From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 December 13 December >
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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Matt Bryans

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

Artist who has exhibited at Tate Modern once as part of an exhibition with at least 7 others. Does not seem to have done anything else of note. That one exhibition (as a part contributor) does not convey notability to me Rayman60 ( talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep, despite the fact I added the 'notability' tag way back in 2013. Exhibiting at the Tate Modern and Pompidou suggests he is more than the usual local amateur artist. In fact, this write up suggests he has examples of work in multiple major art collections, for example MOCA Atlanta and MOCA Los Angeles. Sionk ( talk) 16:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss Earth Germany#Titleholders. J04n( talk page) 16:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Arta Muja

Arta Muja (  | 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 indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Google News shows no results whatsoever. The article has WP:BLP issues that cannot be resolved short of finding reliable sources or blanking the page. Huon ( talk) 23:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as we can see here, many Miss Country's are appointed by a franchise holder to attend a short event where they don't win anything. It's a big joke/marketing program and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Fails. WP:NMODEL which is the applicable critieria. Legacypac ( talk) 01:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Natalia Toledo

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

To me, this falls short of notability. There's nothing in the article about her career and life that to me portrays notability and justifies an article. Rayman60 ( talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep She won a national award from the Mexican government and a state-level award for her work with the Zapotec language and poetry. She is reviewed in journals and my EBSCO search finds her poetry published in several journals. BTW, I cleaned up the references and have worked on the article a bit. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 19:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, while I don't necessarily agree that the awards show her notability, the coverage certainly does. Onel5969 TT me 01:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:GNG - There are sufficient reliable independent sources about her, both in the article and in a google search. Sincerely, Taketa ( talk) 09:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is notable coverage. Also, passes WP:GNG. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 00:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The American Journal of Managed Care

The American Journal of Managed 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)

Ignoring the copyright problems, I'm unable to find any indication that the journal meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. I have to disagree with DGG's assertion that being covered by the SCI confers automatic notability. There does not seem to be any significant independent coverage of the journal. Huon ( talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. that's been our invariable practice for years: being reindexed by aselective index. The SCI is the most selective of all indexing services. And FWIW, the impact factor is 3.0, which makes it a particularly important journal. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The relevant guideline for academic journals, according to WP:WikiProject Academic Journals, is WP:NJOURNALS. That guideline suggests that being reindexed by selective indices or having an impact factor are enough to establish notability (see § Notes and examples points 1 and 2). Academic journals, especially those in niche subject areas, are unlikely to have the depth of coverage necessary to satisfy WP:GNG, so a more specific notability guideline is necessary. So, if this journal is indexed and abstracted in Science Citation Index and has an impact factor of 3.0 according to Journal Citation Reports, then that's enough for an article. It should probably be reorganized according to the guidelines at WP:JWG, though. The existing mentions of indexing/abstracting were removed as copyvio. clpo13( talk) 23:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • With regards to my previous comment, WP:NJOURNALS is an essay, not a guideline. Take that as you will. clpo13( talk) 23:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I don't see that WikiProjects and essays override widely-respected guidelines. "Academic journals, especially those in niche subject areas, are unlikely to have the depth of coverage" - that's precisely why we should not have articles on most of them: There's nothing to say except to give them a space for self-representation. Even that essay says: "The merits of an article on the journal will depend largely on the extent to which the material is verifiable through third-party sources." That would be grounds for WP:TNT, I'd say. Huon ( talk) 23:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • WP:NJOURNALS, like other notability essays on subjects lacking specific guidelines, has often been used in academic journal AfDs. That said, criterion 3 of that essay (citations by reliable sources) is often a better indicator of notability, similar to criterion 1 of WP:PROF, though being indexed and having an impact factor are good indications the journal is cited elsewhere. clpo13( talk) 23:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, I think citations are a much poorer indication. Almost all journals except a few very famous ones never are the subject of true eferences providing substantial coverage from third-party independent reliable sources. They do receive references from non selective and non authoritve guides to the literature of various sorts., and there have been a few publications attempting to evaluate all journals in a field--as a librarian, I find them useless. Choice used to review journals, but stopped at least 20 years ago, because there was no utility in them. What does get coverage are problems and scandals, and debates about whether is so bad it should be regarded a a scam. To make an analog with WP:PROF, just as the notability of a researchers depends on the importance of their work, as measured by the number of citations to it work, so does the notability of a journal depend upon the number of citation to the articles in it, which is measured (very crudely) by the impact factor adjusted for field. SCI is a good indicator even if the IF is relatively low, because it does not include titles unless they get some significant use and are genuine journals.I should mention that library holdings have become worthless for journals included in major journal databases like infotrac, because many libraries routinely (& in my opinion foolishly) include every journal received in a bulk subscription package in their catalog, whether or not it has the least relationship to their program or the likelihood of ever being used. ( DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment a more thorough search indicates that there may be some problems with the journal. The description , though technically accurate, does not give a proper indication that the journal is a controlled circulation journal, not available by subscription, but distributed free to people in the profession. It does contain peer-reviewed research articles, but that is a only about half of the journal--news items and editorial reviews are the other contents, and very possibly the most-read contents. (and available free on the web). Such journals can be very useful, and I've found a few similar journals in my own field very valuable (and a few totally useless, of course) . I'm rewriting the article. It is , however , in Science Citation Index Expanded, and in Social Science Citation Index. (It is btw rather difficult to validly measure the IF of a journal like this, because really only the research articles should be counted- ), DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DGG and clpo13. Notable on having IF alone. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per DGG on index factor. shoy ( reactions) 20:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep aside from the excellent argument for keeping above, I personally believe that every journal should meet our standard for inclusion. Journals are sources, we cite articles to sources, readers should be able to look up said sources to evaluate them for professionalism or lack thereof or possible commercial bias. So, call this an IAR argument for keeping this and all other similar pieces. Carrite ( talk) 20:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This just points to one obvious issue with that "lovable" term notability! -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 01:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Born Again (Newsboys album)

