From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 21 August 23 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Parking Day

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

no references besides the website, not notable Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 22:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Natural skin care

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

Natural skin care is skin care using products branded or perceived as natural (often falsely so). And that's about all we can say from the reliable sources cited (i.e. none, though there are a couple of dodgy sources instead). It might be possible to write a Wikipedia compliant non-advertorial article on this subject. This is not that article, nor is it a good starting point for it. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over applies. Guy ( Help!) 22:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Based on the extensive revisions that have occurred during this discussion (thanks FeatherPluma!), I think the content shouldn't just be deleted now. There is a discussion at Talk:Natural skin care about renaming and/or refocusing the article to address the concerns expressed here about the "natural" aspect. Deli nk ( talk) 13:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • (Comment Edited & Updated:) Keep. The article is getting rewritten completely. An abundance of relevant reliable sources exists, addressing numerous aspects in a very reasonable, encyclopedically notable way. The lede alone now has 10 carefully used, reliable references; previously there were none. Admittedly, the topic itself has definitionally porous borders. However, that is true of many things; this is now spoken to clearly within the article, although the text needs more tweaking. I propose that with additional work this is going to be an article we keep. For brevity here, I will post the proposed upgrade path to the article Talk page. FeatherPluma ( talk) 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep I want to applaud FeatherPluma's work so far and proposed way forward. I think perhaps this article can be rescued. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If the article is rescued, I would strongly suggest a broader focus than just "natural" skin care. How about moving the content to an article about skin care (currently a redirect) in general and expanding that, perhaps with content split from the skin care section of cosmetics? It isn't good practice to have an article about a subtopic without having an article about the main topic. @ FeatherPluma:, pinging you just so you're aware of the suggestion. Deli nk ( talk) 10:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Another very sensible suggestion. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi, Deli nk / courtesy flag also to Bondegezou who has commented: I had replied here. The response outgrew the core discussion of this AfD and I moved my thoughts to the article Talk page at Talk:Natural skin care#Article / subsection name and position in organizational tree. FeatherPluma ( talk) 05:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of video games considered the best

List of video games considered the best (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By combining reviews in this way the article is creating a new list, exactly as prohibited by WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". This is not an obvious or non-controversial combination; it is shaped by rules arbitrarily chosen for the purpose and therefore constitutes Original research. RichardOSmith ( talk) 22:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

List of video game soundtracks considered the best (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I would keep this, as this is somewhat standard on Wikipedia, unless you also want to remove List of video games notable for negative reception, List of films considered the worst, List of films considered the best, List of music considered the worst et cetera. Some of these are also of much lower quality - with less specific guidelines - than the two you are nominating. ~ Mable ( chat) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Those other articles appear to be quite different: they report reviews from notable organisations and ranked lists devised by notable organisations, whereas these two articles have created Wikipedia's own ranked list - and that is pure original research. RichardOSmith ( talk) 22:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem to me any of those do. List of songs considered the best, does, though that list has a slew of its own problems (I suppose we could change the list of best games so it would no longer be considered WP:SYN like this, by the way, if that would be an improvement? At least there's no reason to delete). List of films considered the worst, for example, lists films based mainly on the amount of negative reception received, much like how these lists list games based on the amount of positive reception received. The main difference is the amount of prose explaining the choices. ~ Mable ( chat) 22:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The list isn't saying "These are the best"; it's saying "These have made the most appearances on lists of the best". WP:SYNTH is for a completely different situation: it prohibits making statements that aren't derived from any source. Here, we're simply counting sources. "A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H include this game on their list of the best, so this game's gotten eight 'best' reviews, and it's more commonly considered among the best than that other game, which only appears as 'best' on seven lists". Please read WP:CALC; routine mathematical calculations, including addition, are not a violation of this policy. Nyttend ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
But this is not the sort of calculation permitted by WP:CALC (which only includes trivial things like calculating someone's age) because the numbers computed depend on some arbitrary rules devised for he article. Furthermore the whole premise of the article, as explicitly stated in the lead, is to act as a review aggregator and produce a new and unique list based on its arbitrarily-produced counts, which is a synthesis because no individual source has produced a list ranked in the same order. RichardOSmith ( talk) 09:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Editors have since worked on the article other than me - some very diligently - despite me not really agreeing with the new direction, per the talk page, and I didn't want to commit a WP:OWN violation by fighting them. A criteria of "found 6 sources saying the game is great" is not good because the number of sources is endless and this could be used to make a thousand+ entry list, which would defeat the whole point. This isn't supposed to be "list of well-regarded games," this should be a short and sweet list of truly toweringly lauded games. But, to be clear, I think the current version isn't deletable; it just needs a proviso in that I'd strongly suspect a "complete" spreadsheet of all these lists would include far more 6-20 entry games than are currently listed, so there's some bias in which of those were selected to show up. But oh well. SnowFire ( talk) 03:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It would be pretty great if we could discuss any lists included in the article(s), so we could really have a finite list of sources to work with - new sources only being added after discussion. This doesn't really fall in the scope of the deletion, of course, but I would be open to help dig through some of the more questionable sources. ~ Mable ( chat) 07:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
SnowFire "Your" version of the article would not have been nominated by me for deletion. What it demonstrates well is that the only problem I have with the article as it has since become is that it produces new, synthesised, rankings of the games in the list, and resolving that issue could be addressed by editing rather than deletion. I think this is an important concern that needs to be discussed but this has probably become the wrong forum for it. (That is, I now think the article should be cleaned up or at least reverted back to an earlier form, rather than deleted.) RichardOSmith ( talk) 10:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I agree in that producing a list ranked by number-of-lists has problems in elements of OR. I'd happily endorse if people want to restore a sorting by release date rather than number of lists.
Maplestrip, I have a Google spreadsheet with the original lists I compiled - happy to share it and put it in a common location. If that spreadsheet is kept up to date, it's possible we can restore this to a more "objective" list as far as these things go so that we can be sure that whatever threshold is set, games don't slip out unnoticed. SnowFire ( talk) 02:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Sharing the spreadsheet should probably be useful for future editors in general :) Is it up to date right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplestrip ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 24 August 2015‎ (UTC) reply
Definitely not! It 'only' has the ~13 sources used originally (and was quite a bit of work for just those), while the article is now using 40+ lists. Anyway, created a new account and shared it (with EDIT permissions to all, so you might want to make a personal backup if you make some changes in case somebody comes along later and erases your work or some such): https://goo .gl/a1R9Lk (separated due to link filter)
There's also a conversion of places to weights in the "adjusted" section. I'm not super-tied to what I used, so something like "appears in top 100 = 1, doesn't = 0" would be fine too since that's what the current article used, but up to you. (I'd used top 5 = 5 points, 6-15 = 4 points, 16-25 = 3 points, 26-100 = 2 points.) SnowFire ( talk) 05:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I'd definitely support ranking by date rather than number of sources. I don't think lowering the number of sources is a good idea though, as a large pool of lists minimizes bias and increases the sense of a real consensus. Wouldn't it be better to raise the number of required sources instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdesco ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
More sources are good, yes, but it's important to keep the overall list "balanced." For example, the EGM top 200 list excluded computer games entirely, while the likes of PC Gamer's lists exclude console games entirely. It's *extremely* easy to introduce bias by adding a bunch of lists that exclusively cover a single era / platform / genre, or even just favor one. This is even ignoring the known geographical bias towards the English-language media! This would cause the results to be more about which lists were picked. Additionally some publications just spam out new top 100 lists every year, which is in some ways great (more data!), but it doesn't necessarily mean that their opinions should count 5x as much as a publication which only publishes a list once every 5 years. When I set up my canonical list of sources, I tried to spread as widely as possible - a variety of publishers, a variety of dates created, and balance out PC-exclusive & console-exclusive lists. Now, we can go ahead and take in more sources, but then if you want to get really technical about it you have to get into "weighting" the lists so that IGN 2006, IGN Readers 2006, IGN 2007, IGN Readers 2007, IGN 2008, IGN 2009, etc. don't cause IGN's editors to have undue relevance. Or make sure that we don't have all the PC games get buried beneath console lists, or 80s games get buried beneath more recent lists (something already mentioned in the methodology of the article, actually). SnowFire ( talk) 22:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I think it is generally fair and comparative to List of films considered the best. I do not see an issue with saying "We are sorting this based on how many times the title appeared in specific publications' Top 100/Top 25 lists", since that is not a violation of WP:SYNTH or basic math, as long as we have a well-defined list of what sources we're going to use for that. (That it to avoid RandomVideoGameFan's personal Top 100 list that fails all RS becoming a source.) And the MetaCritic and GameRanking tables are good reasonable snapshots to avoid bias (letting however those aggregators handle the bias on their end) -- MASEM ( t) 16:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but how about only giving credit for games placing in the top 10/20 of a list? Any old game can place 99th on five different lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.30.114.84 ( talk) 21:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The Mennel Milling Company

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

As far as I can tell, this is a thoroughly insignificant milling company; the only reason I didn't speedy-delete it was that someone might claim that "in operation since 1886" was some sort of claim of importance. Nyttend ( talk) 22:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as although it's a old company so it may be known and notable locally, my searches found nothing considerably good here, here, here, here and here. In any case of notability, it can be mentioned at the Fostoria, Ohio article. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no indication of notability in the article, no coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler ( talk) 00:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2015-16 NK Troglav 1918 Livno season

2015-16 NK Troglav 1918 Livno season (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Season article for an amateur club, hence failing WP:NFOOTBALL. Furthermore, no indications made that WP:GNG is met in any way.

Article was PRODded before; PROD was contested by original author with rationale I deleted note for page deletion as I think Wikipedia should not discriminate clubs based on their status, league or country of origin. I also noticed that clubs from English 5th tier have pages for their specific seasons. I truly hope You see my point. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 19:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply


I sad what I had to say about the subject, I hope admins will take it into consideration. Thank You! DinamoZagreb ( talk) 14:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 11:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS, not a "top professional league". Perhaps could be notable come the end of the season if sufficient non-routine, reliable coverage is found, but at the moment, I'm not seeing it at this early stage of the season. Fenix down ( talk) 11:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no need for season by season articles for this club as per policy Spiderone 20:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Birmingham City F.C. supporters

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

article based entirely on one dubious source. no reason for article even if it was sourced. Beach drifter ( talk) 19:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Seeing as no-one's commented yet, I'll add the following, created by the same editor and equally trivial unreliably sourced fancruft: cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 20:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Famous Barnsley F.C. supporters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 ( talk) 21:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. Lists of BLPs, "sourced" to a gallery of images on a local newspaper website and a list on a website I'd never previously heard of, headed "There are some weird and wonderful 'celeb' fans for some of the clubs in England, from the legendary rumours that the likes of the Queen and Osama bin Laden follow Arsenal"... And those are suitable venues for lists of trivia. This isn't. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 21:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above; not notable. Kierzek ( talk) 21:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Struway2; tenuously sourced trivia. Mattythewhite ( talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both - non-notable, fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - both as non-notable trivia. Fenix down ( talk) 11:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - total trivia. If a celebrity's devotion to a club is truly notable, it belongs in their article and only their article (unless it actually impacted the club eg by their becoming chairman). Laundry lists of celebs who have been claimed to support a club have no encyclopedic value, especially given that the claims are always extremely tenuous -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both - not even worthy of a redirect or merge Spiderone 08:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Trace One

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

Fails WP:CORP, unreferenced promotional article, coverage available consists of press releases. Prod contested in 2010. Vrac ( talk) 19:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete; pure self-serving PR article. Kierzek ( talk) 21:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7 and G11 DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

RideFlag

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

Article about a non-notable service and company, written by a COI SPA. As far as I can tell, they've received no independent coverage whatsoever. Of the 26 cited references, only one even mentions the company - and that's the company's "About Us" page. The rest is a mess of original synthesis about carpooling in general. Kolbasz ( talk) 19:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - non-notable, blatant promo piece to raise publicity. 80 percent of the article aren't even about the company, but an essay about the concept and advantages of carpooling in general. No reliable sources found via Google. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; couldn't find a single source about this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Story Writers

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

Article about a non-notable Android app. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 18:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non admin closure. Withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) Thechased ( talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Deez Nuts (candidate)

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

Seemingly pointless article, addressing "Deez Nuts" as if it's a real person while totally ignoring the satirical nature following the original video. Relevancy is little for this to be an article, even the original video is not relevant enough to have its own article (and it is not even referenced in this article as having anything to do with why "Deez Nuts" even exists). A Rolling Stone article does not automatically mean it needs its own article here. This does not need an article, it is not a "real" candidate despite being referred to as one, and it references a satirical 'meme' that doesn't even have its own article, nor mentions it. Thechased ( talk) 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 18:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, (or go to the talk page and discuss a rewrite and/or re-name so it is about the "campaign"), at least for now. This topic clearly has enough reliable-source material "out there" to meet WP:General notability guidelines absent WP:ONEEVENT concerns. It's too soon to delete it based on "one event" issues. If the media attention dies out in the next few weeks, we can argue whether WP:ONEEVENT overrules WP:Notability is not temporary in this case. If the media attention continues, then the wiki-notability of either the campaign, the person, or both will be firmly settled. I strongly recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination and see how this "campaign" plays out, then start a move/rewrite discussion on the talk page if he want to make the page focus on the "campaign" rather than the person. Note - I put "campaign" in quotes because he's obviously not running for office (he's ineligible due to age) but he may be actively campaigning to get his ideas out there or for other reasons besides a desire to sit in the Oval Office. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a candidate who polled above several more serious candidates and got serious press coverage as a result. Yes, it's a joke candidacy, but Wikipedia has other articles on joke candidates, and there are multiple reliable sources (not just Rolling Stone) about the subject. The article should be cut down to bare verifiable facts and focus on the campaign, yes. It mostly has been. The fact that nonsense was added and removed before is not a reason to delete. 209.211.131.181 ( talk) 19:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He has aquired notability through multiple mentions in reliable sources, including prominent polling organizations, and mutliple news outlets. -- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 20:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep In-depth coverage in The Guardian, CBS News, TIME magazine, and Rolling Stone overwhelmingly establishes general notability. The fact that the candidacy is not serious is not a deletion rationale, nor is the assertion that this information is not relevant to an encyclopedia. Content concerns should be addressed at the article's talk page. As davidwr points out, ONEEVENT may make a move appropriate in the future. FourViolas ( talk) 22:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - And I recommend that this matter be closed soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) " Pepper" @ 16:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

CrowdTrading

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

Non-notable neologism. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Discounting the multiple 'keep' votes from SPA/Socks/Meats which are basically 'I like it', we are left with a consensus to delete from the regular editors who are citing notability guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2600hz

