training, in which student medics and nurses review their experiences and values as a form of professional development. See “What's Important to You?”: The Use of Narratives To Promote Self-Reflection and To Understand the Experiences of Medical Residents. There are, of course, many other similar concepts such as self-esteem, self-awareness, self-consciousness, &c. These are important topics but difficult to do well. But notice that they are all blue links and have separate pages. Crude deletion has no place in our development of such pages. Andrew D. (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained that in principle I am happy to let someone make a proper job of it. It is not "crude deletion", it is a redirect to the related introspection in the meantime so obviously it would not be a redlink. There has been absolutely no improvement in this article for years. If you have the motivation to do a proper job good for you. But it is best to ditch all the existing text as it is 100% junk and instead try to produce something reasonable from scratch in a sandbox. Changing this article to a redirect is not a life sentence, it could be converted back to an article if and when "self-reflection" is ever done properly. But in the meantime a redirect is better than keeping the existing junk. The words "reflection" or "self-reflection" barely even appear in the existing text.--Penbat (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Andrew Davidson. --Fixuture (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a fundamental misunderstanding here which I did try to explain. Andrew Davidson explained at length that self-awareness is an important subject and related subjects are blue linked. I completely agree. But that is totally irrelevant to the points I have raised above:

the fact that the existing text in the article is 100% junk
the fact that introspection is a closely related subject and a redirect to introspection is preferable to the existing junk text which can be justifiably be deleted anyway as 98% is uncited and the cited 2% is not relevant to the subject.
the fact that nobody has bothered to improve this article for years inspite of having one article-wide banner tag plus ten inline tags.
the fact that if the day ever came that someone wanted to make a proper job of it, it would be dead easy to revert it back from a redirect to a separate "self awareness" article.
the fact that I clearly explained why this is not a proposed "crude deletion".

None of the existing self-awareness text serves any purpose. If this article were ever to be done properly it needs to be done from scratch in a sandbox.

Fixuture needs to explain his case further rather than just saying "Keep per User:Andrew Davidson" and address the points I made after Andrew Davidson.

--Penbat (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If "self-reflection" as it stands was submitted as a new article for creation under WP:CREATE and WP:AFCP it would fail by a mile.--Penbat (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article needs a thorough overhaul at the very least, but there is a notable distinction between reflection and introspection, partly along the lines of Andrew D.'s statement, but also partly along more philosophical lines. The Library of Congress uses two distinct subject headings for Reflection (Philosophy) and Introspection. Someone who wants to improve this article and distinguish it from the latter article may want to seek out books cataloged under the former one. Alternatively, they may want to consult the Oxford Handbook of Contemporary Phenomenology article "Phenomenological method: reflection, introspection, and skepticism", which argues for a distinction between reflection and introspection. (If the article develops along those lines, it might be usefully retitled "Reflection (Philosophy)" or "Philosophical reflection" rather than "Self-reflection".) JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine. All we need is someone with the willingness to do the work which has not been apparent for years. I suspect that, as Andrew D. has made a big issue of this, it is most likely down to him to do the work. But whatever, I maintain that none of the existing text is usable and it needs to be developed from scratch with a clean slate in a sandbox. It is way beyond editing policy.--Penbat (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments relate to "reflection" not "self-reflection". How do they differ?--Penbat (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the current article has issues, but the topic is important in philosophy and psychology and history, and sources can be found. Not sure if the name of the article might be changed (?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as A10; page is an exact copy of Kozhencherry. — Diannaa (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kozhencherry (Kerala)[edit]

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

While a town of this size is certainly notable, the page in its current form is nothing but promotion of the city and statements of unreferenced stats. This is a new editor who has written an entirely unreferenced page that would required extensive work by another editor to make it meet standards. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So if I understand correctly, you're not contesting that it meets WP:GEOLAND -- just that it's in such a state that WP:TNT might apply. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: yes to the first part, possibly to the second? I take issue with people creating pages that are no where near up to standard but then not being able to delete them because the page's subject is notable. I want to be clear, I'm not just talking about a few formatting issues when I say "not up to standard". The page would have to be completely rewritten for it to satisfy any formatting and style guides. Basically now that the page is there, someone else has to fix it. It seems more appropriate (IMHO) to delete the page until such time as a properly done page can be created. Does that make sense? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can see that. Thing is, I can't make head nor tail of the redirect issue raised below, so I think I'll just leave it at tagging and move on... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Shawn in Montreal: looks like someone previously made this page at Kozhencherry and it was redirected. I believe the IP below is saying the content should be moved to Kozhencherry. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Kozhencherry, which was disruptively redirected by an administrator to the district when it should simply have been sourced, as obviously notable. Who needs vandals when we have admins to do their work for them? If there are problems with this article then they can easily be fixed by editing, including, if really necessary, deleting everything apart from the first sentence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh manickavelu[edit]

I am not trying to create an article about 'Suresh Manickavelu'. It is just a draft. As an Wikipedia user, i have the privilege to create drafts. kindly request you not to delete the Draft:Suresh Manickavelu' Page. I am not creating an article just a draft.

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

Non-notable. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost-unsourced BLP and blatantly promotional. If kept and cut down to the RSes, it would be about two lines - David Gerard (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I concur with David Gerard's assessment; promotional biography, of a non-notable individual. Not seeming to find any Google news hits either. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Crizildaa[edit]

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

Non-notable person Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as entirely PR, from the beginning information, to the photo and then to the end; no substance at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable PR puff piece.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copycatt[edit]

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

I don't think this qualifies for SPEEDY, but I can't find solid evidence of notability either, either through WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. I came up empty on a books/news/google search for reliable, independent information, but came up empty. Perhaps someone with better skills than myself can rescue this, if notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can't find any evidence of notability after a search for web sources. As the nom says, I'm willing to be persuaded if somebody else manages to find something. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also came up empty for any independent sources. All of the sources currently on the page are directly related to the subject, with the exception of the Triple J contest, and I don't know if that's enough to meet WP:MUSIC. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC & WP:GNG. Only real coverage is for a radio station remix contest. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ek deewana aisa bhi (drama)[edit]

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

There's no indication of notability, but there is also no speedy-deletion criteria for films. I couldn't find anything regarding the topic except for a bit of promotional material. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This future film is not even listed in IMDb yet. The only source provided is a Facebook page. When there are more reliable sources available that discuss the film, the page can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As North America indicates below, this is actually a play rather than a film. However, no independent sources have been provided to help establish the play's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No coverage in reliable sources. Also has promotional overtones. Vanamonde (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per this link in the article, this appears to be a play, rather than a film. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally nominated this for CSD because it only had the link to the Facebook page, however the updated page does not seem to provide it is notable. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not able to find any reliable sources for the page. Can't say for now if this is even a real movie. No information available about the director also. Maybe it's his debut. One thing is sure that this is certainly not notable. Pratyush 01:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)
Delete: It hasn't been published/performed/released yet, whichever it is. If it becomes notable when it is, then a review might be necessary. • DP • ^{huh?} 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne War on Street Gangs[edit]