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

Album's references consist of press releases (failing WP:INDEPENDENT, Billboard chartings ( WP:ROUTINE), Allmusic.com (which promotes new releases of all kinds of music), and a cite from jesusfreakhideout.com which I suspect has a rather narrow readership. Article needs references to truly independent and reliable sources that are WP:INDEPTH, not just charted standings. KDS4444 Talk 21:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Nepal load shedding routine

Nepal load shedding routine (  | 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 plausible chance for the topics to deserve a separate article. Currently article consists of a (copyvio) image showing the official power shedding schedule in Nepal in the Nepali language. However, Wikipedia is not a publisher of schedules and timetables per WP:NOTDIR, even less in a foreign language and script. Should normally be speedy deleted per CSD#G12 but one editor is trying to save this stub at all costs, hence this AfD. kashmiri TALK 21:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nominator and WP:NOTDIR. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Once it appears to have contained the actual schedule, so WP:NOTDIR might have applied. That has been deleted, so all that is left is an unreferenced opinion piece that the country is ill-managed and sometimes electric supply gets cut. It fails WP:N. Edison ( talk) 23:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No attempt is made to meet Wikipedia's minimal inclusion criteria, such as WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Carlo Magali

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

Contesteted PROD on notability grounds. Boxer does not meet either WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Did not fight for world titles for any major organization and for the regional tiltes of the same organization (which don't contribute to NBOX he had a losing record. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse ( talk) 21:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. per SK2: disruptive pattern of AfDs by the now-indef'd nominator. The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Rojen Barnas

Rojen Barnas (  | 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, this is a vanity article of a non notable writer, the article is part of a walled garden of cruft created by same editor, does not meet WP:GNG Hassan Rebell ( talk) 20:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was speedy keep. - Nominator indeffed and article kept!, I have no objections to renomination from any respected editors (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Servet Kocakaya

Servet Kocakaya (  | 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. I can not even find any CDs from this musician on amazon.com. Does not meet WP:NM Hassan Rebell ( talk) 20:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - this is a bad-faith nomination. A quick search of Amazon.com shows three CDs for sale by Servet Kocakaya. Amazon.de and Amazon.fr have dozens of albums by this musician. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep/Oppose. I'm sorry, at some point WP:POINT just kicks in. The nominator's indef blocked, this is part of mass campaign to delete as much Kurdish culture as possible. This editor and his whole shtick is creepy in the extreme. Let's just WP:DENY and move on. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael Wade

Michael Wade (  | 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 Canadian actor, sourced exclusively to IMDB. That source appears to be particularly unreliable here, because it has apparently conflated the credits of two different actors who share the same name (see BLP complaint by IP claiming to be the "other" Michael Wade, with subsequent discussion at article talk). Couldn't find any reliable coverage about either of them – this [1] is the closest I found for "this" Michael Wade (the Canadian one), but it's not an RS either. Some RS's mention him in passing for his stage work as a Shakespeare actor and director [2] [3], but I don't see these constitute the kind of in-depth coverage that would make an article viable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 23:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing to even suggest minimal general notability. Notifying past tagger Theroadislong. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as not sourced to reliable sources. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I found a couple of improved references in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies database. Not as much as I was hoping for, because between inconsistent archiving and abstract-only-no-text that database tends to be a royal pain in the ass when it comes the Atlantic Canadian newspapers in which I'd expect his coverage to be strongest — but I did find two full-on profiles of him, including an actual article about his death, in The Globe and Mail (which is Canada's main national newspaper of record, for the outsiders who aren't familiar with it) and some coverage of the award he won. I've added them to the article accordingly; as you can see, the obit in particular allowed me to fatten it up quite a bit with the fact that he was also a writer and a musician. I think there's enough here now, although I'd still like to dig into an archive of The Telegram if anybody has access to one. Keep per improvements, although I'm amenable to a disambiguation move to reflect the fact that he probably isn't notable enough to claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights for the undabbed title. Bearcat ( talk) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article has been completely re-written to exclude all incorrect attributions to another actor of the same name and is now well referenced and appears to pass the WP:GNG Theroadislong ( talk) 17:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Good work, Bearcat and Theroadislong. I guess with the newspaper obituary you found, plus the award and the references to his Shakespeare work, we could give the topic a pass; I'd be willing to retract the nom and say weak keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, based on the improvements and the sources located. The best course for this article right now is improvement and expansion, not deletion. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per rewrite article now clearly passes WP:GNG. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 01:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Our Lady of the Angels School fire. There is clear consensus here that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Opinion is, however, split on whether to merge or just delete. In general, WP:PRESERVE is always a good thing, so I'm going with merge. It's entirely up to whoever executes the merge to figure out which, and how much, material is worth merging. Even among the people arguing to merge, there is some feeling that a selective merge is called for.