2600hz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company appears to fail WP:CORP, as it lacks coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. VQuakr ( talk) 18:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Reads as if taken off product packaging. Tom Reedy ( talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Tom Reedy I agree. I've attempted to make it read less so, because it looked like a feature list. I wonder if the feature list should be removed. There is other relevant content and value to the article, though. I would argue that this doesn't warrant deletion, but cleanup. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure that as "one of the co-founders of the open-source projects at 2600hz", you are proscribed from participating in this deletion discussion by WP:CONFLICT. Tom Reedy ( talk) 20:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Tom Reedy I reviewed that document at the advice of a different user. My understanding is that I can participate in this, provide discussion points, etc. as long as I try to remain constructive and neutral, which I believe I've done here. I've also followed the policies by declaring my affiliation in my user profile. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 20:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I see that this company has gotten some coverage, but I don't see citations from reliable sources. As well, the article right now is frustratingly written, as is pointed out above. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Gene93k I've added what I believe to be some reliable citations in the media. In addition, if you Google "2600hz Kazoo setup" or other such instructions, you'll find that people have made videos, tutorials and articles about the product to prove it's existence. This would seem to meet the criteria noted in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines - "A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it.". Such examples include [ [1]] who apparently made this guide on their own (no idea who they are), or [ [2]] who is someone in Russia who apparently documented the platform as a video. There's a bunch of those types of references out there. Do these warrant linking in the article itself and, thus, help with notability to the point where you believe this is valid? Darren Schreiber ( talk) 18:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: This is an active company and an active open-source organization. It has many, many users all over the globe. The fact that it may not be a recognized brand or get tons of media attention doesn't indicate it is notable. The work being done by this team is as notable as FreeSWITCH or Kamailio , both of which have similar organizational structures and pages on this site. While the content is in need of updating (and I will do that now) and the www.2600hz.org site has a very old design, the content is not only relevant but the users of this open-source project are very active. Removing them from Wikipedia is a mistake. This article should be kept, and updated. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) — Darren Schreiber ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I think I've addressed the comments about lack of references (TechCrunch, GigaOm, Telecom Council certainly qualify as legitimate/reliable sources, no?) while also trying to improve the article. I'll work more to improve it further and clarify any confusion. As for User:Tom Reedy's comment about it sounding like product packaging, I'm not sure how to achieve the goal of indicating the accomplishments of the project while having it not read that way. I would be open to suggestions here and could work to improve it. But the citation and reference issue should be resolved. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 08:40:00 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - 2600hz is definitely a value to many telecom companies, I believe they are providing service to thousands of companies and increasing their reach daily across the globe. A company that truly is innovative in their thinking and providing the necessary tools/apps for their clients to use seamlessly. Jay Yoder 09:32:00 27 August 2015 (UTC) — JayTYo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - 2600hz is a relevant and active company, located in a building neighbouring Wikipedia's in San Francisco. Many people work there and more are coming. Pierre Fenoll 10:14:00 27 August 2015 (UTC) — User:Radioxid ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep - these guys are the most important outfit in open source converged telecommunications. Their technology is relevant and important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.241.34.17 ( talk) 17:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — 216.241.34.17 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete the majority of the coverage is award-winner lists and primary sources. The first GigaOm article gives me exactly zero faith in what they're saying ("from what I understand", "apparently", etc), and the second simply talks about one of their products. I did find two Techcrunch articles, but they're by the same author so I'm not sure how much added notability it will give. Unless there are secret refs hidden in the bowels of the internet somewhere, I'm unconvinced. Primefac ( talk) 17:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@Primefac Is the requirement for a Wikipedia page to stay that it must be listed in crap-tons of publications that are known to the average consumer? 2600hz is cited in a bunch of articles like FierceWireless (a pretty well known industry paper), GigaOm, TechCrunch, OPUS Research and has a slew of partnerships with other open-source projects including FreeSWITCH, Kamailio, Range Networks (OpenBTS) and so on. It takes about 5 minutes to google "2600hz" plus any of those terms to find this stuff, or you can watch the interviews on the VoIP Users Conference video interviews to learn more. What am I missing here? It seems like the burden of being notable has already been met by the edits I just did on the page. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 17:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Darren Schreiber, the majority of the pieces you added were press releases, though the burden of evidence is starting to make me lean towards a keep. Not yet though, but on second thought I will strike my delete for now. Primefac ( talk) 17:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Primefac OK, thanks. However, I'm still wondering if there are other ways to show notability. The original complaint was that the company lacked notability from unique sources. We've been discussed, referenced and compared to lots of other companies and have been invited to conferences to speak about our project regularly. But these things wouldn't be mainstream. Would notations of those items qualify to enhance the notability of the project? Open-source telecom is a surprisingly small but well-connected space, despite powering the majority of the world's telecom. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 17:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Striking my strike (swayed back across the fence). Primefac ( talk) 07:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - 2600hz is and has been active for years now, with a visible and thriving community. A simple google search would show years of activity in popular open source communities such as Google groups and Freenode IRC. While there seems to be a question about what qualifies as ‘notable’ articles (which in my opinion they do have) this software has appeal to a lesser-known audience but a lot of adoption. This is the very first open source cloud VoIP infrastructure that has enabled many companies to create and expand upon; competing with high and expensively licensed proprietary solutions. While many companies out there use 2600hz software for the base of their network infrastructure, many choose to place their own branding and company "sauce" over this software (As encouraged by the MPL license), many companies choose to market and advertise their brand over the community. The importance of this organization is their being the most relevant in bringing software that has enabled the creation and growth of many ITSPs and MSPs, who before could not secure the capital to invest in very expensive licensing of closed software. More companies all the time are using their open sourced software to develop their own ideas and disrupt the "big iron" telecom industry. There in lies the most important reason to maintain this article. They are linked and utilized on [1], [2], [3] links alone. Additionally, reviewing their annual conference webpage [4] and [5] has shows reputable sponsors, such as Polycom (NASDAQ: PLCM) Edgewater Networks (NASDAQ: EDGW) and many more. Public tech companies like these wouldn't support and sponsor a "blip" project. neurosys_zero ( talk) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Neurosys zero ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Delete Lack of independent sources and fails WP:N. -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 18:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Rsrikanth05 Can you please provide more detail here? The above discussion indicates that multiple public, independent sources have been cited and therefore it should meet criteria laid out in WP:N . The document is similar in nature to other open-source projects, many of which are featured on Wikipedia. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 19:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Darren Schreiber: thanks for you work on helping to show what has been published related to the company. I am seeing lots and lots of links posted from new editors, that that does not really help to infer notability (as defined on Wikipedia), discussed here and here. We do not need a large quantity of sources, we need ones that are intellectually and financially independent - ie quality. So far I see a bunch of press releases or similar, a Russian blog, and two articles on TechCrunch by the same author at around the time the subject was presenting at TechCrunch's Disrupt conference. If there have been any sources presented that meet our requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I am not seeing them through the forest of the unusable stuff posted here. VQuakr ( talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ VQuakr: You are being fairly selective on what you pay attention to, then. Take a closer look. There are two articles cited from GigaOm, a fairly prominent tech publication (despite their financial troubles). There are video interviews cited from the Voice Users Conference, a well-known webcast that qualifies as both financially and intellectually independent. The TMCNet article is a story from a prominent company (Ooma) that is very much a large publicly traded company and is independent from 2600hz. The Telecom Council Spiffy's are an industry-backed organization who presented awards based on demonstrating the works of the organization, and are otherwise independent and intellectually separate with no vested interest in the success of 2600hz. The link from the FreeSWITCH organization qualifies as independent, since they don't actually use the software but are incorporated into the project and reviewed it. I think you are being fairly narrow in your analysis and seem to lack knowledge in the subject matter and space of telecom based on your responses. You continue to look for notability in publications you've heard of as a general consumer. That's not where the Wikipedia guidelines set the bar. While quality over quantity is true, there are now over 20 publications linked as references and at least some of those meet your burden. It is clear to me you have not spent the time reviewing them in detail. These publications represent significant achievements and are primarily by independent organizations. You do not appear to be judging this fairly, especially when reviewing other such articles on Wikipedia which appear to be acceptable. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 14:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
So in response to a request to improve the signal-to-noise ratio we get more static. Gigaom was a blog, albeit a large, self-supporting one. Your characterization of FreeSWITCH as independent is novel but incorrect. Your claim that I will only accept a headline in the NYT is a straw man. Your observation that Wikipedia (particularly central discussion fora such as this one) is maintained by generalist volunteers is accurate, but not an argument for keeping any article. Your reference to other articles is a common but poor argument. VQuakr ( talk) 19:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ VQuakr:Did you really just effectively state that GigaOm is some sort of irrelevant media outlet and is not worth considering as a reference? Are you joking? It is pretty clear to me at this point that you have some ulterior motive here. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 19:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Did you really just effectively state that GigaOm is some sort of irrelevant media outlet... no, that would be another straw man, followed by an (exceptionally silly) ad hom. What I did write is that GigaOm does not appear to be a reliable, independent source as defined on Wikipedia. VQuakr ( talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ VQuakr: OK, let's try this route. I do not think you're being very cosntructive here. Since you seem to knock down every single attempt everybody has made to try and improve the page (you deleted half the content on it), have called everything noise, have cited tons of ambiguous rule sets for Wikipedia on notability, maybe you could provide a few examples of what IS considered useful, independent and reliable? Perhaps then you would also not be perceived as simply being negative and possibly even trolling (since you have now attacked multiple people including Rachel2600hz, neurosys and others on their talk pages) and attempted with FUD regarding their attempts at contributions. If you are truly trying to make Wikipedia a better, more collaborative and relevant place, try adding some samples and guidance on what should be here versus just knocking everything. Your behavior is unbelievably negative. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ VQuakr: Can you please do me a favor and determine if the following citations are valid or not. To be honest I am extemely confused on what is deemed "relevant" and an "independent source." Please take a look at the following citations and let me know if you deem them credible. Citation 1, Citation 2, Citation 3, Citation 4, Citation 5. Please go through this individually instead of sending linking Wikipedia's general guidelines. Granularity on this issue will be more constructive.

References

  1. ^ http://www.vinixglobal.com
  2. ^ http://www.claritytelephones.com/2600hz-announces-new-telecom-innovations-and-partner-website-at-kazoocon/
  3. ^ http://technews.tmcnet.com/hosted-ivr/topics/hosted-ivr/articles/322962-ooma-business-good-business.htm
  4. ^ http://kazoocon.com
  5. ^ http://kazoocon.com/2013/index.html
  6. ^ http://www.quik.is
  7. ^ http://github.com/2600hz
  8. ^ http://github.com/2600hz
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comparison of the Saudi government and the Islamic State

Comparison of the Saudi government and the Islamic State (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a short list of similarities which on editor came up with, ie it's mostly if not entirely original research. Beach drifter ( talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Article topic doesn't meet GNG. Only one source on the article refers to similarities between the two entities in reference to penal punishments which if deemed worthy could be included in other articles. Article reads very much like an essay by the article creator. The very first sentence is a very contentious claim that the Saudi Arabia government directly helped ISIL over a number of years. Something even our article on ISIL doesn't make, indeed it makes the opposite statement. The last sentence refers to ISIL as a country which is a claim not recognised by any state/country in the world. At best this is an attempt by the article creator at synthesis WP:SYNTH while at worst I fear it is an attempt to advocate for ISIL by pointing out similarities between it and one of the leading Muslim countries. Cowlibob ( talk) 21:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The statement about me calling ISIS a "country" was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, so there will inevitably be some mistakes. Saudi Arabia directly helping ISIS was the subject of an article in The Independent.-- Eat me, I'm a red bean ( discuss)( contribs) 01:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If you're referring to the The Independent ref in the article, it is an opinion piece and should be credited as such. It also makes the claim that individuals contributed not that the government did. Cowlibob ( talk) 09:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
In principle I would not be opposed to that but it would require a complete rewrite of the article as those are topics covered in the current article. Cowlibob ( talk) 09:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Speedily so. The article in its current form is nothing but OR and a coatrack. I'm amused to see that Da-esh has been confirmed as a country. FreeatlastChitchat ( talk) 03:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think this article is helpful at all. سامي الرحيلي ( talk) 08:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:IDL.-- Eat me, I'm a red bean ( discuss)( contribs) 11:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, original research and misrepresented sources. Articles on other topics related to ISIL and Saudi Arabia might be written; this is beyond salvage. Huon ( talk) 00:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities. Thanks to Ferret for the detailed analysis of sources, that was most helpful to the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

GTANet.com

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V. The article is filled with sources, but they're all either unreliable, trivial, or primary (mostly reblogged press releases). Many don't even mention GTAN or the individual fansites, and those that do simply give them credit for the tip. There is no significant coverage of the network itself in reliable, third-party sources. Woodroar ( talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) Woodroar ( talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep:Complicated = this page's notability. I was exploring and gathering rules for notability establishment for forums from many wikipedia's guidelines as this page's notability might be in question. So here we go. Important thing to notice: we are talking about internet forum. Forums, by definition, are rarely notable other than to their members. But, and this is a big but, exception proves the rule. And GTANet is an exception. Wikipedia has no clear rule on how to establish forum's notability because forum is so much different media than all other websites.

Forum is community of members, their message board. How to describe an internet forum? It is message board whose formatting is well known: you have registration options, pm option, posting option and that's basically it. So every forum is the same thing other discussion? This assumption is something that drags every discussion about forum in the way of deleting them. Let's take one step backwards. We are not talking about weather gtaforum is good or bad, you may have never heard for it, you may not know what it is about, but understanding that this page has enough notable sources is essential. Wikipedia is very unclear on the subject of forum notability, so I needed to go through various rules to establish the following. First don't assume forum is just a website. Look at forum this way: forum is organization. This organization's residents are called members. This organization's products are called threads, topics, mods, showcases. This is no ordinary organization however. It does have many basic standards as every organization has, but the difference with this one is that we can't separate it from its products. This organization and its products are very compact because they rely on each other - without one, the other wouldn't exist. That's why they are so inseparable. This is what makes internet forum so different. Taking away content of GTAnet from it is like taking all the words from a book.

The evidence that the organization or its product has attracted the notice proves the notability. This organization and its products both were subject of sources and information on the importance of the subject. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are some of the examples.