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

Article is fully unsourced and does not to be encyclopedic. The event and ongoing police action is already covered here: Apex (gang)#Police crackdown, which means this may be CSD worthy. Prod removed by author. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article name is not used anywhere else but on wikipedia. While Victoria police have an operation cosmos it is not a "war on street gangs" - see here. This is just a sensationalist name for normal police activity. Nothing notable. noq (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially as per WP:TNT and the above. Any pertinent coverage of this alleged "war" ought to be at Apex (gang) and/or maybe Gangs in Australia. GAB^gab 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blampied[edit]

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

Looks to fail WP:BIO, but perhaps more importantly we have a BLP which cites only Twitter and an official site. Also "internet sensation"? Possibly CSDable (A7/G11), but as that's happened a couple times before let's give it a chance at AfD and salt it if there's consensus to delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am familiar with him and WhatCulture (and a fan of their videos at that), however being a "internet sensation" there aren't enough outside reliable sources to verify his notability. Just performing a search under the "News" link above, there are a number of hits, but most from the WhatCulture site. If the WCPW and WhatCulture site continue to grow, I'd definitely see his page returning, as of now it's just a bit too soon. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has been deleted a number of times (and re-created) with no attempt to provide any RS to show notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above, no real attempt to establish notability. Mattlore (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find it puzzling that the creator of this article decided to go with twitter/youtube/wrestling to try and establish GNG, when it appears this guy has other sources about him, being a member of The Beta Males - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or his debut screenplay for Eugene - 6, 7, 8, 9, and a couple of press releases from HighBeam - 10, 11. Granted, I don't think this is enough to satisfy GNG, but still a curious choice to go with twitter and youtube.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. JTP ^(talk) 02:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing alone (just YouTube?) is grounds for me to suggest this does not have the sufficient reliable 3rd party coverage required for meeting GNG. But I would urge against salting because he may become notable in future if WCPW picks up. (CRYSTAL I know but BLUE) Plus they'd probably make it part of a storyline "Adam Blampied Banned From Wikipedia" which likely would lead to unwanted media and IP attention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it wasn't for Isaidnoway's comment I'd be saying Speedy Delete. I am getting fed up with the WhatCulture Pro Wrestling spam machine. One of their events is called "Refuse to Lose" (I have its article tagged for speedy deletion) and unfortunately that seems to sum up their attitude to Wikipeda too. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of different editors have been submitting nonsense about WCPW recently. If they really are a random bunch of pro-wrestling fans all labouring under the same genuine mistaken belief that their favourite stuff on YouTube should have Wikipedia articles then that is just one of those things that we have to deal with but if there is any sign of collusion or sockpuppetry then it will be time to take a much harder line. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling (Closed, article deleted) may also be of interest. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allumination FilmWorks[edit]

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

Non-notable film production company. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. All but one reference provided are primary sources to the now-defunct website of this company. Mikeblas (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable at all 105.142.237.112 (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually establishing both independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability nor independent RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftified by author. Now at Draft:Jeffrey N. Price. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey N. Price[edit]

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

I see no notability here. References are all sideways, so to speak--he's mentioned here and there, but it's all on blogs, and there is no depth to them. So his camera and stuff are listed on a website. He took commercial photos for whiskey and for a truck--but what we are given is not proof that he's "known" for that, but rather links to the websites that use those photos but don't mention his name. Besides, we need secondary sourcing. No, I don't see notability here. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Dermis said. I tried to eradicate the poor sourcing already, but that would have left absolutely nothing- or his name at the minimum. The sources are:
Wildscotsman- A blog, edited by the public;
Landrover- No confirmation of his work on the site;
Marvel- Another blog, which even the article acknowledges is only a mention;
Marvel: 'Take My Trade'- No mention of 'his part' that he supposedly played at all;
Comoicvine- Price's own blog? In any case, WP:PRIMARY.
Next two sourcess as above;
Japan Camera Hunter- possibly the closest we get to a third-party source; appears to be a fansite (albeit a serious one), but still ultimately WP:PRIMARY;
Emulsive.org- A zine of sourcs which merely links to Price's Twitter feed;
Schneider- Passing references to Jeff Price: his commentary rather than about him.

Fails WP:CREATIVE, specifically 'The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.'; fails WP:BASIC as not having been 'eceived significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject; and ultimately failing WP:GNG on account of that. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing to rising to the level of notability. No significant attention, nor RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guts and Glory[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic currently lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, WP:crystalball. Not notable at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly enough sourcing to establish notability. It might have a better chance at meeting notability guidelines after it's released, but until then...--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted G7 by Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 18:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gubbaare[edit]

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

Non notable short film. Unsourced and google searches not finding any significant coverage noq (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, more editing is just adding peacock terms with no references to back them up Killer Moff (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needs independent sources but has none. - MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Footprints Recruiting (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Last AfD in 2010 ended as no consensus with 2 editors arguing there is coverage - all I see are mentions in passing, i.e. WP:GOOGLETEST. At best, I found one source that is about something the company did rather then just naming it in passing in the ESL industry context, [8], and I don't think that suffices to make it notable. It is just your average SME doing its stuff. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too am unconvinced by what's there - David Gerard (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly consider this speedy material. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 12:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Burstin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Coverage is limited to namedrops in connection with her business rather than significant biographical coverage. PROD contest by IP without comment. shoy (reactions) 14:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A clearly promotional bio, at poor at that. Fails WP:BIO by a longshot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to mycause. Article is promotional, and any notability is tied to her organization -- which we do have an article for. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Open – Wheelchair Quad Doubles[edit]

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

Won't be played. 333 -blue 13:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above. In every four years (example years such as 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016) don't play wheelchair events due to conflict with the Paralympic Games which that event is always included. I am a Grand Slam a fan and know with the facts. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no event this year. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Open – Wheelchair Women's Doubles[edit]

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

Won't be played. 333 -blue 13:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above. In every four years (example years such as 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016) don't play wheelchair events due to conflict with the Paralympic Games which that event is always included. I am a Grand Slam a fan and know with the facts. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Open – Wheelchair Men's Doubles[edit]

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

Won't be played. 333 -blue 13:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above. In every four years (example years such as 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016) don't play wheelchair events due to conflict with the Paralympic Games which that event is always included. I am a Grand Slam a fan and know with the facts. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles[edit]

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

Won't be played. 333 -blue 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above. In every four years (example years such as 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016) don't play wheelchair events due to conflict with the Paralympic Games which that event is always included. I am a Grand Slam a fan and know with the facts. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Open – Wheelchair Women's Singles[edit]

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

Won't be played. 333 -blue 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above. In every four years (example years such as 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016) don't play wheelchair events due to conflict with the Paralympic Games which that event is always included. I am a Grand Slam a fan and know with the facts. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ApprenticeFan: Can you provide references to support your assertion? Hmlarson (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 US Open – Wheelchair Men's Singles[edit]

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

Won't be played. 333 -blue 13:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@333-blue: Would putting these articles up for speedy deletion be the best move. Have them gone before the tournament progresses too far? --F1lover22 talk 13:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A dedicated section (or maybe just an anchor) could be created in 2016 US Open (tennis) and all these article titles redirected to that. (The lack of wheelchair events is currently mentioned in the "Tournament" section.) - dcljr (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as above. In every four years (example years such as 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 and 2016) don't play wheelchair events due to conflict with the Paralympic Games which that event is always included. I am a Grand Slam a fan and know with the facts. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Bridge[edit]

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

Author of self-help books. Fails WP:AUTHOR and rather blatantly written as an advertisement. Article written by SPA years ago and then built up by another SPA in 2012, so obviously this is self-promotion. Tagged for many years; article issues recently noted on project page, overdue for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good Lord, this is blatant. Hypothetically she sounds like she should be notable, in practice the rules are that a BLP must have RSes and this literally has zero. What on earth. I'm willing to be convinced, but it'll need non-hypothetical RSes and lots of them. Then the article being culled down to something based strictly on them - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Reddy[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously speedily deleted. Nothing here gets close to notability. Own website, ITunes and google play adverts, press releases for film he has been in but nothing independent and reliable that show notability . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep the page alive, just added an external link to the page which is sourced from independent news paper about Akshay Reddy. https://issuu.com/postnoon/docs/postnoon_epaper_for_27_december_2011/c/smr7h24 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poker2065 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Poker2065 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references look convincing that he has done notable work and was part of very good projects.Recharla09 (talk 03:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Recharla09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Poker2065 and Recharla09 are Confirmed sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaddam24.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which has now been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akshay Reddy. Turns out we have no less than three confirmed sockpuppets of Mr. Reddy himself, working to promote himself on Wikipedia and defend this at Afd, under a variety of guises. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. If I understand correctly, this article was created once before and salting may be advisable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shawn in Montreal: if this vandal keeps coming up, we might as well salt it. Also, the article itself is very, very sloppy. 96.237.16.54 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to habilitation. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Professorial degree[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that "professor" as an academic degree (as opposed to a job title) exists. The only evidence provided (on the talk page and past revisions of the page) has been the odd CV or (auto)biographical faculty profile. These cannot be used as reliable sources about the existence and nature of the degree. What we require are references to national laws, or published university regulations, that establish the exact name of the degree and the requirements for conferring it. No one has been able to provide such a source in the six years this article has been in existence. (See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 1#Category:Professorial degrees.) Psychonaut (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequately sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to habilitation. Nobody has managed to find a good source for this in six years. I can't find any evidence such a degree exists separately in Poland or Germany, as claimed. The only mentions I've been able to find use as a translation of the habilitation or equivalent [9][10][11][12][13], which makes sense as it is a degree that qualifies one to be a professor, or the rare appearance of the word "professor" in Medieval degrees (e.g. Sacrae Theologiae Professor, considered to be equivalent to a doctorate). I suspect that's the usage that the article originally was supposed to cover, since the claim that professorial degrees exist separately to and "higher than a habilitation" was added without citation in 2012 Joe Roe (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to habilitation. I agree with Joe Roe - this is simply a translation of habilation into English, e.g. [14] and (ironically) [15] who was used as an example on the talk page 6 years ago! Robminchin (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article will be moved to NATO Enhanced Forward Presence next. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British Forces Eastern Europe[edit]

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

I don't see any indication that this is an actual military formation. The name is also seemingly invented (no hits outside Wiki and its mirrors). Yes, some British soldiers will be deployed within NATO to bases in Eastern Europe, but this seems to be more or less business as usual for NATO. The deployment generated some news coverage, but it does not seem notable as a stand alone article. If this is something more that indeed merits its inclusion in Template:British Forces deployments - like being an equivalent of British Forces Germany which the article implies with no sources to back that - this needs better sources I can find. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a start this a NATO initiative, not purely a British one, with Germany taking the lead role in Lithuania, the US in Poland and Canada in Latvia. The deployment appears to be called by NATO "enhanced forward presence". This should be covered somewhere in our articles on NATO, without disconnecting the British troops from the overall context.--86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, but rename The standing deployment of British Army combat forces in Eastern Europe is clearly notable - there's been lots of coverage of the announcement of this, and we can confidently expect ongoing coverage. It's also not "business as usual for NATO" as this is a significant new initiative which reverses the British Army's withdrawal from continental Europe. The title of the article doesn't seem accurate, but this is an entirely viable topic. I agree with the IP editor above that this could be rolled into a broader article (eg, like the rather under-developed article on the US equivalent Operation Atlantic Resolve), but there's no reason to delete. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename per Nick-D. The NATO Enhanced Forward Presence does seem notable so this article could be used as the basis for an article on it (given that the British deployment is a subset of the wider initiative which also involves the US, Germany and Canada). Alternatively, we could merge and redirect to the NATO article and include a section in the "Military operations" section. Anotherclown (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Hasan Shahriar[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR article does not passed the criteria. And also the person is not known widely and not awarded for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique in his literary works. At the present time he dose not passed notability for the Wikipedia article. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NAUTHOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User Talk:Raiyan24r —Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted) 64.134.243.113 (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think there is a very narrow consensus to delete here. The salient argument to keep is from Stuartyeates who points out blog posts about the subject by noted academics like Peter Murray-Rust and Ian Bogost, but the purpose of their posts is to critique IGI Global's disreputable practices. While I think an argument can be made that these gentlemen represent reliable sources, I don't think their posts qualify as in-depth coverage as demanded by the WP:GNG. I'm not personally going to salt the article because I think there could be a good, well-sourced article that actually reflects the company's perception within academia as a "vampire press" and not the bland bit of first-party-sourced PR fluff being considered in this discussion. A Train^talk 17:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global[edit]