Content of this subject caused both political and cultural impact. This forum was found relevant enough to be taken down for leaks, it is considered as relevant gta news website for illustrious gaming informers, it is a place which invented modding tools praised both by rockstar and gaming informers, modding section's attention from media is exceptional, if this site was relevant enough to cause media coverage noise among both informers and gta fans with a prank, than there is no way it fails WP:N. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 18:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • WP doesn't need rules for forums—it has the general notability guideline. Let's take a step back. The article has already been refbombed and what's most important is this: what sources discuss the site/forum itself in depth? (Not a product of fans via the site, but the site itself.) And how is the site distinguished from general Grand Theft Auto fandom such that it wouldn't be adequate to include the aforementioned refs in a "fandom" section of the series article? –  czar 19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Barring positive answers to the above, I suggest repurposing to Grand Theft Auto fandom (or Grand Theft Auto mod community), slaying all non-secondary sources, and revisiting in the future. CCCD's sources appear to be much more about fan response to GTA than specifically about modding. If the fan activity doesn't fit into a coherent narrative about things fans coalesce around, those citations should be removed as trivia. In essence, the article should be a summary style expansion of a fandom section within the series article. –  czar 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
70 references aren't real number. Out of them 70 there are around 20 that are wp:gng while others should be removed or kept just for statistics (alexa). I understand the problem about this site and notability. There are little sources that discuss site itself. However there are some. They are not exceptionally in depth, but should serve enough for wp:n establishment. This one says as I quote: GTAForums, a popular site for mod makers of the game. The visitors were often anonymous, logging on under assumed names and rarely, if ever, meeting in person... The modding community felt like a bunch of friends trying to solve a mystery. Then, there are articles (by qj and n4g) regarding the takeover of gtaforum by EA, first source on this, by whatifgaming is however not acquirable by wayback. This one can be counted as well as this one. Their main subject may not be giving info on gtanet, but they included enough info not to be treated as trivial. This one is sole covering and giving attention to gtanet and this one gives a lot of in depth to its modding section even though not being subject. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 20:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I tried to destroy as much primary or trivial references I could to make it readable. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 21:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nom, but here's my complete run down of the sources as they are in this revision.
  1. Trivial mention that the site admin was invited to the event. No indepth coverage of the site except for the last section, which was written by the admin himself.
  2. No coverage of the site itself, only a blurp that "GTAForums" posted some details from a Q&A. This source is about GTA V, not the site.
  3. No direct coverage of the site beyond mentioning that specific users and "users" in general from the forum had done things.
  4. Content is about GTA V, GTA Forums mentioned only as the source of the comparison images.
  5. Best source so far, but the content of the source is primarily about bugs in GTA V, GTA Forums is simply a place people were posting about them.
  6. Trivial mention that users of the site built a good guess in a single sentence. Rest of article focuses on GTA V content.
  7. Same as above. Article is about GTA V map content, with a trivial mention that users of the forums made their own map.
  8. Trivial mention that a user of the forum noticed which actor was listed in IMDB for GTA V....
  9. Zero discussion of GTAForums beyond trivial mention as a source. Article is about GTA V
  10. Again, trivial mention of GTAForums users as source for leaks.
  11. Article is about a hoax done by forum user theNGclan, with only a trivial mention of which forums (GTA Forums)
  12. Trivial mention that forum members of GTAForums have made gifs... followed by gifs.
  13. Source 7 repeated.
  14. Source 12 repeated.
  15. Alexa, doesn't help WP:N
  16. Small foot note stating that the content discussed is hosted at GTAForums. No direct discussion of GTAForums.
  17. Extremely trivial mention of GTAForums, no discussion of site beyond a "shout out"
  18. Unreliable source, this is just GTAForums' "social group" on Rockstars "clan" system.
  19. Somewhat better source that focuses on a Google Map created for GTA4 by gta4.net. This is the first source that mentions GTANet.com at all. All previous sources have been GTAForums only.
  20. No mention of GTANet or any related sites at all, nor any link to them.
  21. Unreliable source, download page for a mod. Only mention of GTAForums is a link to a thread.
  22. Sources is about a specific mod, only mention of GTAForums is in regards to the mod author posting there.
  23. Same mod as sources 20 and 21. No mention of GTAForums other than that the author is a member.
  24. No discussion of GTAForums, other than a trivial mention as the source of a quote.
  25. Source 19 repeated.
  26. Source 24 repeated.
  27. Currently a deadlink so cannot comment. Venturebeat seems to be having tech difficulties.
  28. Discussion of various mods with no mention of GTAForums or GTANet.com.
  29. Game developer's blog, mentioning the GTA4 map created by gta4.net. Discussion is about the map, not the site, which is simply listed as "Via GTANet.com"
  30. Another map with a youtube video, no mention of GTAForums or GTANet.com.
  31. Bad source. Google Books was searched for "gtamodding", presumably one of the sub-sites of GTANet.com. However it found "GTA Modding" in the title of a reference to a Polish GTA site.
  32. Article has a few quotes from Illspirit, admin for gtagarage.com, but is about Hot Coffee mod, not Gtagarage.com or related sites.
  33. Bad source. Link to a google book with "gtanet.com" as the search key, but Google replies "0 results found"
  34. Bad source, another google book with GTAForums as the search key, but it appears to be failing to match anything in the article, perhaps due to some sort of translation issue.
  35. Primary source to gtagarage.com
  36. Repeat coverage of GTA4.com's Google Maps version of GTA4. No coverage of site, coverage is about map.
  37. No mention at all of GTAnet.com and related sites.
  38. No mention at all of GTAnet.com and related sites.
  39. Appears to be an unreliable source, reporting a GTANet.com April Fool's Day hoax claiming that EA bought the site.
  40. Reliable source covering the same April Fool's Day hoax. At least this is actually about the site somewhat, but notability by itself it is not.
  41. n4g.com is not a reliable source, I believe, as it's a news aggregater. This is just a repost of the next source.
  42. Can't recall if Qj.net is reliable, but this is an update to the April Fool's Day hoax and trivial.
  43. Extremely short blurb about a mod, only mention of GTAForums/GTANet.com is to source it.
  44. No discussion of the site beyond noting that a member had scanned an early magazine release.
  45. Another article about Hot Coffee Mod. Trivial mentions to gtagarage.com, where the mod had been released.
  46. The site went down shortly after leaking that a new trailer for GTA would be released soon. No information on cause. Trivial.
  47. Coverage of a GTA 3 mod. Only mention of sites in question is as a link on where to get it.
I don't see anything here that helps with WP:N. This is after the main editor involved in the article cleaned out a large number of primary/trivial sources. I think if I removed all the sources I consider at the very best "trivial", if not outright unrelated, the article might have 3 surviving sources, and they'd still be trivial ones. -- ferret ( talk) 22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Additional thought/note in regards to CZAR's comments about a fandom article, having checked through many of these sources, I do not believe they would support a fandom article either. -- ferret ( talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
11, 19, 31, 34, 36, 45, 46, these are interpreted especially wrong. First if you want to use google news search on this topic then delete .com of gtaforums and gtanet and you'll see more results. It doesn't mean that the article is trivial just because it's primary subject isn't gtanet or gtaforum. Their content counts as well especially where highlighted. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This was not a Google search I did. I checked the references you put in the article, as they currently are, and that was the results of clicking them. I'm sorry you disagree with my interpretations, but it's all trivial. There's no in depth coverage of the site itself, just various coverage of things people did or the barest mention of "Via GTANet". The simple fact of the matter is that most fan sites aren't notable, and that's the case here. In addition, there's just so much OR synthesis here. One of the best examples is Many reputable gaming news websites, as well as Rockstar, acknowledged the quality of fan made material on GTANet, with Digital Trends describing it as dedicated. ... None of the five sources for this sentence directly discuss the "quality" of the fan made material. In particular, the "quote" for Digital Trends is misleading. Digital Trends does not call the quality of the material "dedicated", it simply says "A dedicated group of fans" made the map. At best, these sources might lead to notability of the particular artists and teams making these mods (There's not enough for that though). GTANet doesn't inherent notability from them though. -- ferret ( talk) 14:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per ferret's very well-done analysis of each reference. The site is popular, but popularity != notability. The coverage of individual mods which are credited/linked to GTANet is not in-depth coverage enough to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Nick⁠—⁠ Contact/ Contribs 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Despite being a fairly large article, it doesn't say anything informational or otherwise noteworthy, let alone that being backed up by a valid, objective, well-established source. And as was said before, popularity does not mean notability. -- Soetermans. T / C 09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, not bangvoting myself, since I asked another user ( User:czar in this case) to the AfD-discussion, but will say that I think sufficient WP:SOURCES exist to write a decent Draft:Grand Theft Auto modding article, rescuing the WP:NOTEWORTHY material about GtaForums and GtaGarage (which are two of the sister-sites within the GtaNet group-slash-web-ring-kinda), and their role in Hot Coffee and later mods. This approach would satisfy wiki-honor about the removal of GTANet.com as being WP:NotJustYet, but still simultaneously satisfy WP:PRESERVE for the material therein which *is* reliably-sourced, either in the existing article or on the talkpage. 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 00:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The new article's live at Grand Theft Auto modding. I gave the creator some advice on my talk page. Redirect to Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities as a valid search term for that section. (And redirects are cheap—there's no need to delete the edit history.) –  czar 04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What Gtanet article lacks is sources that explore it in-depth. I managed to find a lot of references, however they mostly discuss content found there. I was not aware that main page doesn't inherit notability of content. Therefore, gtanet would need in-depth coverage to be stand alone article. I will change my vote to Redirect to Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities. Cha cha cha dancer ( talk) 10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Miss Earth Special Awards

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

Overview of completely irrelevant side-awards backed up by related sources, not sources conform WP:RS The Banner  talk 15:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I mean, one of the categories is Miss Photogenic. I fail to see how this type of list is encyclopedia worthy. Either delete it or merge pertinent information over to Miss Earth. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 18:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete while the runners-up get some coverage and have some contractual obligations, this is a list of "consolation prizes", which verges on the irrelevant, even the reviews of the pageant would hardly talk about them, a clear case of WP:LISTCRUFT Kraxler ( talk) 01:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Miss Earth hosts and invited guests

List of Miss Earth hosts and invited guests (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely irrelevant as separate article. The Banner  talk 15:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete another case of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT, the hosts and invited guests may be mentioned at the yearly Miss Earth articles, list is unnecessary Kraxler ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ildiko Ferenczi

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

WP:BLP of an actress and model which makes no claim of notability that would constitute an automatic keep under our notability criteria for actresses or models, and which is resting entirely on unreliable sources like her IMDb profile and blog entries with no evidence of reliable source coverage provided. If you check her IMDb profile, further, the majority of her roles to date have been minor unnamed characters like "Stripper #1", "Dancer #2", "Ex-Girlfriend #3" or "Attractive Woman", with no roles of the type it would take to satisfy WP:NACTOR #1. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when her notability and sourceability improve. Bearcat ( talk) 15:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete With the exception of a cover photo on Vanquish magazine, doesn't satisfy WP:NMODEL and also neither WP:NACTOR with mostly uncredited roles. My guess is that it is a self-promotional piece. Curiocurio 21:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Katrina Halili

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

Delete: as non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 14:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - @ [email protected]: Did you even look for sources before nominating the article for deletion? She is, or at least was, a popular actress here in the Philippines even before her sex scandal, and her sex scandal was major news that dominated news headlines for a few months. If anything, I'm surprised that her article was nominated for deletion at all. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes. And I don't consider "contestant to top the FHM Philippines' 100 Sexiest list and the first Filipina celebrity to have won the title twice in a row (Sam Pinto (2011-12) and Marian Rivera (2013-14) also achieve this). She is a four-time FHM Philippines covergirl ..." or salacious info about a sex tape to make her notable. Quis separabit? 14:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
@ [email protected]: However, as Davey2010 pointed out, she has received significant coverage in several reliable sources, including sources which are actually about her rather than the scandal, which at the very least would allow her to pass WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep she passes WP:NACTOR # 1, having played major roles in many TV series, the coverage in even not so great sources just adds up, and confirms her popularity Kraxler ( talk) 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Geoff Swier

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

associate assistant advisor to the something something something research unit key figure somehow unspecified blah blah nn Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 14:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I note the article needs ocnsiderable expansion and referencing but Swier has been a key player in privatisation reforms on both sides to the Tasman. With some work should easily fall within the notability guidelines NealeFamily ( talk) 01:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Could you list the sources, I couldn't find much myself. Although, admittedly I don't know much about Geoff Swier. Jonpatterns ( talk) 13:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete possibly he was around in the 1990s during the privatizations, as an adviser and somebody who was asked by the press to make short statements, but he fails WP:NPOL, he's now a lobbyist, ahem, consultant, operating far from the limelight, as can be gathered from some newspaper snippets, as to WP:GNG, if there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, then please show them, give us some links, NealeFamily. Kraxler ( talk) 02:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OSAMDEVETTRI

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

Non-notable musician. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of this musician. Normally I would have tagged for speedy deletion, but since this is a Serbian artist, I'm not sure if I'm missing sources due to my inability to read Serbian, so I thought I'd bring the matter here and see if anyone else can find anything. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: promo advert (for non-notable musician) disguised as an article; almost all links are to Facebook. Quis separabit? 14:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. After reading no claim to significance and noting that most of the sources are from Facebook, I tagged this for speedy deletion. The article's creator subsequently removed that and the AfD templates. 2601:188:0:ABE6:E912:650D:B93C:F627 ( talk) 00:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - And I recommend that this matter be closed soon. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 01:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. 'Nuff said. 和DITOR E tails 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Dadaist Audio

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

Non notable, no reliable source found to support the article. Variation 25.2 ( talk) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete It's a netlabel. Those specialize in non-physical releases. Finding proper third party sources on net labels is next to impossible; and this one is no different. Shouldn't be here. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 18:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The group looks barely notable if notable at all, really. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 01:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. A7: Unremarkable website or web content Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

What's 9 + 10

What's 9 + 10 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can only find one article mentioning that the kid in the video ran away from home. [12] The "meme" doesn't seem to be widespread enough to warrant any kind of coverage though. Savonneux ( talk) 08:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

But that site is full of hoaxes, and it has significant third-party coverage to warrant an article, like at Know Your Meme. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 08:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems there's a few stories on it and as noted below heritage site's are notable anyway. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Gol Talab

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

Places are not inherently notable. Both references listed on this page only mention the term "Gol Talab" and the second one only mentions "talab"; none of which reference where this particular talab even is. When searching for this one on google; I found a few tumblr and pinterest links; but nothing of substantial value. Yeah, the locals might think this is notable; but it doesn't meet guidelines for Wikipedia. Fails WP:GEOLAND completely. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - If a Wikipedian throws a rock into a pond and it splashes but there's nobody to hear it because the article was deleted, does it make a sound? Anyways, this clearly is barely notable if notable at all. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a backlash because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vineta-Festspiele .♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Hardly. I might have noticed the article due to your attacks causing me to look at your edit history; but the nomination is simply because the article fails to be notable. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 08:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, this was nominated as a backlash because I dared state that you're acting like a fool on a festival which easily passes GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't know what goes on inside of The Undead Never Die's head, and I honestly don't really care. I just don't find this body of water to be really worth having an article about. Just because some place has a particularly recognized cultural heritage doesn't mean that it deserves an article. One can point to dozens upon dozens of Wikipedia articles on people, on ideas, on objects, etc that in the body text refer to some place of heritage that's involved. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Dr. Blofeld, your talk page is where this article first caught my sight. It had been subject to a PROD which you hastily deleted saying you don't do prod. So I took it to AfD. As for it being a heritage site; show me where heritage sites are notable. Also, show me where this is mentioned as a heritage site. What makes this different than any other pond across the globe? The sources for that article are two words in two different books and one short youtube video. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 08:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's not any old pond like some pond in rural England. It's a man made structure in the heart of urban Old Dhaka which has historical significance to the locals and has thus been given official heritage status.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Since the new sources have been added, there are now a few more sources that just literally list the name "Gol Talab" and go into zero detail about it what-so-ever. There is a travel guide, which is just what it sounds like, and the other sources, i.e., the DCC source, has the most vague list of their sites. (For example; they list "Rose Garden") Two of the sites claim different ownership over this pond also. I see no mention anywhere, that is has been officially been given a heritage status by any government figure. Just random people talking about it; or just random people mentioning it without going into depth about it. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 08:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Whenever I look at a deletion candidate I think "Would the encyclopedia be better off without it?". I believe we're stronger as a resource having it. A good percentage of topics don't have a mass of coverage but are mentioned in enough sources to make them worthy of inclusion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It depends on the sources. Are they reliable? Are they user driven or created through paid staff? Not one source has done more than mention this as a place that exists. Existence alone isn't notable. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 09:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep It's listed as an official heritage site. Heritage sites are notable and this has enough sources to meet GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Where is it listed as a heritage site? As far as I can tell it's a pond, named "Pond", most of the references just mention it as being there. Actually one of the references say that the buildings near it weren't recognized as heritage sites because reasons.-- Savonneux ( talk) 12:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

[13] ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:GEOLAND Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable. That source specifically says:
"The City Development Committee has listed ... 93 structures and sites considering their historical, aesthetic, scientific, social, cultural, religious, political and heritage value."
The local city is obviously not national. It also lists it simply by name which fails which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available.-- Savonneux ( talk) 14:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's exactly this sort of thing why people give up editing wikipedia you know. Wikipedia seems to attract a certain type of person who once they make their mind up about something will twist everything to go against something/somebody. Protected monuments on any level are notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
No one is forcing you to stay here Dr. Blofeld, but keep using the verbiage you have been and there will be a warning following them shortly. As far as the "City Development Committee" naming heritage sites; I don't buy that. It's not an elected official, it's a group of, more than likely, random locals who gathered to complain to the government. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 16:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I have absolutely no vested interest in this. I haven't even voted in this AfD yet. I'm just pointing out the guidelines.-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
"The City Development Committee, headed by the housing and public works secretary, has listed a total of 93 structures and sites considering their historical, aesthetic, scientific, social, cultural, religious, political and heritage value." That's what the source says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
And it goes on to say "However, neither Rajuk nor the DCC took any steps to introduce the concept of ‘Transfer of Development Right’ to compensate the private owners of the listed heritage properties and persuade them to cooperate with the conservation move." So these sites are privately owned; and their ability to become a heritage site lies in the owner by the looks of the article. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's Bangladesh ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If all professional footballers are considered notable, then all heritage sites should be as well. This easily passed GNG. RO (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF-- Savonneux ( talk) 23:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
GNG is an actual policy, so I'm not sure how this essay trumps my keep vote. RO (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Another one that passes GNG and is backed up by reliable secondary sources. For the subject matter, I would consider all heritage sites notable. JAG UAR  00:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThe pond has been studied in detail by faculty of the local university and most aspects related to any lake article in WP has been covered now.-- Nvvchar. 00:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This is the "studied in detail" to which he refers "Ward : 73•Age:200yrs•Area: 2.23acr•Depth: 23 ft•Ownership:Private" [14]-- Savonneux ( talk) 01:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 07:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kigeli V of Rwanda. Consensus not to have a separate article. What if anything to merge from history to the ex-king's article is a matter for further editorial discussion.  Sandstein  06:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Royal Order of the Intare