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

The sources establish that the company exists, but no more than that. Beall considers the company to be worthless and its publications borderline predatory, but even that is hard to source as it's not open access so not included in his list of predatory journals. The "sources" are directories and a press release from IGI, there are no independent sources about the company. Evidence of WP:ITEXISTS does not meet WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 06:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete wow this is a great example of WP:NOTWEBHOST. But I am confused - there was a prior AfD in 2012 that ended with no consensus, but the current article was created yesterday. Was this PRODed or speedied or something? Jytdog (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jytdog: It was speedied under WP:A7 last week. Someone (Stuartyeates, I believe) asked at ANI why the history of both the article and its talk page disappeared and an admin answered. Turns out it was deleted and subsequently recreated. -- Gestrid (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - ah, thanks! permalink to that ANI section is here, for the record. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage, see https://copy-shake-paste.blogspot.co.nz/2007/12/write-only-publications.html http://bogost.com/writing/blog/writeonly_publication/ https://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2011/07/16/what%E2%80%99s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-new-journal-spam-and-%E2%80%9Copen-access%E2%80%9D/ etc. What we need is a consensus that these critical blog posts constitute reliable sources. Since these are academics writing about things they've discovered in the course of their professional work and in the absence of independent response, I'd say they are. (Note that this is a change in my position from the previous AfD) Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interestingly WP:PARITY like argument. Hm. User:Randykitty, thoughts on this Afd and the above sources? Jytdog (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment: in good faith I should also point out https://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/06/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2013/ (which isn't in depth but may be authoritative in this field) and http://fakeconference.blogspot.co.nz/2014/02/googling-fake-conferences-we-found-2.html (which is in depth, doesn't not appear to be reliable). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt No notability? No thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it fails WP:GNG. The sources above might be reliable sources for some things, but I don't think they constitute notability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're also mostly WP:BLOGS, which, in most cases, shouldn't be used to establish notability. -- Gestrid (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:COMPANY in particular WP:ORGSIG. MarnetteD|Talk 15:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tom and Gestrid.74.70.146.1 (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my point above. I know you know my view of this, but I wanted to make a formal vote. -- Gestrid (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — there are 116,000 hits under Google Scholar for publications published by or referencing IGI Global, many with high citation counts. I believe it would be impossible to fake to this level without notability. I know of worthwhile papers published by IGI Global (or Idea Group Publishing) from personal experience too. I note as well that Wikipedia itself references quite a few publications published in IGI Global. The samples I have viewed look worthwhile. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A publisher does categorically not inherit notability from works they publish. As much as I !voted keep above, if we have to rely on arguments such as these, we have to delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What else is a publisher notable for if not their published works? Is not an author not notable for their published works? Etc. I could not see anything under WP:INHERITED against this. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By default, we generally expect a subject to be notable when it's received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. That's coverage of the subject in particular, not of notable works tied to it. For some subjects we have subject-specific notability criteria which grant notability under certain scenarios -- like a musical group with two independently notable musicians, or winning an Academy Award, or holding a named/endowed professorship at a university. The idea isn't to short circuit the need for sources, but to say that these conditions make it so there will be sources. Sometimes that means we get permastubs or articles sourced almost entirely to coverage of its component subjects, but meh. Anyway, we don't have that sort of thing for publishers, as far as I know. Most relevant is WP:ORG. There was a proposal for Wikipedia:Notability (publishing) but it failed pretty hard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ORGSIG: "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I would argue that the above demonstrates this in science, perhaps education too. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note also that WorldCat lists over 100,000 publications related to IGI Global, hardly an insignificant number. The company has been in existence since 1988, hardly an insignificant time (nearly thirty years). Some Wikipedia editors may not approve of the publisher, but that is a different matter. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat stats would only be relevant if libraries did selection based largely on publisher, which seems unlikely; much more likely these are compilations of academic works which are then purchased by the libraries of the universities at which the academic authors work. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that IGI Global book titles are indexed in the ACM Digital Library (e.g., see here), the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography, the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and the Thomson Reuters Book Citation Index. IGI Global journals are listed by Cabell's Directories, Compendex, Inspec, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Thomson Reuters. All are reputable indexes. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I edited books with them in the past. My perception of their standing is that they are an OK publisher, but definitely not a premium one. They push really hard to get authors/editors, and to sell books to libraries, but they are not predatory like some ("pay-per-print", etc.). They rely on the editors' own ability to provide goood peer review (risky), and I'm pretty sure they accept a large range of proposals, as long as they think they'll be able to sell to libraries (they do keep quality allowing them to do that though, and their books are bought by good universities, too). From my experience, I'd put them on par with Peter Lang, but definitely a notch lower than Ashgate Publishing or Edward Elgar Publishing, to say nothing of the premium league as MIT Press or Stanford University Press. All in all, my view is that information of such caliber publishers is useful, as long as they are cited and mentioned in rankings/catalogues (per Jonathan's remarks), but the perception of minimal threshold of notability naturally varies. However, it would be even more useful to have rigid, concrete criteria for notability for academic presses. Pundit|utter 12:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this assessment. In my view, publishers listed by reputable indexes such as the ACM Digital Library (the ACM is the leading computer science professional body internationally), Scopus, etc., are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. These can be considered under the following from WP:ORGIND in my view: "Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as [...] websites". An explicit list of acceptable indexes for academic publishers would be useful. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether a company/publisher is good or bad is actually immaterial to this discussion. What is needed is in-depth sources about the publisher. None of the sources currently in the article is anything more than a directory entry (ignoring press releases and links to IGI Global's own website). I am somewhat receptive to Stuartyeates' arguments, but in the end I don't think that those blog posts should be all that we use to base notability upon. --Randykitty (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general, we need to avoid using WP:BLOGS as sources, anyway, especially to establish something as important as notability (which, as all or most of us know, is the general answer to whether or not we should write an article on the subject). -- Gestrid (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If we have an article, those blogs from respected academics could be used to source content, but as I said, I'm hesitant to base notability on them. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For academic publishers, inclusion in respected indexes as in this case is a good indication of notability. This is an example of WP:COMMONSENSE. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For academic journals we take inclusion in respected databases only as a sign of notability if said databases are selective. So inclusion in DOAJ or Google Scholar does not contribute to notability, even though those are respected. In the present case, none of the databases concerned are selective but instead try to be comprehensive, so I don't think that inclusion in them contributes any notability, it just confirms that the company exists. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Digital Library and DBLP are selective in computer science, only including reputable entries. Note that IGI Global has multiple agreements with academic organizations around the world, with independent articles covering this. I have added a few non-exhaustive referenced examples. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same kind of "selectivity" that DOAJ and GScholar have. They both still strive for comprehensiveness, the former in indexing OA journals (but excluding those that are shown to be predatory, the latter including any periodical, provided that it is an academic journal. Neither is selective in the sense that they only include the best journals in their respective fields of interest (like, say Scopus or the ATLA Religion Database). --Randykitty (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global publications are listed by Scopus and other indexes too. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the rather fundamental point that inclusion only indicates that something is likely to be notable. Notability on Wikipedia is established by non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Not directories. Not indexes. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are not the references by Council of Australian University Librarians, EBSCO, Naseej, SHERPA (University of Nottingham), etc., as included in the article, WP:RELIABLE? — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are non-selective directory-style databases. The phonebook is reliable. Being listed in it is routine and does not confer notability. --Randykitty (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Naseej references is a news item. The Typefi reference is a case study. Etc. Even the directories are selective of reputable publishers. Taken together, I believe these multiple sources demonstrate WP:Notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Typefi thing is a promotional piece by the company producing Typefi. The Nasee piece is a promotional press release. The "sources" used in this article are starting to near G11 territory: one of them is even a (completely inappropriate) promotional slide presentation of the company and its products! --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But for and by other companies rather than IGI Global. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Naseej and Typefi references http://naseej.com/News/Saudi-Digital-Library-and-IGI-Global?feed=news and https://www.typefi.com/solutions/case-studies/igi-global/ are from people in a commercial relationship with the vendor. There is no way they can be used to meet the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: Hai-Jew, Shalin (2015). "Profiling an Entity across Multiple Social Media Platforms". Colleague 2 Colleague. Fall/Winter (16). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"About the Author / Shalin Hai-Jew works as an instructional designer at Kansas State University. She has worked with IGI-Global on several publishing projects." So not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can you do a serious study of an organization without any contact with them? I think you are taking things to extremes. Kansas State University is independent of IGI Global. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also: "Publisher Profile: IGI Global". Against the Grain. 24 (2). 2012. doi:10.7771/2380-176X.6144. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seen. Interview with IGI staffer plus database-style listing of facts about the company, it's people and it's product. No evidence that any information on in that was supplied by anyone but IGI, so not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and salt since this has been repeatedly re-created). I see no significant, in-depth, third-party coverage from reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 19:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am unhappy that my response to this entry was moved without my consent – see history. This is like rewriting history 1984-style, but fortunately Wikipedia keeps its history. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — In summary, while no one reference or academic index listing constitutes "notability", I believe that as a collection of evidence not included in the previous IGI Global entry they do, even with deletions by an editor. I would ask that this comment not be moved or changed by another editor. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep This seems like a borderline case to me. IGI Global published 180 journals, and a few of them (I don't know the exact proportion but see e.g. [16] and [17]) have impact factors, which makes those journals notable. Now WP:INHERIT applies to some extent, but here I don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by making IGI Global turn red, so I'm willing to WP:IAR a little given what's written in the article is good, well supported, and the question "Who is IGI Global?" is I feel something Wikipedia needs to be able to answer. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilcock[edit]

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

Non-notable occultist and peddler of fringe theories. Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most search results are about different David Wilcocks. The subject is not significantly notable and the page's current references are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage of this person in reliable, independent sources. Other than the book sales listings, the current references are to credulous, fringe sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the article creator, let me just begin by saying that I don't even remember starting this article and I don't even know who this is. Similar to the claim above, I think I may even be a different DRosenbach! :) But seriously, if he's on the NYT best sellers list, how can one refer to him as "non-notable." I'm no authority on David Wilcocks A vs David Wilcocks B, but I checked him up on Audiobooks and it appears to be the same guy -- correct me and the article if I am wrong. As it stands, I just don't see the argument for deleting this article. And if he's a peddler of fringe theories, we may not like him and we may want him censored or silenced, but again, this hardly seems grounds for deleting his article. He appears to be a quite notable person who writes books that are so popular that they appear on a list of popular books in one of the most prominent newspapers on the entire planet. And as for the poor references and poor coverage of this individual, it appears that those who complain are merely doubly charged with being bold. The solution to poorly structured and organized articles is to fix them, not to delete them. And I just checked the log for the first attempt at deletion -- nothing seems to have changed, so how can this be brought up again so soon. Maybe in 10 years he'll have disappeared into oblivion, but if he's still on the NYT best seller's list, I see this second attempt at cheating to form an agreeing consensus. Articles should be deleted by consensus of those espousing Wikipedia's virtues and values, not a consensus of subsets of people who want this article deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is no consensus that every author of a book that reaches the NYT best seller list is inherently notable. Please read WP:NAUTHOR and provide references to independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this person. As for the previous debate, it closed as "no consensus" well over two years ago.There is nothing at all unusual about another deletion debate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete dearth of independent sources with significant discussion of this person. Jytdog (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed since we last had this discussion, so I reproduce my argument here: This is a borderline case, and it may be that Wilcock will become notable in the future, but WP:AUTHOR here does not seem to be met, nor is he identified as notable per WP:FRINGEBLP. He has two books that sold well. He appears in the sensationalist media talking about spiritualism. Wait a few years and see if his Q-rating takes off and we can consider whether this WP:BLP should be included. Until then, it's best to remove this biography for falling just below the notability thresholds. jps (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Best-selling NYT author, multiple appearances on very notable Ancient Aliens tv show. This man is clearly notable within his community. Also, biased nom: "peddler of fringe theories". -- œ^™ 09:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no independent sources discussing the person, there is no way to write the article. The nom is not biased. It is a fact that David Wilcock promotes just about the most way out-on-a-limb ideas you can possibly discover. Until there is a notability rule at Wikipedia which states that WP:ANCIENT ALIENS appearances are notable, we'll just take your argument about his appearance on that show with its appropriate grain of salt. jps (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's biased. What he does should not be included as a reason for deletion. -- œ^™ 15:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to WP:PROFRINGE, WP:NFRINGE, WP:BLPFRINGE what a person does is absolutely relevant because the sourcing that needs to be done to determine notability of the person needs to be independent of the fringe theory being promoted. If the fringe nature of the ideas that are the main currency of the biography are not mentioned, commentators at other AfDs have historically gotten confused over what constitutes a reliable source and what does not. In this case, for example, I have been unsuccessful in locating any source that is outside of the epistemic closure of those extreme true-believers in pseudohistory. I find absolutely zero WP:MAINSTREAM sources that actually have commented on this guy's obviously fantastical proposals. And please understand that they are wholly fantastical. Unless there are serious sources that have evaluated his ideas (i.e., not fringe sources), Wikipedia is ill-equipped to be able to write a biography on a person who, with a straight face, advocates that the moon is a giant spaceship built by aliens from the planet Elektra who were exiled to Mars after a their planet exploded. The only biographies of fringe believers we should have on Wikipedia are those which are able to be sourced to independent sources. It is, frankly, surprising that a person with sysop rights would be oblivious to this consensus understanding of how notability should be judged in these cases. I am more than a little concerned. jps (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You should have absolutely no concern with my ability to judge notability, which by the way has little to do with me be a sysop and the work I do as admin. I have a very good eye for notability, thank you. A subject's choice of occupation should absolutely not be included in any reason for deletion. Laugh at all his wacky theories you want, but he does have multiple independant coverage, of him in bios, but these sources are almost always found inside that fringe theories community which is itself notable mind you, and has its own independant reliable sources that can be used in an article that deals with this subject matter. Try finding anything outside of the paranormal/fringe theory community and of course you're going to find nothing but biased articles pooh-poohing him away. The fringe theories standards are too high, and I disagree with the relevant guidelines/policies, but I'm not going to waste my time getting stressed out over nothing when nothing will ever get done anyway. -- œ^™ 02:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, admitting that you are opposed to the content guideline is I guess fair enough. Usually that's not a winning argument in deletion discussions, but there are proud traditions of Wikipedians thumbing their noses at the rules, I guess. At this point, I would happily settle for any example of a "biased article" that pooh-poohed him away as a means to establish notability. jps (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. œ^™ 09:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, that sourcing is unacceptably lacking in WP:RSes for a WP:BLP - and I say that thinking he's someone who should pass prima facie notability, per the "keep" opinions above ... but we can't have a BLP that isn't solidly backed up with RSes - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I'm surprised that we cannot find sources that satisfy WP:FRIND regarding this person as he has been making noise for the better part of 20 years about everything from channeling and (re)popularizing Edgar Cayce to Y2K to the face on Mars to 2012 doomsday. It seems that other fringe theorists have gotten all the attention for the various claims. The detractors I have found writing about him are all true believers! It's really strange. jps (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:AUTHOR and lacking independent RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superficial referenciness does not stand up to even cursory examination. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - this is valuable information, wholly creditable, by a NOTABLE author. Those who wish to delete this Wiki entry have hostile attitudes towards new age concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.158.9 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 2nd nomination? It looks like some “editors” are either addicted, or obsessed on deletions. So, not really an “edition,” no? Supposedly deletion should be reserved exclusively to those parts whose contents have original research or illegal apologias. But being more objective what most matters to Wikipedia is that is easily verifiable that Wilcock is really notable. That said though, I simply don’t buy him. In my bias I see him just as a delusional guy or perhaps an artist of disinformation. Anyway is priceless to find a good site like Wikipedia where readers can have some background about him, just like I did. Anyway, FWIW as many other anemic articles and stubs in Wikipedia also this article must exist and should be expanded with details in which make it more complete and informative. Lignovitae (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that we could, but alas, there does not seem to be any reliable sources written about this person. There are a lot of dubious sources written about him, of course, but nothing that I can find which would allow us to write a sufficiently neutral biography on the fellow (the current article is basically a paen to his supposed abilities which is doing the reader no good). If you can find some sources, please share them with us! jps (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing the reliable, significant/in-depth, third-party coverage. Neutrality^talk 18:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any real coverage in independent, reliable sources. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KCIZ-LP[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station with an active construction permit and conducting transmitter tests, but not yet in full operation. WP:NMEDIA, however, requires us to wait until a station is broadcasting before we start an article about it, because things can happen in the meantime that cause the station to never launch and have its CP expire unbuilt (see, for example, the 10+ stations I nominated earlier today for which that exact thing happened.) No prejudice against recreation once it launches for real, but it's not a suitable article topic yet. Bearcat (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; conducting "Test the Transmitter Weekends" certainly indicates that this station is much closer to launching than most of the other unlaunched stations that have been nomination for deletion of late, but it's still unlaunched for all intents and purposes. Unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's too soon to determine if the station will ever fully launch (they have until January 16, 2017 to do so). There's nothing verifiable out there to indicate KCIZ-LP is broadcasting full-time yet. That the station has announced that it is testing the transmitter makes this !vote weaker than in other nominations, but it just isn't enough to save this article yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 00:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shilpa Singh[edit]