Royal Order of the Intare (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been proposed for deletion due to several fatal issues.
  • There is no reliable primary source cited to support the claim that such an order even exists, nor could I find one after searching.
  • The only source the article provides is for a different Order entirely -- the Royal Order of the Lion of Rwanda -- but even that citation is to a source that almost no one has access to. Without any excerpt provided from that source, it may well not be a valid source at all.
  • There is no evidence that such a claimed "order" is notable, even if it exists. There are no primary sources cited for the claimed "notable members" of this "order", so there's no reason to believe that they actually are members, but some of those listed are notorious collectors of self-styled orders, which further discredits the notion that this "order" is legitimate.
  • The article claims that the fons honorum of the order is "King Kigeli V of Rwanda", but Kigeli was king for only 18 months and was deposed in 1961, so he hasn't been king for more than a half-century. I presume that, having lived in the US for more than 20 years and being on government assistance, Kigeli is an American citizen and as such he would be are barred from being "king" of anywhere, as well as being barred from granting memberships in "royal orders".
  • The article claims "Since 3 January 1998, King Kigeli V of Rwanda has affirmed right to bestow the order..." What prevented Kigeli from bestowing membership in the Order between 1961 and 1998?
  • An article in The Economist states "King Kigeli V Ndahindurwa of Rwanda lost his throne in 1961. He now lives in social housing in Oakton, Virginia, surviving on handouts from well-wishers. But he has a business sideline, too. The orders and titles of nobility he issues do not have anything as plebeian as a price tag. But the recipients (70-odd so far) are 'asked for donations', according to his 'secretary-general', Alex Montague, a financial adviser in Miami. Cash payments usually range from $1,000 to $8,000..." http://www.economist.com/news/international/21586844-people-still-yearn-aristocratic-titles-some-buy-them-honours-and-offers . Another article in The Washingtonian about Kigeli states "The only people with real power or money Kigeli sees these days are those seeking knighthoods. In 1998, he revived the Order of the Lion, first granted by his late half-brother, King Mutara. More recently, Kigeli introduced a series of new orders—of the drum, the crown, and the crested crane, all icons in the royal coat of arms—when it became clear they might appeal to benefactors. 'We've seen donations anywhere from $1,000 to $8,000, but the average is $3,000 to $5,000,' says Alex Montague, a financial adviser in Miami who processes the requests as the king’s current secretary-general." http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/people/a-king-with-no-country/index.php Clearly, this is a straightforward cash-for-honors business run by an American citizen.
In short: this article is nothing more than an attempt at self-promotion by a bogus "order", entirely lacking in legitimate sources. I posted this information a year ago, challenging its editors to address the problems cited above. Not one has responded. I believe it fits all of the requirements for deletion. Thank you. Bricology ( talk) 18:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The translation of 'Intare' is 'lion'. After reading up on this, I believe they are the same order; translated that would make sense, and people awarded the order use the terms interchangeably . The source you list above states "In 1998, he revived the Order of the Lion, first granted by his late half-brother, King Mutara. More recently, Kigeli introduced a series of new orders—of the drum, the crown, and the crested crane, all icons in the royal coat of arms—when it became clear they might appeal to benefactors." It does not mention that he introduced new orders having to do with lions or intare, leading me to believe it is a continuation of the first order. If Kigeli is selling the orders, that is a completely different issue, as is his being deposed and the legitimacy of the order. The fact that it is resurrected by a Rwandan King and started by a Rwandan King gives it a 'keep' in my book. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 07:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Cagepanes wrote "After reading up on this, I believe they are the same order; translated that would make sense, and people awarded the order use the terms interchangeably" Exactly *where* did you "read up on this"? We need to see reliable second-party sources, as WP requires. No, "ManorialGuild.com" does not qualify as one. And it's telling that the link you provided is to precisely the sort of fake title-collector that "The Royal Order of Intarare" is marketed to: one Cheong Ming Lam -- who (according to your link), for having been born in China and being ethnically Chinese, and now being a British citizen, also purchased "the noble title of Datu Sadja from HM Muedzul-Lail Tan Kiram, the 35th Sultan of Sulu and Sabah (North Borneo)" and "Honorary Aide-De-Camp or Kentucky Colonel from the Governor of Kentucky", was "commissioned as an Honorary Admiral in the Texas Navy awarded by the Governor of the State of Texas", "Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio, A Knight Commander of the Royal Order of Saint Michael of the Wing, A Companion of the Royal and Hashemite Order of the Pearl of Sulu, A Commander of the Imperial Order of the Dragon of Annam, and a Companion of the Military and Hospitaller Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem", and purchased the fake title "Lord of the Manor of Pinner, Essex". Is this really a source that you think is going to lend legitimacy to the article in question? More to the point: the article does not provide sources to support its claims. You continued "If Kigeli is selling the orders, that is a completely different issue, as is his being deposed and the legitimacy of the order. The fact that it is resurrected by a Rwandan King and started by a Rwandan King gives it a 'keep' in my book." You seem to be confused. It wasn't "resurrected by a Rwandan King", since Kigeli has not been king of anything since 1961, nor can he be a king of anything, so long as he remains a US citizen. Laws in the US prohibit any US citizen from being a monarch or having a nobiliary title, or granting nobiliary titles. And no, he cannot "resurrect" something that *may* have been started by his brother a half-century ago, 37 years after he was deposed and left the kingdom he may have once ruled. That just ain't the way it works. A "continuation" must be unbroken. It's as absurd as claiming that the the last Emperor of China could move to the US and, 50 years after he was deposed, start selling Chinese imperial titles. I've provided two solid second-party sources that both say that this is a transparent cash-for-honors scheme. Neither you nor anyone else has provided any legitimate sources which refute that. Since WP isn't a platform for shysters to advertise their fake titles, the article needs to go. Bricology ( talk) 06:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I think you seem to be confused. You are going into the legitimacy of whether a deposed ruled can grant titles. That is a completely separate issue. The fact is the order exists, and there are reliable sources to cover it: The Washington Post, the Journal of the Canadian Institute of Marketing, and possibly Arizona GOP. You also state it "may" have been started by his brother. It was, so I don't know where your question is coming from? You also state Kigeli "hay" have ruled, which is also confusing, since he did, as he was King. You're going down rabbit holes for issues that are separate from the fact that this is an order that exists from a (now deposed) King, and there are reliable sources to prove it. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 15:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Cagepanes wrote "You are going into the legitimacy of whether a deposed ruled can grant titles. That is a completely separate issue." It's in no way "a completely separate issue"; it is one of a number of fatal issues that this article has. The onus is on the claimant (i.e., the WP editor who posted this article) to support their claim. If someone claimed that the Queen had the legal prerogative to bestow The Order of the Garter, it would be straightforward to prove that she does. If someone claimed that an American citizen had the legal prerogative to bestow The Royal Order of the Intare, that should be able to be proved as well. Has it been proved? Of course not. Furthermore, you claimed that "The Royal Order of the Intare" is the same as "The Royal Order of the Lion", since "intare" means "lion". That is not only a dangerous assumption to make, it is entirely incorrect. In fact, the Royal Order of the Lion was established in 1891 by King Leopold while the Congo was a Belgian colony, and it continued to be awarded through 1960, when Belgium lost control of the Congo. The Royal Order of the Lion is still considered a Belgium royal order, and continues to be administered by the Belgian authorities, although it is no longer awarded http://www.medals.org.uk/belgium/belgium005.htm .
What Washington Post article are you talking about? I have found no such article. There is the article in Washingtonian (magazine) (no relation to the Post) that I referenced, which states Kigeli's "...occasional sale of Rwandan knighthoods to jet-set strangers in search of novelty status symbols". I'm glad you accept that as being evidence that Kigeli is simply selling titles, but don't conflate that article in The Washingtonian with "The Washington Post" providing reliable sourcing. Can you find even one reliable second-party source to show that King Mutara created or ever conferred this Order? Nope. Here's what Guy Stair Sainty, editor of the comprehensive reference book World Orders of Knighthood & Merit wrote on the topic:
:::::"If someone wants to suggest that Mwami Mutara III created the Royal 'Order' of the Lion, it must be up to him or her to provide the evidence. At the very least, they ought to offer a convincing argument in favour of it. Absentmindedness, as to when it may have been created, does not help in so doing. Neither do any of the following unanswered questions:
  1. Why Mwami Mutara III never wore an 'order' of that description.
  2. Why King Kigeri himself did not receive the 'order', nor any other known member of the Royal family.
  3. Why nobody can name a single recipient of the 'order' under Mwami Mutara III.
  4. Why it was never conferred by King Kigeri himself, while he actually reigned as Mwami in 1959-1961.
  5. Why it was never worn by him while Mwami.
  6. Why a single contemporary newspaper cutting or reference cannot be produced confirming the existence of the 'order'.
  7. Why there are no records of the 'order' in the Belgian colonial archives of the period.
  8. Why the Belgians would have even allowed another 'order' with exactly the same name as one of their existing orders, which they regularly conferred in Rwanda.
  9. Why would someone clamouring for the independence of his country even base his first 'order' on the colonial order and even use the lion rampant symbol, when his own principal royal symbols are the sacred drums.
  10. Why King Kigeri never conferred the 'order' during the 31 years of his residence outside the USA.
If someone can offer convincing answers to these questions, I would be more than happy to take a different view. However, in their absence, the conclusion to all this is relatively simple. This 'Royal souvenir' has the footprints of the American gong-hunting 'fraternity' all over it." (source: newsgroup alt.talk.royalty)
I apologize if my use of the word "may" was confusing. I used it not to introduce doubt, but conditionally (such as if I said "...while he may have been king at the time, he did not confer...") I do not doubt that Kigeli was once the King of Rwanda. Bricology ( talk) 20:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
1. First of all, the King's name is Kigeli, not Kigeri. The fact that you're not even spelling his name right would lead one to believe you don't know what you are researching.
2. I meant the Washington Post because that's what I wrote. If you read the rest of the source, you'll see 'Post' instead of 'Magazine'. The original article is referenced and quoted here and here. I don't have access to their archives, so I can't provide a URL. Not being able to find a URL on a reference is quite common, actually.
3. I have no idea why you're arguing about him holding a royal station as well as living in America. There are lots of deposed/exiled royals in the US. Here and here are articles on half a dozen of them.
The fact is, this is an order from a notable person (ie: Kigeli V of Rwanda), conferred on notable people (ie: Edward von Kloberg III), covered by reliable sources (ie: The Washington Post). Most of what you're challenging isn't apropos to this article. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 02:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Cagepanes wrote "First of all, the King's name is Kigeli, not Kigeri. The fact that you're not even spelling his name right would lead one to believe you don't know what you are researching." No, "first of all", I didn't write his name "Kigeri"; if you look up-thread you'll see that I have always spelled it "Kigeli". I was quoting Guy Stair Sainty. That's why I wrote "Here's what Guy Stair Sainty, editor of the comprehensive reference book World Orders of Knighthood & Merit wrote on the topic", followed with opening quotation marks, and Sainty's quote, in italics. I don't know how you missed that, but before accusing me of ignorance, it would be a good idea to make sure that I'm actually ignorant. Furthermore, as one David Pritchard pointed out to Mr. Sainty at the source I referenced, "By the way, the Rwandans have made it clear to me that the king's name is Kigeli with a 'l' rather than a 'r'. It would seem that his name has been spelled both ways over the past fifty years, perhaps the spelling with the 'r' is prefered in the French language and that with the 'l' is prefered in the Kinyarwanda language." (emphasis added) It's worth noting that French was the official administrative language in the Belgian Congo from 1885 through 1960, and that before the Belgians arrived, the indigenous peoples had no written language, so claiming that Kigeli spelled his name with an "L" is sophistry since it's unlikely he spelled it at all. Perhaps he preferred it being pronounced with the "L" sound, and that's the way he's subsequently spelled it. You originally wrote "The fact is the order exists, and there are reliable sources to cover it: The Washington Post, the Journal of the Canadian Institute of Marketing, and possibly Arizona GOP", for which you provided two links which quoted the Post. But that has never been the issue. No one has claimed that something called "The Royal Order of the Intare" doesn't exist; clearly, it does. But that does not confer notability, much less legitimacy upon it. And it's telling that the Post article makes mention of it in the context of a crooked politician receiving it. Finally, you wrote "I have no idea why you're arguing about him holding a royal station as well as living in America" Again, reading comprehension is an important thing. I never said that persons with royal titles couldn't live in America; I said that they couldn't be US citizens, and I'm correct. Here's what the US Citizenship and Immigration Service states on their website as a prerequisite for anyone becoming a naturalized citizen:

C. Renunciation of Title or Order of Nobility​: Any applicant who has any titles of heredity or positions of nobility in any foreign state must renounce the title or the position. The applicant must expressly renounce the title in a public ceremony and USCIS must record the renunciation as part of the proceedings.​ [5] Failure to renounce the title of position shows a lack of attachment to the Constitution.​ In order to renounce a title or position, the applicant must add one of the following phrases to the Oath of Allegiance:​

•I further renounce the title of (give title or titles) which I have heretofore held; or ​
•I further renounce the order of nobility (give the order of nobility) to which I have heretofore belonged." Citizenship & Naturalization, Part J – Oath of Allegiance