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

Singh has never won any major beauty pageant. She lost the Miss India competion, but was made winner when her predecessor was disqualified. She then lost at Miss Universe. We lack enough coverage of her for the article to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She did win, even if it was because of someone else's disqualification. Nearly all of the Miss Universe 2012 contestants have articles. I don't see why she should be excluded, seeing as she represented a large country and ranked in the top 16 in the competition. She gets a bit of newspaper coverage.[18][19] Clarityfiend (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally think that Miss Universe and Miss World contestants are notable considering that these 2 are the world biggest pageants. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She won by disqualification only, and as mentioned very little coverage. Iazyges (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I AM She – Miss Universe India as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added 3 sources to the article. Let me know if more is required. Sources are available in abundance. Pratyush Sinha Pratyush 03:39, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference - Adding some references here - Deccan Herald, The New Indian Express, CNN-News18, India Today, Deccan Chronicle, Popsugar.com, Firstpost, DNA, Zee News. Pratyush 07:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)

Keep: Pratyush's sourcing gives this a HEY. p b p 13:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Pratyush. Sources meet WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Pierce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Being Miss Michigan USA is essentially 1 event. Most of the articles about her role there only mention her in passing, a few are clearly about other people for example. Beyond that, her modeling is not enough to make her notable. Nor is the extremely local paper that made mention of her extremely minor role in Oz: The Great and Powerful. None of this is enough to make her notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non-notable pageant winner. Sources are insufficient to meet GNG and a state-level win is insufficient for ANYBIO1. All coverage that I see is trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Michigan USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion on pageant winners' notability is taking place here: RFC on creation of consensus standard, with participants variously advocating that (1) state level winners are not presumed notable, (2) state-level winners are not presumed non-notable; or (3) a special guideline is unnecessary, and that GNG should be used. There's an overlap between the these three positions. There aren't really voices for "state-level winners are always presumed notable" so I don't think the outcome of the discussion, if any, would have an impact on this AfD, which is trying to establish whether the subject meets GNG. Thus it may not make sense to suspend the AfD process for this nomination.

Further, a deletion is preferred as a BLP for a non-notable person is potential invasion of privacy and may be subject to vandalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sweeps didn't turn up much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure) per SNOW. This has run for two and a half weeks, and no one other than the nominator has expressed a desire to delete. Each of the keep votes is firmly couched in GNG. It is exceedingly unlikely that this AfD could be closed as anything other than Keep. p b p 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Redd[edit]

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

Redd is notable for basically 2 things. One she was Miss Virginia, but it seems consensus is moving that winners of state beauty pageants are not notable for such. The other is she wrote a book, but there is no evidence that she passes the notability guidelines for writers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If found to not be independently notable, redirect to Miss Virginia as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. the book did get a smidgen of coverage: ABC News posted her essay about it. [20]; She has an online hosting gig with HuffPost Live : [21], a sort of MommyBlog on camera. Here's a recent interview in Working Mother: [22]. And one in Essence (magazine) : [23]. So, she does seem to me to pass notability as a JOURNALIST.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) @Northamerica1000:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. I took a look back on Proquest, and in 2003 she got a lot of coverage in major national press, the BeautyQueen/Harvard grad article seems to have caught the fancy of a large number of editors. That, plus the fact that she now has a journalism career with 2016 profile interviews in 2 major national magazines means that a good article can be sources. @North America and Johnpacklambert: to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: (Harvard grad's next goal: Miss America ; Brainy say the crown is a good fit: [FINAL Edition] Barker, Olivia. USA TODAY [McLean, Va] 17 Sep 2003), (PAGEANTRY TAKES A CRIMSON PATH 2 HARVARD GRADS VIE TO BECOME MISS AMERICA AS INCUMBENT HEADS FOR CAMPUS: [THIRD Edition], Bombardieri, Marcella. Boston Globe [Boston, Mass] 08 July 2003), (Here She Comes, Harvard Graduate: [FINAL Edition] The Washington Post [Washington, D.C] 13 July 2003); there was intensive coverage of her in the Virginia papers (focusing on harvard and the fact that she had been a state ligislative page as a high school student) and in 2013 the New york Times revisited the whole brainy-beauty-pagent story (There She Is... New York Times (1923-Current file), Sep 15, 2013; The New York Times) in a story that described her as now a HuffPost Live correspondent and focused on the fact tha beauty pageants are now a thing of the past..E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I am seeing with the NYT is an article by Redd, which thus can not be used as a source to establish her notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for the NYTimes, yes, in the "Room for Debate" feature, a topic focused section where the Times invites the brief opinions of several notable people on a defined topic. 2013. [24]. But there are also many articles in that search from 2003 when the national press seems to have had a moment of fascination with the "brainy beauty" theme: [25], [26], and she was the smart beauty from Harvard. Now she is a journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Johnpacklambert: Please take a look at the articles in Working Mother and, especially, in Essense that I linked to above. the Essense article says that she has a new gig, a show on Fox cable that seems to be in a summer try-out phase, also covered here: [27] Here: [28] and here: [29]. She's had other rounds of coverage over the years, such as a moment a couple of years ago when some of the pageants ended bathing suit competitions, and everyone interviewed her: [30] and many more articles of the sort.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If she only won Miss Virginia, I would say delete but because she has published a book, which has received some coverage, my vote is a weak keep. Meatsgains (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. E.M.Gregory has shown that she is notable for several reasons. More than enough coverage. Some significant awards and accomplishments as well. Even if the state beauty pageant winner criterion is decided to be insufficient for an article, she has enough other accomplishments and coverage, and participation in the media, to be considered notable. Donner60 (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's a lot of secondary sourcing. I basically concur with the sense winning a state beauty pageant shouldn't automatically confer notability, partly because oftentimes it doesn't come with enough secondary source coverage to write a balanced article--but if someone's been covered enough to get over GNG, then, of course having won a state beauty pageant isn't disqualifying! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above keep arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Maan[edit]

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

I can see nothing notable about this person. There seems to be nothing of substance in the references. Creator has been blocked (seeUser talk:Drkyt) seemingly for issues regarding creation of non-notable articles and competency in English. Derek Andrews (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of the given citations are even providing verification. However a couple of appointment notices do mention this person in lists of names: from 2010 [31] and 2015 [32]. In the absence of actual detailed coverage about the person, that would leave the question of whether his posts are inherently notable. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (A more definitive conclusion from my comment above:) I am finding nothing more substantial than a couple of routine mentions in appointment lists, which falls well short of demonstrating attained biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 09:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navin Mittal[edit]

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

Delete: A Finance Secretary in the State Government (as opposed to a Secretary rank officer in the Government of India) is a mid level official. Has not won any significant awards to assert notability. Has held relatively junior level posts. Speedy Delete. Uncletomwood (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the grand title the subject is a civil servant, rather than a politician, so he is not notable under WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of his position. If he is notable then it would have to be under the general notability guideline, which I haven't yet checked. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as he is not establishing amy form of actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable bureaucrat. Insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page has more than enough references but the subject does not hold a position that meets general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar al-Haddouchi[edit]

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

~~Non-notable scholar. Very few mention in WP:RS sources John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how it could be claimed that the individual isn't notable; consistent, sustained coverage can be found in mainstream news websites on this individual for much of the 2010s, both on his statements, perceived extremism and previous legal problems. In literally only twenty seconds of searching, I've found multiple articles on this person from:

Al Monitor

El Pais

The Washington Institute

Morocco World News

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

I don't think it would be unreasonable of me to state that finding multiple articles (just in English) spanning three years of coverage on various issues doesn't even constitute this editor even trying to search hard; more substantial hunts for reliable sources would likely yield even more, especially if French and Spanish language sources are sought. This seems like an easy pass of WP:BIO. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

::Reply to MezzoMezzo You saw those sources from the page. Did you check inside those sources that you linked above. The name "Omar al-Haddouchi" is not mentioned in those pages. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is, although in different spellings: Umar/Omar (al-)Had(d)ouchi. That is something you'll see often when dealing with matters related to the Arabic world. There are various ways to romanise the Arabic script, each leading to slightly different results, but in the end, they convey the same words. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JJJ I didn't see those sources from the page; I told the truth when I said I ran a mere twenty-second search. Please clarify with other users before you start to accuse people of lying.

As for a closer or anyone else, I think this is an open and shut case - the nominator appears unaware of the problems with the Romanization of Arabic names and the fact that searching for the article subject via different spellings (Umar, Hadouchi, Haddoushi, Hadoushi, Hadushi, Haddushi, etc.) would yield vastly different results. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources identified by user Mezzo Mezzo so that WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MezzoMezzo's sources. Also, the Arabic search term is "عمر الحدوشي"; it finds plenty of sources, such as news stories from respectable-looking Moroccan outlets Tangier Inter, le360, and Goud. FourViolas (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 00:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a Whiff on Me[edit]

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

This article meshes a list of recording artists as coverage for a topic that is a song. This topic is not covered significantly in multiple reliable sources, therefore it fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:NSONGS. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely recorded ny multiple notable artists, and sufficient coverage exists: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. One of the most notable songs about cocaine or illicit drugs in general and recorded by Leadbelly, Woody Guthrie, The Byrds, Jerry Garcia, Old Crow Medicine Show, etc. It needs a much better introduction though. --BenStein69 (talk) 04:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject satisfies WP:NSONGS per the coverage found in the above sources. Gongshow talk 04:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BEFORE--Savonneux (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kellymoat (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified by Michig that enable WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons already stated above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pretty much all of the above. I particularly remember nontrivial print coverage of the song c.1970 after the Byrds used their recording and live performances of the song for some well-earned mockery of Spiro Agnew. It's hard to find such coverage online nearly 50 years later, but here's a trace of it.[38] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Absent any opposition to Jpbowen and North America's assertions, closing as Keep... (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article with no independent sources establishing significance, so fails WP:GNG. Impact factor is under 1.3, so importance is not established in the real world either. Publisher is dismissed by Beall as junk, but not on the predatory list because it's not open access. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage in independent sources. Note that Beall uses a term much stronger than 'junk' for journals such as this. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The journal is not in any Thomson Reuters database (except the rather worthless Emerging Sources Citation Index), so it does not have an impact factor. (If it did, then 1.3 would actually be pretty high in this particular field). However, the journal is indexed in Scopus (just checked to be sure). Although in my estimation Scopus is becoming less and less selective, inclusion in it is usually taken as meeting WP:NJournals. BTW, Beall did not say this publisher was "junk", just that the journals it publishes in his field are not top-tier. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no sources other than directories though - this is pretty much WP:ITEXISTS territory. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Databases like Scopus are something more than just directories. There are things like DOAJ, which include everything in their area (in their case, OA journals). Scopus is more selective. Candidates for inclusion are vetted by a committee of specialists, before being included. This is why inclusion in the Science Citation Index or Scopus is taken as indicative of notability. See WP:NJournals (and WP:JWG) for some more background on this. --Randykitty (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse is true, in fact. DOAJ just kicked about a thousand journals out and Scopus continues use the high number it includes as an advertising feature. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DOAJ kicked out a bunch of blatantly predatory journals, but apart from that, they are not selective as they strive to cover every OA academic journal (they just have tightened their definition of "academic journal"). In contrast, Scopus (despite their advertising), will evaluate a journal more in depth and look at, e.g., whether articles in it are cited by other journals, whether the editorial board extends beyond one institution, whether the journal is influential in its field, etc. Despite their advertising, many journals that make it into DOAJ do not make it into Scopus. However, I do agree that Scopus is becoming less selective (which is not the same as non-selective) and I have recently found several journals indexed by it that are on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Being indexed in Scopus is an indicator of notability. Meets criteria #1 of WP:JOURNALCRIT. Perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) should become a guideline someday. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — indexed by leading journal indexing services like Scopus, as per North America above. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Ethiopia. MBisanz ^talk 00:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genet Tsegay[edit]

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

This article has one source. Tsegay seems to only be notable for being Miss Ethiopia. She has not garnered enough attention for this for it to rise above being a one event issue. Also, the article was created by a beautry pageant promoter who has since been banned from Wikipedia for sockpupetery. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge to the appropriate pageant page? avoids redlink bait and preserves article history. Montanabw^(talk) 07:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Ethiopia as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Ethiopia; the subject is not independently notable.