.
Consequently, if Kigeli is a US citizen, he can no longer call himself a king, nor can he act as a fons honorum for any royal orders. Given that he's lived here for 23 years, and for most or all of that time, on public assistance, I think it's likely that he is a citizen. ​ Bricology ( talk) 22:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I still think you would benefit from some research on this. Kigeli was granted asylum in the United States. Where are you seeing he's a US Citizen? -- Cagepanes ( talk) 00:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I haven't seen proof that he's a US citizen, nor that he isn't. Do you have any sources that confirm or deny either status? Anyone who has lived in the US for 23 years -- whether or not they arrived as an assylum-seeker -- is likely to have become a citizen by now, since the process takes far shorter time than that. And anyone who hasn't at least done their best to become a citizen, but has lived off of its citizen-taxpayers (getting food stamps, Section-8 housing, etc.) for all of that time, I would describe as a parasite and say they ought to be deported. Bricology ( talk) 23:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Have you even read his article, Bricology? It says right in the article he was granted asylum by the US. The source is still live, which takes you to the Time article. Also, no one cares about your personal opinions on an ousted dictator. It's not apropos to any discussion about his article, or the Intare article. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 00:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Cagepanes wrote "It says right in the article he was granted asylum by the US." Yes, I know -- and when was that article written? Fourteen years ago. A lot can happen in 14 years. Are you claiming that people who come to the US as asylum-seekers can't or don't subsequently become citizens? As I suspect you know, the reality is that of the more than 20,000 people that the US grants asylum to each year, the majority who stay and behave themselves, become citizens. That process takes about 5 years, so Kigeli could've become a citizen nearly 3 times over, if he wanted to. I have still found nothing from any source that states whether or not he has become a citizen. If you have solid information one way or the other, feel free to cite it. Unless and until you do, you have to admit that his status is unknown. Kigeli is either a freeloading long-time resident or he's a citizen and thus, barred from using or granting titles, as per the Federal law I cited above. Bricology ( talk) 05:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I had to laugh at this from Cagepanes: "...this is an order from a notable person...conferred on notable people (ie: Edward von Kloberg III..."
Edward Kloberg was barely notable (a whole 875 Google hits!) and even then, only for being a shyster for dictators. Here's how the Washington Post described him: "He (Kloberg) festooned himself with red sashes and ornate medals, decorations from faded potentates and the minor nations that retained his services. He spoke in a deep, pompous voice. 'Le baron von Kloberg,' one of his office cards read. 'Chairman and Founder, Washington World Group, Limited, International Consultants.' He was not a baron; he was the son of a successful New York engineer who built bridges and housing projects. From childhood he was fascinated by history and avidly read biographies of important people. He changed his surname from 'Kloberg' decades later, because he thought 'von' sounded more noble." (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/30/AR2005073001401.html ) In short: Kloberg was EXACTLY the sort of social-climbing fraud that Kigeli and his ilk market their fake orders to. Occam's Shaver ( talk) 02:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's pretty obvious Kloberg was a complete tool. A quick glance at any article about him shows that. Notability doesn't mean someone is notable for positive things. I'm not saying that Kloberg is angelic. I'm saying there are reliable sources to say that this order exists, and is awarded, and is awarded by a notable person. Simple as that. -- Cagepanes ( talk) 02:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
You seem to be missing my point. Kloberg is not notable for being anything but a crook and a poseur and even then, his notability is marginal at best. (There are far more Google hits from _my_ name than his, and I don't have a Wiki about me, nor do I deserve one.) You are suggesting Kloberg as a "notable recipient", apparently oblivious to the fact that his being "awarded" this "order" actually _weakens_ your argument. Kloberg was a fraud who claimed many fake titles for himself. The fact that Kigeli sold him one of his worthless "titles" does not provide you with a notable recipient nearly so much as it provides the other side with ammo _against_ that title. It's like if there were some Bible Belt preacher with a congregation of 500 and a "doctorate" from a diploma mill, who has a Wiki about him because he had been convicted of fleecing his flock. And to lend support to that diploma mill deserving its own Wiki, someone cites said preacher as being a "notable recipient". Does not compute. Occam's Shaver ( talk) 05:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Clearly a mill, selling a non-order to non-notables. The real Order of the Lion is still the property of the Belgian Royal House, as it has been for more than a century. Also, doesn't meet WP:N or sourcing guidelines. Kigeli's entry should definitely include info about his bogus order, but this separate page deserves deletion. Occam's Shaver ( talk) 18:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I think that it's a good time for a recap:
  • "The Royal Order of the Intare" is not, as suggested, a "continuation" of the pre-existing Royal Order of the Lion, which is a legitimate Belgian order instituted by the Belgian King in 1891, and still under the administration of the Royal House of Belgium.
  • No reliable evidence has been found to show that any "Royal Order of the Intare" was ever awarded by Kigeli's predecessor, nor by Kigeli himself, prior to 1998. So, rather than the "Order" being a tradition, it's clearly an innovation.
  • Many reliable second-party sources describe Kigeli's "awarding" of "The Royal Order of the Intare" as being a business enterprise rather than an order of chivalry or nobility. No legitimate order is simply traded for cash, as this one has repeatedly been reported as being.
  • Authorities on chivalric orders, such as Guy Stair Sainty (author of "World Orders of Knighthood & Merit") characterize "The Royal Order of the Intare" as being bogus.
  • As opposed to legitimate chivalric orders such as the nine Alliance Orders of Saint John or the Royal Victorian Order which, although granted by one particular fons honorum, are mutually recognized by other fontes honorum, "The Royal Order of the Intare" is not recognized by any legitimate body, nor does it seem to have been bestowed upon anyone who has received other legitimate orders.
  • WP:N is not met by the so-called order. That phrase returns only 452 Google hits. Compare that to even "minor" (but fully legitimate) orders such as the Royal Victorian Order (143,000 hits), the Order of the Companions of Honour (112,000 hits) or the Order of St Michael and St George (179,000 hits). Also, the quality of the hits is poor, particularly compared to other, legitimate orders.
  • WP:N is not met by any of its confirmed recipients. "Category: Recipients of the Royal Order of the Intare" lists just 15 recipients. Some of these are clearly non-factual, such as Donald Rumsfeld, who is also listed as having been awarded the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor. Significantly, of the 15 names listed, not one article provides sources to support the claim that the subject of the article has been so awarded; indeed, 11 of them never even mention the "order" in the body of the article. It's as if someone just went through and inserted "Recipients of the Royal Order of the Intare" in the category boxes in the footers of those articles.
  • After living in the US for more than 20 years (on taxpayer support), it is entirely possible -- even probable -- that Kigeli is now a US citizen and thus would be barred by Federal law from having a royal title, or granting titles to others.

Having been king of a nation (albeit very briefly and very long ago), Kigeli meets WP:N. And because he is reported to have sold these self-styled titles to others, mention of this should be made in his article. But the article devoted to the "Order" itself should be deleted. Bricology ( talk) 08:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's my recap:
Cagepanes, you keep calling it an "order". It has never been proved to _be_ an order, in the sense that orders of chivalry are understood to be. Orders have specific requirements, such as a monarch (or occasionally, a princely house or grand duchy) to act as the fons honorum. Without _all_ of the necessary pieces in place, it's not a legitimate order; it's "self-styled". Even then, without a significant proportion of the elements in place, it doesn't even qualify as "self-styled". As bircology already pointed out, the very name was stolen from the Royal Belgian order. Kigeli's "order" has been given a fake history, as Kigeli's predecessor never awarded it. It appears to lack any significant number of recipients; it certainly lacks _notable_ recipients. And you really ought to give the whole "Edward Kloberg is a notable recipient" shtick a rest; no one is impressed by Kloberg's "notability" as a recipient of anything legitimate. I've no doubt that he bought _other_ fake titles as well; perhaps he was also the sole recipient of "the Royal Order of the Golden Kazoo". But his connection would hardly confer notability upon "the Royal Order of the Golden Kazoo", now would it? Kigeli's "order" does not seem to have any sort of chivalric community like the legitimate Venerable Order of St. John does, or even the self-styled Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John does. Really, this "order" is just a piece of paper and a crappy mass-produced decoration that's sold, no different from one of those mail-order Scottish feudal baronies that comes with a "deed" to a square foot of land in Scotland. Would you also advocate for every fake Scottish feudal barony floating around out there to have its own Wiki? Or how about the other 3 "orders" that Kigeli has recently trotted out -- "the Royal Orders of the Drum", "...the Crown" and "...the Crane"? Can we look forward to 3 more Wikis -- each playing them up as legitimate too? Where will it stop? If Kigeli creates another 100 bogus "orders" to sell, are you fine with another 100 Wikis to cover (and promote) them? I'm not impressed by the fact some other bogus "orders" already have their own Wikis. One big difference between them and this one is that this one rests entirely upon the "royal prerogative" of Kigeli's status as an exiled king; it couldn't exist without him supposedly lending it legitimacy. Consequently, a Wiki like that for the Sovereign Military and Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem _has_ to be there, since there's no notable head of the "order" on whose Wiki that information could be presented. That's why whatever properly-sourced and notable information about his bogus "order" should simply be appended as a paragraph in Kigeli's own Wiki. Giving it its own Wiki lends it legitimacy it does not deserve. Anyway, I've said all I'm interested in on the topic; I'll let you and bircology hash it out further, if you so choose. Nothing you've said has convinced me to change my mind. I still say "strong delete". Occam's Shaver ( talk) 00:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments by others?  Sandstein  07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - While Kigeli is a notable individual in and of himself, the fact that he's sold a bogus 'Royal Order' of his own making for the purposes of supporting himself in his later years is something that's best included as a paragraph or so in his own personal page. The order itself doesn't have much going for it in terms of notability, and the article as it stands now is a mess. I pretty much agree with the arguments made in the beginning here. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Kigeli_V_of_RwandaThere are reliable sources that he sells the order. There is no evidence that the order is notable outside of his selling it. On an aside, non-citizens can get public housing and food stamps, the programs that administer these services are a patchwork of local, federal, state guidelines. -- Savonneux ( talk) 08:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Noting here that I've done a bit of editing to Kigeli_V_of_Rwanda#Exile_and_recent_activities myself. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
"On an aside, non-citizens can get public housing and food stamps, the programs that administer these services are a patchwork of local, federal, state guidelines.": This is true but for some, not all, non-citizens.
More to the point regarding Kigeli (and a few of Barack Obama's Kenyan relatives, whose previously denied asylum claims were miraculously reopened and granted after he was elected in 2008), you can be a permanent resident or even just an asylee/refugee and collect public assistance and live indefinitely without becoming a US citizen and thus not being required (in Kigeli's case) to renounce foreign claims. You can also collect public assistance (regardless of status) on behalf of any US-born minor children who qualify for such assistance, since we're on the subject. Quis separabit? 13:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yoe Flash Wolves

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

Hasn't won any large events. Very low coverage of this group online; and even the mentions of them in the third party sources are glancing at best. The article is full of facebook references made by the team. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

{Cough} - Rename to You Flash Wolves and change content so that it describes furries exposing their genitals to wild animals? - {Cough}
  • Delete - This looks barely notable at all to me, and I don't really see how the article could be much improved from here honestly. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 07:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The copied content used in the article was released under CC BY-SA.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 06:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 20:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PROMO piece on non-notable video game players, sources are Facebook and gamers' magazines, no coverage in anything related to mainstream media, looks a little like a WP:Walled garden. Kraxler ( talk) 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Kraxler. Me5000 ( talk) 02:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted. Materialscientist ( talk) 23:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Anirban Sen Gupta

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

I believe the person this article is written about is actually the original creator also. This article doesn't have any third party sources to assert any type of notability. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - While I wish this fellow well on his music career, he's just starting out, it seems, and notability hasn't been established in terms of the article. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 07:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Does not meet GNG with no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC with no awards, or charted songs. Seems to be case of WP:TOOSOON, maybe he'll be notable in future but not right now. The COI creator doesn't help things either. Cowlibob ( talk) 10:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I recommend that this whole thing be closed soon, since we seem to have an open-and-shut case here. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Non admin closure. Withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Dunno Y2... Life Is a Moment

Dunno Y2... Life Is a Moment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. It's not out yet and any dates are speculation. Shouldn't be here. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 06:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - While the article very much needs work, it looks to me from searching that the movie has been out for a while and had its "world premiere" about this time last year ( apparently doing pretty well). Coverage about the film also states that its themes are notable since it goes against Bollywood conventions. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Withdrawn It's late. I completely misread the article. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Vineta-Festspiele

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

Contested prod where the original creator claimed to not do prods. No information of value has been added, and sources are extremely limited. Not enough coverage in third party sources to merit its own article. Comparable to a town fair. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 06:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Nothing evil in the fact that an article is a stub. Meets GNG.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, you're an idiot, because no decent editor would nominate something which very clearly meets GNG [15] [16] [17] [18]. The article was expanded since the prod. This is more a POINT issue in me removing the prod than it not being notable. We'll see who is proved right after the AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
You realize that those "books" are literally just listing this place as a "thing to do" and then go on to put it's official website in parentheses right? That does not pass notability guidelines per the sources you've dug up. The German article; which you so brashly said to transfer information over from; is just as empty as this article is. Also, it's best to watch your tone around here. Your personal attacks aren't warranted nor allowed. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It attracts 20,000 spectators!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Whatever bad blood exists between two users aside, it appears like the article describes something that's notable, beyond a mere local town fair and more like a major undertaking. The performances are interesting enough for the likes of Focus to take note, and I see references also in German language books in just a bit of searching. I can't read German, so I can't do much to improve the article, but I think it should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 07:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Note I can speak German fluently. The article you listed doesn't talk about the place; but rather the event going on there. It's going on about The Day of the King. The Undead Never Die ( talk) 07:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep From the many readily accessible sources it's "comparable to a town fair" only in the sense of being "relatively" a whole lot bigger, more professionally produced and more elaborate than the scale of town fair the contributor evidently has in mind. Though I'm not sure why being comparable to a town fair necessarily reduces the value of the entry.
The value of the entry IS diminished by its brevity, however. The "google button" provides plenty of opportunities to address that. Wikipedia's founders - or at least the ones that we hear from - have eye watering ambitions for the scope of the project. You can build the thing or you can restrict it by deleting entries on subjects that don't interest you personally, that have been started by people you don't much like. In this case, especially if you can read German fluently, there is clearly opportunity for you to use your time building the entry into something more informative and - one hopes - something that you yourself will find more interesting than, right now, you do. Regards Charles01 ( talk) 08:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Backed up by reliable secondary sources and a festival of 20,000 people meets the notability criteria. Something like that in England or the US I'm sure will have its own article. JAG UAR  11:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, notable, sourced, can be expanded but doesn't have to be. I suggest to have English translation Vineta Festival, for those who don't know Festspiele. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the coverage is a bit touristy (it's a festival after all), but the sources themselves are reliable major German media and cover the topic in-depth and sufficiently neutral. I agree with Gerda Arendt's suggestion to use an English title (and mention the German original name in the first sentence). GermanJoe ( talk) 22:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Perfect Aces: Heads Up Poker

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

I came across this as an A7 nominee, but this doesn't really fall under A7 (since it's a game and not a web based one) nor does it fit in with any of the other criteria. I can't really find where this game has received enough coverage in independent or reliable sources to where it'd pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Well, this game exists and some people have played it... that seems to be it. This doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 08:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find significant coverage from reliable sources. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States

AfDs for this article:
AfDs for this article:
List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also bundling in this article:

List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Similar to this AFD, these articles do not seem encyclopedic. They are well sourced, but Wikipedia is not a directory ( WP:NOTDIR). Natg 19 ( talk) 06:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 ( talk) 06:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Shouldn't we have a link right here to the last deletion discussion and the reasons given for what ended up having happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 August 2015‎
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - huh? —Мандичка YO 😜 09:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is exactly what we shouldn't be doing with lists on Wikipedia - using it to single out individuals for their positions on current controversial issues. Non-encyclopedic in the extreme, like the Iran deal list. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 16:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - If reliable sources publish similar sorts of lists -- and thus show it to be a notable list topic (beyond just the subject of opposition/support) -- then as long as there's also a clear criteria for inclusion, I don't think WP:NOTDIR would apply. The real question to me (and what Nwlaw63 might be getting at with "singl[ing] out individuals") is WP:POVFORK. If we limit it to public figures and cite sources sufficient to satisfy BLP requirements, I don't think there's a problem with "singling out individuals" who take well-documented, public positions, but we do have lots of articles about various pieces of legislation, timelines, campaigns, controversies, etc. such that it's not entirely clear to me whether there's a need for these lists (whether they're POVFORKs). However, this is not like Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal. That was a single event/deal, so any fork is clearly going to be a POVFORK and the coverage of supporters/opponents will be limited to a narrow span of time, with no certainty coverage will persist. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, is a huge issue that has spanned many years. Another question worth asking is whether there are other issues for which we have such lists. Yes, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or doesn't), but it may shed some light on what consensus has been in the past. I'll note that it looks like we have list of abolitionists and list of slave owners but no [list of proponents of slavery] or equivalent that I can find. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - My sense is that this type of list is a blend of original research and include a certain amount of bias inherent in the creation (or maintenance of the list). The article does not introduce the topic with a description that it is designed as a current, or rolling, list of opponents. As an example, in the opponents article, there is no mention of President Clinton's stance (since changed) on the topic. Because the article is an ongoing controversy, I see it similar to lists of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supporters and Opposers of Iran Nuclear Deal, where Nyttend stated "A list of people holding yes/no opinions on a specific current issue is fundamentally not encyclopedic. A detailed discussion of a past event, with a list of leading supporters of each position, is a very good idea, and it's quite reasonable to have lists of people by affiliations (e.g. lists of politicians by party affiliations, lists of people by religious affiliation), but simply a "Supporters and Opposers of CurrentPoliticalTopic", regardless of its title is not a good encyclopedia topic." and "As someone said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current top 40 albums (UK), Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. An article that becomes outdated and has to be rewritten every week is essentially "List of top 40 albums (UK) for the week XX-YY Jan 2010", which would be deleted for being a current event of no lasting significance. Plus, the accuracy of articles should not depend on whether a single editor can be bothered to maintain it." Enos733 ( talk) 05:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. Using lists to track supporters or opponents of a current political issue is not what Wikipedia is for. These rapidly approach unmaintainability, given that (a) people can and do switch sides, and (b) new people become prominent all the time, and/or express opinions on political issues that they haven't previously publicized — so these lists would just keep growing and growing and growing, if anybody could be bothered to maintain them at all (an effort which is likely to entirely peter out, now that it's a settled issue and a moot point.) Bearcat ( talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per WP:NOTDIR, as well as the comments of Enos733 & Bearcat.-- 98.173.176.125 ( talk) 20:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep both. These are well-referenced, so there are no BLP issues here, and these lists of national level politicians by which side of this prominent issue they took have significant educational and historical value. The "unmaintainability" argument can be addressed by restricting the timeframe, turning these into historical resources on an interesting question: who in U.S. politics was for and against gay marriage around the time it was legalized? Some of the arguments above seem completely illegitimate, including (to paraphrase) "my sense is that this is OR and biased" and (not to paraphrase) "huh?". The comparison to the Iran deal list is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the argument that the outcome of that discussion was based on - the idea that lists of prominent supporters and opposers of historical political issues are encyclopedic, but lists of supporters and opposers of current political issues are not - is just wrong and is not based in policy at all. If something will be an acceptable topic with lasting significance twenty years from now (as this obviously will be) then it is an acceptable topic today. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to America's Got Talent. Why's this even here ? .... Musdan77 - The norm is to redirect these to the programme until the series airs. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

America's Got Talent (season 11)

America's Got Talent (season 11) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:FUTURE program. Musdan77 ( talk) 05:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to America's Got Talent. There's no need for an article about season 11 to already exist when season 10 isn't even done yet. No prejudice against recreation next year when much more can be said and reliably sourced about it than "This is a thing that will happen, the end." Bearcat ( talk) 16:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Transport assumption

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

I am unable to find a reference to the "transport assumption" or the "traveler assumption" through searching, and I am beginning to doubt whether or not it is actually a thing. Orthogonal1 ( talk) 04:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree. I don't think that this article is helpful, and I feel like what it's talking about is just a repackaging of material that's best mentioned on the parent page about U.S. gun laws. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I agree this article NOT helpful... If someone wants accurate information on the subject they would be better off going to the " Firearm Owners Protection Act" article, "Safe Passage" provision. -- RAF910 ( talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Undying Mercenaries

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

One of the least notable series of books of this non-notable author. None of them has more than 2 holdings in WorldCat even listed in WorldCat [19] DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep DGG's reasons for proposing this deletion are specious and insufficient. I choose to believe that by "non-notable" and "least notable" he means not well known. (If he means "not good" and/or "not interesting", that's an opinion which is also not a good reason for deletion.)
I don't know how WorldCat works, but it may not be an accurate indication of B. V. Larson's notability. According to the Wikipedia page on the author, he's released more than 50 books electronically via Amazon and eleven of his books have been reviewed by more than 10,000 reviewers receiving high ratings. DGG's recommendation doesn't consider these factors. Thomasjones44 ( talk) 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If you're talking about ratings on places like Amazon and Goodreads, those will not contribute to notability as those are considered to be self-published sources that undergo little to no editorial oversight. The thing about WorldCat holdings is that while an author/book/series can be notable without being in libraries, it's extremely unlikely for this to be the case and it's fairly rare for someone to pass notability guidelines and not have multiple library holdings. I'm aware that it's difficult for self-published authors to get their books in libraries and to get coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider to be notable, but it is a requirement. Sometimes self-published authors can become notable (look at Hugh Howey) but it's usually pretty rare for them to become notable per Wikipedia's requirements. Don't take this personally if the author's page and the series page are deleted - there are a lot of good self-published authors that should have pages but just don't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Other than a mention of book 4 being a popular Audible Book, there really isn't much out there. Most of what I found were in places that run close to being a RS ( like SFFAudio) but weren't really places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. In the end this is just another series that has received a bit of a fandom, but never gained attention from reliable sources. I know that it's frustrating - heck, I've got multiple self-published (or predominantly self-published, as sometimes you'll get series that are almost solely self-published except for select versions of the work, like audiobook or print versions) series that I'd love to add to Wikipedia, yet they've never gained the coverage they deserve. (Shakes fist at RS for not covering D. Rus's Play to Live series.) In the end though, this coverage is required for notability purposes and it just isn't out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Whether or not the author should have a wiki page is a whole other kettle of fish, and arguments on that should be made on places other than here. In terms of this book series, I've not read or it heard of it until now so I don't know anything in terms of quality. But what does seem clear is that, as stated before, the series has only attracted a scattering of attention. What could we cite as reliable sources here? I recommend deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. Searches turned up nothing which would meet the notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 12:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Patrick Hanrahan

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG Flat Out ( talk) 17:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete his existence and the publication the novel "My Eyes are Not Blue" can be confirmed by The Bibliography of Australian Literature: F-J, [20] I can find nothing else. On him or on his book. Delete. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  07:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Catchword Branding

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

This article was speedily deleted for failure to assert notability. A discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 7 overturned this and sent it here for a discussion on the merits. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  14:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Mars, Roman (2014-04-10). "Take My Word For It: Brand expert Maria Cypher knows there's more to a name than brainstorming". 99% Invisible. Archived from the original on 2015-08-08. Retrieved 2015-08-08 – via Slate.
    2. Mitchell, Eve (2004-07-04). "Catchword strives to be a brand apart". Oakland Tribune. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-08-08. Retrieved 2015-08-08.

      This article also is available at HighBeam Research: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6993335.html.

    3. Hamilton, Joan O'C. (November–December 2008). "How Companies Name New Products". Stanford Alumni. Stanford University. Archived from the original on 2015-08-08. Retrieved 2015-08-08.
    Two sources that provide less substantial coverage:
    1. Raine, George (2002-03-05). "Business Digest: Catchword Teams With Nomen Consultancy". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2015-08-08. Retrieved 2015-08-08.
    2. Gabler, Neal (2015-01-15). "The Weird Science of Naming New Products". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-08-08. Retrieved 2015-08-08.

      The article notes:

      Maria Cypher, the founder and director of the naming agency Catchword, which named the McDonald’s McBistro sandwich line, will tell you that names “give us a shared understanding of what something is.”

      ...

      Every naming agency keeps a list of its discards in a computer program. These are then classified by message (at Catchword); by distinctiveness, appeal, memorability and concept (at Interbrand); or by whatever other way the namers might want to retrieve them. Catchword has 650 of these categorized lists. And many of the names will be recycled, which suggests that there is a kind of Platonic ideal of good names, independent of products good or bad — a name so good that it could work, if not on anything, than at least on many things.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

ZChocolat.com

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

Advertisement sourced with dead links and primary sources fails WP:CORP. Can find no mention of this co. at Le Figaro. Archived version of Forbes url is a brief review. Vrac ( talk) 14:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete of course as all my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) all found results...press releases and other promotional self-generated content. Nothing at all to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
* Keep Feature articles
Seems to be high praise for the product and the website's ease of use. I've updated some of the refs, the writing is dated. I'll have a look at that later. 009o9 ( talk) 08:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, posssibly speedy delete by G11. The references given are promotional pieces, listing them as a desirable gift, even tho published in otherwise reputable sources. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encycopedia. There's quite enough splaces for them to advertise. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
You do realize that what you are doing here is destroying the last vestiges of credibility that Wikipedia has, right? By you and your few friend's interpretation, the small firm that gains recognition by climbing to the top of its genre is not welcome here, even when meeting the guidelines and policies. Only the rent-seeking, labor arbitraging giants, who have not created on net-new job in the past decade will be retained on Wikipedia. Yeah, that will be great for the encyclopedia's credibility, might just a well tie the Wikipedia policies to the donor's list in the public's perception. Not that it matters, but zChocolat passes my reading of the Primary criteria section in WP:NCORP. Sure, there are plenty of places to advertize, but where will one go to get even a moderately neutral overview of a notable company's creative works? 009o9 ( talk) 12:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
WP contains articles only on those things that are already important, and are consequently written about elsewhere in a substantial way; that's the orientation an encycopedia ought to have. We are not an agency for social reform, except in one particular: supporting free knowledge by creating a free npov encyclopedia that cannot be used for advertising--even advertising the most worthy enterprises. It's promotionalism that would destroy our credibility. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The article contains independently sourced facts, there is no advertising here. See "Primary sources" section in WP:ORGNOT, according to that essay, details about product offering can even be PRIMARY, which they are not in this article. Additionally, Template:Advert states: "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." 009o9 ( talk) 18:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
This article's "positive light" is not neutral. It is an advertisement, not a neutral encyclopedic article. "premium handmade"..."featured"..."work exclusively"..."award-winning master"..."242 countries worldwide" (there are not 242 countries on this planet)..."has been rated by Forbes...since 2005" (it was rated in 2005, now Forbes doesn't even have a mention of it on its website)..."offers"..."features"...etc... Vrac ( talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Like I said, the article is dated. The Department of State recognizes 195 countries, and these 60 or so territories. [22] so that verbiage could be changed to include territories, or just dropped. I'll go ahead and spend a few seconds redlining the article, my last pass was just recovering references. 009o9 ( talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)Do you really think that people are buying "premium handmade" French chocolates from "award-winning master" chefs in every country and territory on planet Earth? The point is that this is marketing b.s., like I said it's not an encyclopedic article. Vrac ( talk) 19:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

No, but apparently they have the option to send their gift anywhere they want. I did a quick redline addressing your concerns and looked up the Full Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject [23] 009o9 ( talk) 20:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I found another source [24] but its only a mention. Nothing notable popped up after doing a Google search. Google news had mostly press releases. The LA Times review [25] was written by Betty Hallock [26] who was the food editor. Here's another article written by her [27]. You can clearly see the difference in writing style and tone. I second DGG's view that the "notable" articles are advertising. For the articles are so promotional in nature and different than the writer's normal tone, it gives the impression that the writer was given an incentive to write the article. Either case, the company lacks notable coverage. - CerealKillerYum ( talk) 09:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Restoring Unity

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

I do not, in fact, see any reliable-source coverage of this, indicating it's not notable. The extensive quoting also suggests a promotional goal. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A reliable source is subjective. I would call TheBlaze a reliable source. I'd call the local news in Birmingham a reliable source. The article could use some cleaning up however, perhaps less quoting. As the 28th of August approaches, more coverage may surface. Regardless, its a continuation of the Restoring Honor rally, a historical event with hundreds of thousands in attendance, and should at least be noted somewhere. I'll look for more sources and clean the article up, but deleting the entire article seems drastic. – Marshan3q ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 03:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This socio-political event could very well be notable when it happens in the future. However, right now, we're looking into a crystal ball trying to guess things, and that's not good. In terms of notability at the moment, this looks far more like something that should be on the Restoring Honor rally page in a "Planned Future Events" subsection. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 09:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 05:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

City University of Mogadishu

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

Fails WP:GNG, is very short and completely unreferenced. TF5 ( talk) 00:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 04:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - most likely fails WP:GNG, but is very difficult to research. Simply using "City University" as you can imagine pulls up a plethora of hits, but couldn't find any for Mogadishu. Using the full title on a google news search simply pulls up their facebook page. However, a web search showed this, this, this, this, and this. My issue with those citations is that they may be press releases. I do not know how to verify if the sources are WP:RS. Onel5969 TT me 13:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Articles on proper universities are always kept. Sources will exist at some point. It seems clear that this is not a hoax. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Might I suggest you take a look at WP:ORG, particularly the section, WP:NSCHOOL. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, but take a look at the outcomes. This comes up at deletion discussions on High Schools all the time. However, if a school goes to year 12, and the article is not a hoax, it will be kept. This is more so for universities. Sources are more difficult to find in Somalia,but we want to avoid bias and have the same coverage of universities in Somalia as we do in the US, Canada, Australia or Europe. -- Bduke (Discussion) 21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This pushes it up into keep for me though I agree the sources are weak for various reasons. It doesn't help WP to be deleting articles with verifiable content even if the topic's notability isn't well reflected by our usual criteria. And really, we ought to be covering well-established universities – if we don't then our standards are wrong. Thincat ( talk) 21:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Degree granting universities that ever functioned always have their articles kept. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nitrome. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Magic Touch (game)

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

Does not seem to have sufficient independent coverage. A search only found a few websites hosting the web game, a Wikia source, and articles about an unrelated smartphone app. Article is unsourced. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 04:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Also, this article was plagiarized from Nitrome Wiki. Original article. NitromeNobody ( talk) 23:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 10:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's fine if it's attributed since Wikia is cc-by-sa. Only an issue if the text was plagiarized to Wikia in the first place (but then cite that original location in the copyvio req) –  czar 15:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Nitrome. If the subject is a valid search term, and it is, redirection to the dev article is always preferred to deletion. Redirection is more useful than deletion. Also after this closes, please rename to "(video game)" per naming conventions. –  czar 15:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as above. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 17:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Javier de la Fuente

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:PROF. sovereign° sentinel (contribs) 04:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article describes him as an assistant professor who has written papers and won best-paper awards. Which means he's off to an appropriate start for an academic career, but WP:TOOSOON to be notable for that. His Google Scholar profile [28] shows only single-digit citations, so WP:PROF#C1 is out of reach for now, and he doesn't appear to pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria (in particular, the best paper awards are explicitly described in WP:PROF as not being at the level demanded by #C2). — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Ira Blue

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

I've been searching and I've failed to find sources that are reliable and are actually about Ira Blue. All I've found is a short mention at a local hall of fame website ( http://bayarearadio.org/hof/2006/). The web search results show mostly retirement investments and whitepages & Facebook listings, and that's after excluding the word Gershwin from the search. This person is probably not notable. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Secondary sources support notability. My search of the San Francisco Chronicle and Google Books turned up several references. Called a "legendary broadcaster' in this San Francisco Chronicle article. Another Chronicle article says "A staple of the KGO radio staff from the 1940s, he also helped pioneer the station's nascent talk show format with his broadcasts from the hungry i." Plenty of mentions as a legendary broadcaster with a Google Books search as well, especially with "San Francisco" or "KGO" From the Radio Museum's website, Bayarearadio: "Ira Blue at KGO in San Francisco was one of my radio heroes. I first "met" him when I called his show, at the hungry i, from my first small town radio job in 1959. It was as if I had spoken to the gods." Also, an interesting youtube mention of Ira Blue and San Francisco fishing boats here.
  • It would be doing the history of radio, and those interested in it, a disservice to delete this wiki. ABF99 ( talk) 00:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The SF Chronicle pieces have short mentions of the subject, embedded in long lists of other names. The first are the reminiscences of a fellow radio broadcaster, the second the list of the 2006 inductees into the "Bay Area Radio Hall oF Fame" created and selected by two radio fans. None of the articles is about Ira Blue. Article is currently unsourced (one dead link) and no other coverage to be found. Kraxler ( talk) 14:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A handful of passing mentions is not enough to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 ( talk) 02:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Side Tracked Records

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

Label whose claim to "fame" is releasing material by three artists (two of which have had their articles deleted from Wikipedia due to lack of notability). The remaining artist, Aimee Allen, has released one album with no significant chart successes. This article seems to be an advertisement that has managed to remain under the radar for six years (it was tagged for a potential lack of notability back in 2009). A Google search for the subject would indicate a clear WP:GNG failure. Doop44 ( talk) 22:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment This discussion was never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--no comment on the nomination itself. -- Finngall talk 08:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - sources revealed nothing to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 12:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Charting a single does not meet WP:CORP for a label; anything related to a particular work is a notability criterion for musicians. All the sources are about Aimee Allen, not the label, which may in fact be defunct at this point. MSJapan ( talk) 23:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 02:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Dheepa Ramanujam

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

The subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The article is sourced only to two YouTube videos, IMDb, and a page which merely mentions her name once in a credit. The first page of hits on a Google search for her contains IMdB, her own company's web site, Twitter, Facebook, Linkedin, a page on a web site which describes itself as run by "A small group of enthusiasts", YouTube, and Wikipedia. The next few pages of hits provide little better: the best I found was one news report in a local San Francisco Bay area web site. According to IMDb she has produced one short film of no notability (as far as I can determine), directed another short film with similar lack of notability, acted in what seems to have been a minor role in another film, and served as a script supervisor in another. The article says she is "waiting for her debut directorial venture to take off".