The discussion that has started has largely confirmed my experience with the articles on pageant winners, finding them to be WP:PSEUDO biographies on individuals only notable for WP:BIO1E. Thus redirect is an appropriate action in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Miss Universe 2012. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Japal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Japal is the only Miss Cayman Islands to have a seperate article. There is no good reason for this. The previous discussion closed as keep, but since then the rules for beauty pageant winners have been revisted. I think to keep this article we would want to see another reliable source cover her indepth besides the one in the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Where did we revisit the rules? Not at the current RfC? Link? Montanabw^(talk) 07:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe 2012 as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Discussion about notability guidelines has already started on the Talk page for the Beauty Pageant project. No harm will be done by closing this nomination as "keep" and letting the project-level discussion take its course. Furthermore, I note that every Miss USA titleholder has a separate article, and the imposition of different, and more stringent, standards on titleholders from outside the United States is how systemic bias gets created. Finally, don't be misled by the nominator's declaration that the subject is the only Miss Cayman Islands to have a separate article. It isn't true. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (after "Delete") to Miss Universe 2012. The discussion that has started has largely confirmed me experience with the articles on pageant winners, finding them to be WP:PSEUDO biographies on individuals only notable for WP:BIO1E. This redirect is an appropriate action in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016). (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016 Dokuchaievsk skirmish[edit]

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

Not notable, not much press coverage, little information, covered by Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016)#5 March DERPALERT^{[citation needed]} 00:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016), I see no real need to create a stub for each and every DPR/Ukraine firefight. Any information not covered on the timeline should be merged from the article. GAB^gab 15:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016) where it is mentioned. Not notable on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above: we don't need articles on individual skirmishes of wars unless there's some particular significance to the engagement. Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nine Network slogans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is a list of slogans really nessecary? It won't be complete. Kernosky ^talk2me! 12:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Not only that, this is original research and unreferenced. See Nomination #1. Kernosky ^talk2me! 12:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep completeness is not a reason for deletion. We would have to delete every biography of a living person because eventually they will die or appear in another movie. There will always be another pope and another president. For location articles, all the economic and population statistics will be out-of-date as soon as they are added, as people are born and die. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The American and Canadian television networks have had their 'list of network slogans' articles all deleted in the last five years as mainly WP:PROMO content that depends on YouTube videos and TV Guide scans that do not meet our sourcing guidelines. Here...we have absolutely nothing. For all we know, an IP vandal could insert Nine, because Seven is unlucky and we'd call it good. This is all non-notable fancruft that has no business here and the zero sources don't give me hope that in seven days we'll be well-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate. If this information is considered to be worth including in Wikipedia at all, it belongs on the pages of the network and its respective stations, respectively, not as a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of any notability either as a list or individually. As written, this could be a complete invention. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as potentially wholly unreferenced WP:OR. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seven Network slogans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research, unreferenced. See Articles for deletion/List of Nine Network slogans(2nd nomination) Kernosky ^talk2me! 12:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'd even argue that it's non-notable trivia. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The lack of references is troubling, but I think network slogans are notable. Article should be kept, or relevant content merged as a section on articles, eg. Seven Network, 7Two, etc. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INFO: unreferenced trivia and indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the 4th, 5th, and 6th, delete in the 7th, then restore This does not meet the definition of "original research" in that it is drawing new conclusions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The American and Canadian television networks have had their 'list of network slogans' articles all deleted in the last five years as mainly WP:PROMO content that depends on YouTube videos and TV Guide scans that do not meet our sourcing guidelines. Here...we have absolutely nothing. For all we know, an IP vandal could insert Seven...because Kerry Packer likes to (something probably libelous) and we'd call it good. This is all non-notable fancruft that has no business here and the zero sources don't give me hope that in seven days we'll be well-sourced. Nate • (chatter) 03:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nate. If this information is considered to be worth including in Wikipedia at all, it belongs on the pages of the network and its respective stations, respectively, not as a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Otis Alexander[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-does not appear to meet any notability criteria. reddogsix (talk)\
Delete image is a copyright issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subscribing to all the minor Who's Who variants (whose market is entirely the vanity of those in them) strikes me as a red flag for the motivation behind this article - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not finding much notability. There are some publications, but they're all out of print. No reviews of any of them. There's a video of him (maybe) playing Chopin at an amateur level. Looking in Google, he shows up in voter records and there's a report of an arrest (no conviction). He's Director of Library Science for the International University for Graduate Studies. That would qualify him as an academic, except that the Chronicle of Higher Education says the place is a diploma mill.[39] Also, they don't have a library; students get a subscription to Questia. [40] John Nagle (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Invesitgating some of the sources didn't offer any indications of notability. The African American National Biography is misrepresented as "his" publication. • DP • ^{huh?} 16:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krieghoff Model L[edit]

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

Non-notable firearm. Online search turned up no reliable sources. Created by User:Ctway sock. ansh 666 01:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...The only info that I can find on this guy are Wiki mirrors and some photos. I think that at this point it is only notable to a WW2 memorabilia collectors. It's only two sentences long. I say we delete it for now. If someone wants to bring it back later with some references, I'm OK with that too.--RAF910 (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability nor sufficient RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could mention on a list page for World War II German weapons, but otherwise, not notable for stand alone article, not even a stub. As noted, no RS sources, either. Kierzek (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Armstrong[edit]

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

Notability: I cannot locate significant coverage to meet GNG. The subject fails WP:SOLDIER. Article created by user User:Armstrong97527 who self-identifies as Ken Armstrong, so appears to be a relative or the subject himself. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Fails WP:Soldier. I attempted to find a source for the January 1989 incident mentioned, but I found only 5 articles mentioning Lampedusa in 1988-1989 on newspaper.com. Those were from August 1989 and October. The August 26, 1989 Stars and Stripes article was a nice bit about the Loran station and verifies that it was a NATO command held by the USCG. LTJG Gregory Cruthis was the station's commanding officer at that time with 26 total Coastguardsmen on duty there. This type of command is not high enough to meet WP:Soldier, even if the article had listed Armstrong. I did find an article mentioning a public affairs officer named Lt. Ken Armstrong in a Pacific Stars and Stripes article, CG looks for hijacked freighter, by David Allen from Feb 5, 1993. He was mentioned and is quoted in the article in his role as the 14th District CG HQ Public Affairs officer in Honolulu. However, this does not rise to the level of WP:Soldier or GNG. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks to Dual Freq for some good research on his Coast Guard service. I could find no evidence that he is notable as a pastor. This is a 2007 autobiography largely referenced to his own website and various unreliable sources which are all dead links. The referenced New York Times article does not even mention Armstrong so is of no value in establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above, no evidence of notability. A self-promotional autobiography. Joe Roe (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional and not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I am not suggesting that the events did not happen, but he seems too junior to merit an article. NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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