The creator of the article has indicated that she is the subject of the article. (On her talk page she has written "I had to create a page for myself as I am acting in Films now".) Apparently she has come to Wikipedia in good faith, no doubt sincerely believing that creating a personal profile page to help further her career was an acceptable use of Wikipedia, but in fact the article does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 11:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 11:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searches found nothing good aside from passing mentions at Books and News. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per rationales by nominator and @SwisterTwister Quis separabit? 00:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Only Way Is Up

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

Article was redirected for failing WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG, but was reverted both times by creator. WP:TOOSOON for an article on an album released next month, which the only promotion for such has been three unsuccessful singles. Azealia911 talk 11:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NALBUMS (Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release) and WP:CRYSTAL. -- Non-Dropframe talk 13:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or redirect - There exist several sources that talk about songs on the album, [29], [30], [31] and [32] stating that this will indeed be the name of the album. Therefore, if the article cannot be kept, it should at a minimum, be redirected to K Camp until such time that a track listing is published. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 14:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I didn't nominate it because the name of the album is disputed, but due to the fact it fails notability guidelines concerning albums. Azealia911 talk 14:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply - @ Azealia911:, please read my statement carefully. I am perfectly aware of why you nominated the article. If you read WP:NALBUM, it says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article", which corresponds to my recommendation. If the name of the album is correct, then it should redirect to K Camp. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 19:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - @ Azealia911:, per the references that I just added, "Comfortable" has charted on Billboard, and The Urban Daily has published the track listing, title and release date. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawing per new information that's emerged since I AfD'd the article. Azealia911 talk 17:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator withdrew, but this does not qualify for a speedy keep closure because a delete !vote is present. North America 1000 02:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

SmashBoards

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

Fails WP:WEB, the only independent sources are a mention by Kotaku when a bunch of sites were DDoS'd [33] and mention on 1UP that someone got feedback from there. There is gytnews but cannot check that as the website is dead. [34] The rest of the sources are unreliable or affiliated with subject. Vaypertrail ( talk) 13:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Non-Dropframe talk 16:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, tons of sources included in the article including additional sources not added Tech Times, Cinemablend, Kotaku, and WDC. I was the person who previously noamintaed Smashboards for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smashboards, but the article has since been expanded with appropriate sources. Valoem talk contrib 06:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Where are these "tons of sources"? All the sources you provided here are one off mentions. WDC is just a Q&A with three fans of the game, and not actually about the website.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 06:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I don't find the NP reference to be affiliated with the subject. That aside, this is what the article looks like trimmed just to the RS which I believe talk about the article-proper. (I can't evaluate further since I'm at work which blocks some of the websites.) Probably the best solution is to start a section on the Smash eco-system in Super Smash Bros. or to add some of this content to #Competitive play there. Consider this a merge !vote.See the below-the-relist for evaluation. -- Izno ( talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Reviewing the MLG article, I believe the two paragraphs therein and alone suffice to establish notability per WP:GNG #1.

    The GYTNews source at archive.org talks about a news event and only tangentially relates; it could be useful for a different article. I don't have the NP source to hand; someone at WP:VG may have access. Given my initial assertion, I would say that this meets the notability guidelines. This a weak keep with no prejudice for or against a merge of the content elsewhere in a later discussion. -- Izno ( talk) 16:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

    Significant coverage entails multiple reliable sources, not just two paragraphs in one –  czar 17:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    I was very careful to verify what the GNG says on that point. From the WP:GNG, bullet 3: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] In other words, there is no requirement for multiple sources. Are the two paragraphs enough? I think so. Why? They clearly establish the notability of the website, specifically Little did the founder of Smash World know that his website would blow up into one of the biggest and most dedicated independent competitive gaming communities in the world. A reputable source has clearly published their evaluation of the site as being notable. -- Izno ( talk) 18:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure you'll find much sympathy on AfD for keeping an article based on two paragraphs, is all. I think the line you quoted is aimed more at book-length treatment and surely isn't a popular sentiment at AfD. Depth of coverage requires more than a few blurbs. Nothing else to add, just wanted to address that one point –  czar 21:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Sure, but the two paras was the basis for the weak part of the keep. -- Izno ( talk) 01:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    A review of the above sources from Valoem is interesting. I would discount three of those sites, namely not the Kotaku review. A brief search of kotaku.com for Smashboards seems to indicate that there is regular referencing and coverage of what people are saying on the site. I'm not immediately certain that all of them are/aren't blogs, so someone might want to poke into that. -- Izno ( talk) 18:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    Brief breeze thru seems to confirm initial suspicions that all are one-off mentions (and a number in the comments), besides the first few which are part of the article's text proper. -- Izno ( talk) 18:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    This is a neat article from the WP:VG/RS Google custom search. Probably more appropriate for the competitive article which is also being AFDd. -- Izno ( talk) 19:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm not seeing any reliable sources that are discussing the subject (Smashboards, not Smash Bros, its glitches, or these other things) in significant detail. I'm fine with a merge/redirect if some sort of article or subsection is created about the game's competitive scene, but not really with a standalone article like this, unless some better sources are presented... Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep well documented by secondary sources. Also, I'd like too point out that there used to be a lot of mentions the MLG website that have been lost as MLG has periodically deleted some of the content from its website.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 21:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Where? Can you supply some of these sources that cover the subject in significant detail? Sergecross73 msg me 03:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination is proposing the action of copy editing the article to reduce it to a stub, rather than outright deletion. As such, this is not a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. Discussion regarding the article can continue on its talk page. North America 1000 09:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Principality of Ongal

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

Aside from being in very poor quality English, which could be taken care of by a heavy copy-edit, the length of this article is is far too long ( undue weight) compared even to the other claimed microstates resulting from the Croatia-Serbia border dispute. Article should be stubbed. Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Stub as proponent. (Efforts to trim article by normal editing have resulted in edit-warring, so AFD is way to achieve community consensus.) Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 09:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 08:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Vilmos Gabor

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

Delete: as non-notable in any way, neither militarily or socially. Notability not derived from being the father of the Gabor sisters, with whom he doesn't appear to have had much of a relationship, anyway. Quis separabit? 02:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Subject fails WP:GNG. Also, this should have been Prodded, rather than going straight to AfD, as I was attempting to do. Safiel ( talk) 02:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Note that there is no problem with an editor taking an article to AfD without first prodding if they so choose. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a few passing mentions for obvious reasons but no significant coverage that I could see, fails WP:GNG. Anotherclown ( talk) 09:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: what little information that can be referenced can be covered briefly in the articles about his daughters if deemed necessary, otherwise, the subject doesn't seem to meet the requirement for significant coverage. Regards, AustralianRupert ( talk) 07:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America 1000 02:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Alison Gold

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

Delete: as non-notable singer/performer. Quis separabit? 02:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Written Bio on Allmusic (surprised to see), 29 on Billboard Hot 100, mention in Billboard article, KCET video review. Notability is met, the AfD nomination however does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. -- 009o9 ( talk) 03:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Sufficient coverage to have a short article, and a top 30 US hit means we need a pretty good argument for deletion, and that's lacking here. -- Michig ( talk) 10:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Michig, Sources aren't amazing but notablility's there .– Davey2010 Talk 17:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • (Author) Keep With a top 40 hit single, Gold's notability is not seriously in question, and there are no WP:V problems in establishing the credibility of the notability assertions. Chubbles ( talk) 05:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Maybe renominate some of these separately?  Sandstein  06:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Carbon (Halo team)

Carbon (Halo team) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

Also nominating additional articles as the same reason applies:

Team 3D (esports) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
EDward Gaming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Final Boss (Halo team) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ViCi Gaming (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All video gaming "esports" teams with no substantial independant coverage ( WP:GNG). All articles are created by the same author that I asked to provide sources, but this request seems to have been ignored. Vaypertrail ( talk) 13:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • @ Vaypertrail, can you run these separately? They're going to have different outcomes even if you would personally lump them all together. –  czar 14:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Please do split them and I'll be happy to repost, but here are my thoughts if you don't: Redirect Team Carbon (main coverage is of 343 hiring Carbon's Eric Hewitt) to Major League Gaming with this Engadget story. Redirect Team 3D to World Cyber Games 2005 – no in-depth secondary source coverage, but they are best known for their 2005 win: [35] Redirect likewise for Final Boss, as they're the same team as Team 3D. If others don't think it's a useful search term, then delete it. Keep Edward Gaming, "one of China's best professional League of Legends teams" and the subject of [36]. The so-called "super team" of China has two paragraphs of background at [37]. And then there's the incidental coverage at [38] and the passing mentions in a VGRS search. Redirect Vici Gaming to The International (Dota 2). They are best known for placing second in the 2014 International [39], but haven't received more than passing mentions in the VGRS and Daily Dot. Anyone who wins this year will of course get more coverage, but WP is not a crystal ball. Redirection makes the most sense for now as a useful search term. Notes in general: The Daily Dot is our main RS for eSports, and if they don't cover the team, it's unlikely that we will. Thanks for taking on the cleanup—a number of these articles have been spammed from other WP-compatible wikis. –  czar 14:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Many of the Asian teams have a lot of sources that aren't in English, so I'm having a lot of trouble finding them. Keep Team 3D, there was a whole book written about it, I think that pretty much settles any concerns about reliable sources.-- Prisencolinensinainciusol ( talk) 00:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The book's about their rivalry with another team in the context of the 2005 Cyber Games. If it needs to spill out of that article, it can do so summary style –  czar 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Garena Premier League

Garena Premier League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

Also nominating the following for the same reason:

League of Legends Masters Series (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
League of Legends Pro League (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All video gaming leagues with no substantial independant coverage ( WP:GNG). All articles are created by the same author that I asked to provide sources, but this request seems to have been ignored. Vaypertrail ( talk) 13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • @ Vaypertrail, split these? You should only bundle when it's unquestionable that they will be considered as a whole. These leagues/series are not being considered as a whole. –  czar 14:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. The Garena Premier League has received substantial independent coverage in Southeast Asia. A very quick news search reveals the following dedicated articles: [40], [41], [42], [43]. At least some of these articles seem to be written by (presumably reliable) major media outlets. Additionally, those websites seem to be hosting many articles on the subject of the article -- they don't seem to be one-off "human interest" articles on a niche topic. I will add the English source to the article. I believe the other two nominated articles are entirely separate tournaments run by separate organizations in separate countries and shouldn't be included with the GPL. Richard Ye talk 04:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Aren't those just gaming blogs and esports organisations already associated to it?-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 06:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Then most of the articles should be removed already due to this measurement. As I said, as a content of the League of Legends World Championship, it has the notability already. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
'Lao_Động' is one of the largest newspapers in Vietnam, and vietnamnet.vn is a highly prominent Vietnamese website. Both websites rank in the top 5000 globally. Given their level of dedicated, continual coverage of the events, I think it would qualify the article under GNG. Richard Ye talk 01:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Well, it is better to add English source of course, but the Chinese source should be also regarded. Add the Chinese source please. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Strong keep. It doesn't make sense of AfD just due to no source is given. Those three articles are highly notable as a content of the League of Legends professional competition. The article has to be expanded, indeed, source must be given too. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 05:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Clear consensus that the subject is not notable, and I would also note that those times are representative of an average club runner. Michig ( talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Rodolpho Miranda

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

A runner of no sporting repute. References do not correspond to the content and appear to be present only to throw off people recognising the article as non-notable SFB 16:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 13:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- He has performed well in local events, but does not even appear to have taken part in national ones. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete pure self- WP:PROMOtion, article was written by somebody who uses the subject's middle names, detailed info no source would publish, the whole thing is WP:OR, has fake sources (the 8 refswere copied from Mario Sergio Cortella)... Kraxler ( talk) 03:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Satoshi Taki

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

Non-notable voice actor. ANN check shows only minor characters. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 22:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Not seeing any in-depth coverage or sourcing to demonstrate that basic notability criteria have been satisfied. -- DAJF ( talk) 08:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as non notable voice actor - Cant find anything notability-wise so will have to say delete. – Davey2010 Talk 18:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the above, I see no notability with this person. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 16:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Strauss Radio Strategies

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

Article has been here for 7 years and has still not managed to acquire a single reference. A thorough check fails to find anything that could potentially be added to make this pass GNG. LavaBaron ( talk) 06:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Non-Dropframe talk 19:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 21:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 21:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there's nothing to save this and my searches found nothing particularly good, here ("Strauss Radio Strategies is widely regarded by both the PR industry and political insiders to be an expert on radio") and here. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Almathera Systems

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

I would've let this one be if it wasn't unsourced and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive) found nothing good aside from here (listings) and here (minor). This is probably caused by the fact the company was short-lived and thus never had much coverage. I'm also not seeing a good move target ( Amigas would probably be good but I'm not seeing anything to support a move). The fact this has basically stayed unsourced since June 2004 and not heavily edited, it's be nice to find consensus. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 20:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. I think the information can be included in the Amiga software article (although the subsections would have to be slightly altered to accommodate the time frame). Onel5969 TT me 21:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That sounds like a merge. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete I don't even se how we can merge it unless there is some evidence that it is significant among the software for the Amiga. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Abraham the Writer

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

I'm not familiar with Syrian Orthodox Church saints but my searches ("Abraham the Writer saint") and "Abraham the Writer Syrian Orthodox Church" and also combining both) found nothing good (only mirrors and such) or evidence from that listed book, A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints. Now notice how searches for Abraham of Smolensk here confirm that one exists but for this Abraham the Writer. I'd hate to think this is fabricated but there's simply no good evidence. I would ping the author, User:John Carter, for commenting but he doesn't seem to be that active. I also find it interesting no one has actually edited this article since inception and is not linked to any other article. At best, if this exists, it's probably better to move elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Are you saying it isn't in the listed book, or were you just not able to access it? St Anselm ( talk) 00:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
StAnselm Both I suppose, I found the book at Google Books but it made no obvious mention of this through the search results (it's not free to view and there wasn't any other way to look at the book further). If it actually mentions it, it'll be briefly and probably exactly what this article looks like and more of a compilation for that book. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 21:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- I think we should assume good faith on the part of the creator. Looking at the category, Category:Syrian saints I find several others called St Abraham, mostly from the Syriac church, but with different saint's days. The same book is cited as a source in others. It is possible that our problem is that the 1924 dictionary compiler translated a Syriac descriptor; non knowing the language I cannot translate "writer" back into Syriac. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for the same reason as Peterkingiron: the epithet "the writer" may not be sufficiently exact to find him. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Saints of well-established churches are generally held to be notable. I think we have to assume good faith that he does appear in the cited source, although it would be nice if someone was able to check the reference. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Juliancolton |  Talk 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Safir Ahmed

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

This seems to be an ordinary journalist and editor who has accomplished quite a bit but my searches found nothing to suggest improvement, here, here, here and here. The article has basically stayed the same since November 2005 and it looks more like a personal page than a Wikipedia encyclopedia, with the history suggesting editor s possibly close to Safir Ahmed. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The article needs improvement since it does read like a personal page, but he has received coverage in other sources and he seems to have made a significant contribution to his field. It appears he is notable for adding "fiscal cliff" to the English language. ABF99 ( talk) 22:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

ABF99 Please feel free to add this coverage you speak of because I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment A search of High Beam reveals a number of articles like this one that mention or discuss this journalist, mostly related to his work as editor of the Riverfront Times in St. Louis. His 1989 usage of the term 'fiscal cliff' is also referred to in the New York Times here I will try and add more sources as time permits. ABF99 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As Nom says, this is an old article with extremely tenuous sourcing. Worse, searches come up with far less than one expects to see on non-notable working journalists and editors - very few writing credits, with stuff like his linked-in page right at the top of the search. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree that writing credits are few. Aside from his invention of the term 'fiscal cliff', his contributions seem more significant as an editor than writer, with these contributions badly sourced in this article. -- ABF99 ( talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I took a look at the "fiscal cliff" claim, turns out [44] the term was coined by a different journalist. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
That's true, but for some time he was tentatively credited with coining the phrase, see Meet the Journalist Who (Possibly) Invented the Phrase "Fiscal Cliff" in The New Republic (November1 2, 2012). The correction came in Walter Stern's obit in the NYT one year later. Kraxler ( talk) 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to University of Patras. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 18:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Department of Computer Engineering and Informatics, University of Patras

Department of Computer Engineering and Informatics, University of Patras (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG i.e. notability independent of University of Patras. Article created by WP:SPA Johngakos with only 3 edits. Solomon 7968 22:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect, it takes independent source coverage for school departments to have their own article, and I'm not seeing any. shoy ( reactions) 14:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is consensus that there are not sufficient sources in English and that there are likely sufficient sources in Arabic. But because nobody in this discussion reads that language, we only have guesses based on search results and machine translations. That's not sufficient to support a WP:BLP article in terms of required verifiability. The article may be restored if an editor who reads Arabic can identify specific reliable sources covering this actor in depth.  Sandstein  06:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Mahmoud Abdel Moghny

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

I'd like to see where the sourcable "recognition" because my searches found nothing with this being the best results. At best, there's no independent notability and there's not much at his IMDb. SwisterTwister talk — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The sole cited source is user-generated IMDB. Searches of the various Google types, JSTOR, and HighBeam failed to locate any non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. The closest thing to a review of the subject's work are two sentences in Daily News Egypt: "There isn't much to say about the acting either. All performances can be summed up as follows: Abdel Moghny screaming his heart out in every feasible occasion ..."
He has a role (not necessarily a significant one) in one notable film, El Gezeira. I don't see evidence of multiple significant roles in notable films, at least not yet. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR. Worldbruce ( talk) 02:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - You need to search for his name in Arabic. 1,800+ results in Google News alone (all seem to about him, not someone with the same name). [45] [46] Also his Arabic language article has been around since 2007. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: but would point out that IMDb is not really user-generated except in terms of personal info added which nowadays is more strictly monitored. As far as credits, episodes, appearances, it is a reliable source and this fellow is simply insufficiently notable. Quis separabit? 02:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for IMDb as a source, see WP:ELPEREN#IMDb, no assertion of notability in the article, uses a WP:PROMOtional tone, websearches turn up youtube videos, if there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, please show them. Kraxler ( talk) 15:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I think people should pay attention to Wikimandia's recommendation and give a Google News search in Arabic some consideration rather than dismissing subject based on IMDb and the lack of English language sources. I'm yet another editor who does not speak Arabic, and I do not feel comfortable editing the article based on Google Translations. But with 1000+ Google News hits there ought to be plenty to establish notability way beyond WP:BASIC. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 21:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Exactly Sam Sailor. Per WP:BEFORE, if the subject of the article is likely to have more sources in a non-Latin alphabet, you need to at least attempt to search for the subject in that alphabet. Not everybody can do that, no problem: Policy also states that if you don't have a comfortable working knowledge needed to identify sources, you can feel free not to take part in the AfD. —Мандичка YO 😜 21:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The actor's ' soap opera' work is notable enough to be covered here (Also, I find his blue steel male-model-ish stare to be kind of funny in that image), and I can see coverage in other sources such as here, where it looks like he faced a scare due to plane troubles taking place while filming (I think, might be misreading the translation). He seems to be notable in my view. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 02:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Amir Jan Khel

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

My searches (even the simplest) found nothing at all or add or improve this especially sourcing. Honestly, this may be caused by non-English and offline sources but there's simply nothing to save this article from February 2008 (hasn't been significantly edited at all since then). At best, this should probably be moved to Pashtun tribes#Tribes and clans but I'd like to get comments. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95 Talk 12:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: thoroughly non-notable. Unbelievable that it's been around since 2008 per @SwisterTwister. Quis separabit? 13:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unsourced, fails WP:V, not mentioned anywhere except on Wikipedia... Kraxler ( talk) 03:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kerre McIvor

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Only references are to a woman's mag detailing their wedding and an industry promotional website. Nothing else obviously independent in google. Stuartyeates ( talk) 10:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep 31 subject results in Index NZ seems a lot for any journalist [47]. -- haminoon ( talk) 08:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Except that quite a few of those are her as an author. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is more than enough about her to meet the notability criteria - she is an author, broadcastr, and columnist at a national level. She is cited on both major tv networks, is a columnist for a national newspaper, and author. NealeFamily ( talk) 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Indeed there are lots of cites, but the overwhelming majority of the cites are published by an employer, making them non-independent. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
It's a bit hard to get an independent cite when you've worked for the major media outlets. I've added a bit more to the article, but plenty of room for improvement NealeFamily ( talk) 04:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment -- I'm having more trouble finding sources than I expected, but the NZ on screen bio [48] cites a 1990 Listener article that would easily meet the threshold. She may also meet criteria 2 of WP:ENT. My instinct tells me she is notable. If I uncover another source I'll list it here. -- Shudde talk 05:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Rangajeeva Wimalasena

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

The article has been tagged for notability since July 2015. It is questionable whether the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO, as the references generally only mention the subject in passing - no clear indication of notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 08:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 08:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 08:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 08:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. District judge/magistrate. These are not generally notable enough for an article. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: non-notable Sr Lankan jurist (Magistrate and Additional Distrct Judge). Quis separabit? 17:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 14:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

FuGenX Technologies

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

insufficient evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 05:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) • Gene93k ( talk) 21:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Essilor. ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Crizal

Crizal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • This entry violates WP:BROCHURE and judging by its talk page, has apparently been that way since creation. It has been erroneously recommended for speedy deletion in the past. From the page history, the advertisement aspect of the entry has been worse in the past before several editors toned it down.
  • As the talk page points out, there are no references to justify the claims made for the product and no references to objective product reviews.
  • Only one reference has a link provided. That one link goes to the manufacturer's website and is a dead link to boot.
  • This entry has existed for 5+ years now without the above problems being addressed. Perhaps it can be deleted or at least stumpified. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 03:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect: to Essilor, found enough coverage to source a paragraph in the company's page such as this, subject of some studies in peer-reviewed journals such as this. A recognizable brand so it's a plausible search term, someone can undo the redirect and write a proper article if more coverage becomes available. Vrac ( talk) 13:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect or Weak Delete While it is mentioned in reliable sources, they are mostly press releases or very brief mentions - I would come down on the side of insufficient coverage. If anyone can produce multiple reliable sources with truly substantial, in-depth coverage, I could be persuaded otherwise on this one. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The redirect seems like a good solution to me. Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Nike Fagbule

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. I can't find the significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources to established her notabillity Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 10:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 02:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now as there's simply not much to suggest improvement and there's definitely not a good move target; the best my searches found was this (not exactly substantial). SwisterTwister talk 07:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:PROMO advert of just another "PR practtitioner", sources do not talk about her, some are trivial mentions, some are primary pieces ("her Top 10 favorite TV shows"), no coverage in independent sources Kraxler ( talk) 03:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge with Hitachi Consulting ( non-admin closure) Kraxler ( talk) 03:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sierra Atlantic

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

A search for this organization turns up a number of hits, but they all seem to be WP:TRIVIAL mentions ("...Subbu Venkataraman, a vice president at Sierra Atlantic...", etc.). Failed to find significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, propose it be deleted. KDS4444 Talk 05:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can anyone verify if the 3,000 employee count in the current article is accurate? This source looks ok and I have a hard time seeing deleting an article on a company with 3,000 staff. CorporateM ( Talk) 02:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. Doesn't look like this organization's 3,000 members have done enough to get any mentions in Notable sources. If the outfit has any staying power, somebody, somewhere is going to write about it. Hasn't happened yet. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 06:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Marine Corps–Law Enforcement Foundation

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

I consider this of trivial importance, and the sources are inadequate. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 20:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 ( talk) 02:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete run-of-the-mill charity, no coverage in independent sources, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler ( talk) 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Arsen Piloyan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Deprod rationale was does not explain why FC Pyunil is not a fully pro league, and also does not establish non-GNG notability. Since the status of the Armenian League is unverified (see WP:FPL), and the coverage Piloyan has received is routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 01:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There should be enough information at [49] to find out whether the Premier League is "fully professional". If not then maybe an email to the governing body would resolve the issue. All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 02:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC). reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 11:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as per reasons provided Spiderone 20:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Hugh Roberts (talent scout)

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

Article of a person that fails WP:NOTABILITY. A quick google search yields mainly wikipedia mirrors of the article; only source provided is an extremely short 3 paragraph obituary. Ljgua124 ( talk) 01:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 06:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 06:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 06:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- COPYVIO. The article seems to be a word-for-word copy of the BBC website article. And I doubt that football talent scouts are really notable, even if serving a club as notable as Manchester United. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment – I performed some minor edits to the article to address close paraphrasing. See the Earwig's Copyvio Detector result here for the present state of the article relative to the source presently used in it. North America 1000 01:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Scouts are only notable in extraordinary circumstances and this is not demonstrated here at all. Google also yields precious little. Spiderone 21:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 07:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment

Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was a prod, declined by the creator " User:Iran nuclear weapons 2," which is as the name suggests a single-purpose account.

This text is a pure WP:POVFORK (or, more charitably, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK) of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and any worthwhile content here could fit far more naturally in that article, or in nuclear program of Iran, or in P5+1, or in foreign relations of Iran.

More importantly, the entire premise of the article, including its title ( WP:POVNAMING), is based on a false premise: that there was some sharp shift in "Western" policy. This is factually wrong on two counts. First, there was no uniform policy among "Western" countries at any point; the U.S., Britain, and France have all had various policies over time. Moreover, the idea that there was some moment at which "acceptance" occurred is false, or at the very least reflects a serious lack of nuance.

The most disturbing thing about the creation of this article—and the thing that demonstrates clearly the POVFORKy nature of it—is that the creator of this article wanted specific text at Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and started an RfC on it. When other editors expressed disagreement, the creator created this new page, posting on talk that "Wikipedia should have an article with this information in the lead. If that article is to be Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, then this one can be deleted." That kind of obvious gamesmanship is not in keeping with policy, and should not save this article. Delete. Neutrality talk 01:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Pinging editors: @ Tarc and Sbyrnes321: Neutrality talk 01:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Information may/not be factual but the naming of the article is clearly WP:POV also there is nothing to suggest that that phrase has ever been used anywhere so it is WP:OR.-- Savonneux ( talk) 06:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment after a thorough read of the 2 pages. I'm going to say DRN is probably a better venue for this.-- Savonneux ( talk) 06:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In light of Iran's worldwide campaign to murder those it views as opponents, the suggestion that WP:SPA is a reason to delete, or that a WP:VALIDALT on the topic of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, which this account is, should get any less consideration than any other editor, shows an unbelievable lack of sensitivity. The assertion that there was no "policy" to end Iranian uranium enrichment flies in the face of UN resolutions 1696 1737 1747 1803 1835, and 1929, all of which demanded exactly that. But most importantly, Wikipedia should have an article which states, in the lead, that this acceptance has taken place. The importance is obvious and this single fact is the reason so many people are up in arms about, and frankly terrified of, the whole course of events. Lastly, on the subject of WP:POVFORK, that would apply if the worldwide acceptance of Iran's actions were explicitly covered at the JCPOA article. However, User:Neutrality has been fighting hard against that. How can article B be a POV fork of article A, when article A does not even cover the topic of article B? Keep. Iran nuclear weapons 2 ( talk) 06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
You mean like how the U.S. government has a worldwide campaign to murder those it views as opponents, including killing over a hundred children? An extremely moralistic POV in which 'the ends always justify the means' is bad enough out in the rest of the world, but in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please keep your off-topic whataboutery nonsense out of AfD. Your views on the U.S. government is completely irrelevant to the discussion.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 02:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Please keep your own claptrap off of AfD. As I said, "in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing". This article is a POV fork and isn't helpful. I'd also like to point out that most editors commenting here agree with me. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
There is not a single editor here agreeing with your unrelated views on the U.S. government or that this AfD is a forum for you to discuss them.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 04:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Once again, "in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing". This article here at present that you're defending is likely to be deleted soon, and that will be good riddance to bad rubbish. The consensus against what you're boosting is clear. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 05:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
I am not defending the article in any way as is plainly obvious from my comment below and whether I do does not make your commentary about the U.S. government any more relevant to AfD.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 05:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Once {sigh} again, "in terms of Wikipedia we at least here have strict rules of NPOV content writing". There's no reason for you to get all emotional and upset. The fact is that the consensus of the editors is clear, and this article is going to be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 05:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The article is going to be deleted because it isn't a good article. Not because of your views on the U.S.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 05:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
If you actually read other people's comments before replying and really understood discussions before putting in your own opinions, then you'd see that my point, which is completely valid, is that it doesn't matter what one's moral views are of the Iranian or American governments. This is Wikipedia, and we strive to edit based on NPOV standards based on what reliable sources say. You can get all emotional and upset as you want, goading and prodding in order to win some kind of war going on in your head, but it doesn't matter. This article is going to get deleted, and your emotional state otherwise is irrelevant. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
"...it doesn't matter what one's moral views are of the Iranian or American governments." Exactly. And that is why this AfD is not the place to discuss yours. "This article is going to get deleted" Good to hear.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
As I've said over and over again, your personal POV is completely irrelevant. Why you are so animated and upset over this I have no idea. If you really have to vent yourself and can't let any of this go, then I suggest that you go over to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action page and bother the people over there with your POV haranguing. This discussion here is about the merits of the 'Western acceptance of Iranian uranium enrichment' page. That's it. Your opinions about the Iranian and American governments aren't relevant here. The article is going to be deleted, and that's that. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 04:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SOAP. Clear POV fork created after article creator couldn't get their way as of yet at the parent article which they have taken to mean that the "truth" is being hidden. The clearly non neutral point of view title and content of the new article indicates article creator has tried to prove a WP:POINT. Content disputes should be resolved at the page they occur on, not by creating new pages to fit your viewpoint. Encourage article creator to discuss the inclusion of their points over at the parent article. Also please read: Wikipedia:Advocacy. Cowlibob ( talk) 11:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per cowlibob. The only reasons to care about the western position (or positions) on Iranian uranium enrichment is that (1) Iranian uranium enrichment is in itself important, and/or (2) In understanding the treaty negotiation process, you want to know what the original demands of the two sides were. Since we already have nuclear program of Iran for (1) and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for (2), there's no need for a separate article on this topic. (As far as I understand.) -- Steve ( talk) 16:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep! This article covers an essential standalone issue that should be separated from the JPOA and JCPOA articles. The following quote from the book "The War That Must Never Be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence" (edited by George P. Shultz and James E. Goodby, 2015) confirms this:

    Irrespective of their ultimate outcome, three aspects stand out regarding the current nuclear negotiations with Iran. First, the Joint Plan of Action agreed to by Iran and the P5+1 in November 2013 already concedes Iran’s right to retain an enrichment program while leaving the issue of its size and scope to a final comprehensive agreement. This constitutes a significant shift from the original US position (and UN Security Council Resolutions) which insisted on zero enrichment. The political recognition of Iran’s right to retain even a minimal enrichment program in whatever agreement is reached is likely to create what may be referred to as the “Iran standard” that will compete with the UAE “gold standard” for defining the scope of regional nuclear programs in the future, in particular with respect to enrichment capability.

The fact that the issue will or will not be mentioned in the lead of JCPOA does not justify the article deletion. The article may be renamed if and when this is requested, but its current title isn't a cause for deletion. Yagasi ( talk) 20:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It is difficult to discern any meaningful, encyclopedic topic in the article. The notion of an "acceptance" seems to be a synthesis. If anything among the contents of the article is worth preserving, it should be userfied.-- Anders Feder ( talk) 21:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Delete Contains relevant RS material and title is an accurate representation of said material. On closer reading of the article, I change my mind completely. LavaBaron ( talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 02:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

All Valley Attack

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

My searches found nothing good at all aside from here and it seems this team no longer exists (website is closed) thus why it is outdated and there's no further info for them. I could've PROD'd this but I wanted comments including to see if it can be mentioned elsewhere as it is currently orphaned. With it basically staying the same since December 2006, the time is now. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 03:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It appears to be a promotional article created by someone related to the organization, based on the text "Active in the league since 2005, the team has two seasons behind them, and are looking forward to 2007." Fails WP:GNG, although I will note that online sports news links tend to go dead quickly, so it is difficult to prove notability of historical teams years after they're inactive. ~ Rob Talk 08:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Insufficient (almost none) coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 17:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Non-notable women's football team. Does not satisfy WP:ORG and WP:GNG -- lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - And I advise that the matter be closed soon.
  • Delete - This article concerns the Antelope Valley team in a Los Angeles County women's football league. If this were a national football league (may be even regional), I might view things differently, but I don't see the need for Wikipedia to have pages on individual teams in a county football league. And, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources, so it doesn't pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 ( talk) 14:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This may start qualifying as snow delete. SwisterTwister talk 16:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_August_22&oldid=1142626687"