Also, even among the people arguing to merge, there is a substantial feeling that a merge should be followed by a delete (i.e. no redirect left behind). Whoever does the merge, if you decide to go that route, please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete to ensure that what we end up with fully complies with our attribution requirements. I suspect the best way to comply would be to leave the redirect, but in view of the discussion here, I'm not going to require that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

List of victims of the Our Lady of the Angels school fire

List of victims of the Our Lady of the Angels school fire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of non-notable people. They have suffered a tragedy but Wikipeida is not a memorial or obituary. When it comes to other articles listing victims of events, they generally only list notable people who have or can potentially have separate articles dedicated to each of them for highlights that are not merely tied to their death. LjL ( talk) 19:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's not just a "list of victims", it's an analysis of a disaster. Anmccaff ( talk) 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - analysis of a disaster. good article in my opinion, it doesnt need to be deleted. it forfills its purpose.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 20:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Surely, the "analysis of the disaster" should be on the parent article, Our Lady of the Angels School fire, not on an article supposedly about its victims (which does list every victim by name, and explicitly calls itself a "list")? LjL ( talk) 21:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Our Lady of the Angels school fire: with its details, but not the common students, unless they have special details related to the event. The room details are relevant to understanding the fire, but aren't notable enough for a separate article. And there's nothing particularly educational about the names of children whose roles do not stand out; it would be relevant mostly to genealogists, and is documented on other websites. See WP:SINGLEEVENT and section following it for the guidelines. -- Closeapple ( talk) 02:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I think the names do add to the narrative, although I have to say I'm normally in favor of pretending the bytes are ink. Anmccaff ( talk) 02:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: How about putting all of the victims' names in a collapsible list or shell that users can choose to expand if they so choose? Something like Template:Collapsible list or Template:CollapsedShell could probably do well with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I would probably argue for only listing the people killed in the school fire and only list the number of people injured, unless the person was injured so badly that they received special coverage outside of the others (ie, some place that isn't a list). Listing someone who only had a scraped knee is a little bit indiscriminate, in my opinion. I also have to say that things need to be very carefully stated and maybe even omitted, as in the case of Kathryn Harte. The article says that she was rolled, which may or may not have caused a cerebral aneurysm that popped years later. Harte is dead and the teacher likely is as well, but that's got to run afoul of some sort of issue with verification given that the only claim to substantiate this is a statement from a family member on a memorial website. I'd highly recommend not using anything based on secondhand information of that nature. I also need to add that the claims that she was rolled down the stairs by a teacher doesn't seem to be explicitly backed up by the memorial site either, since she said that she believed it was a fellow student. Now that I look further at the sourcing for the page, it looks like this is predominantly sourced with the memorial page. The about page gives some information, but I am somewhat uncomfortable with this being pretty much entirely taken from this website. It's maintained by one person, I know that the school itself links to the page, and he's taken things from this book, but I'd just prefer that if we are going to have this on here, that it's based on far stronger sourcing than just this one website - especially given the nature of at least one of the claims. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • OK, it is listed here as being fairly good, but I still have to express some concern over including the injured people and including claims over who rolled Harte. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge summary information and analysis into the main article, and then delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial site, and we should not try to turn it into one. These spin-off lists of victims are in effect content forks of their main articles. -- The Anome ( talk) 23:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Agree about the content fork, or at least about the risk of it. It is a Bad Thing to have two articles cover the same ground. Anmccaff ( talk) 23:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial site.Also, it is most inappropriate to list the names and ages of victims who merely skinned a knee. Any analysis of the progress of the tragedy should be included in the main article about the fire. Edison ( talk) 23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
If content found here belongs in the main article, surely that should be Merge the good and Delete the dross. Anmccaff ( talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
That's true in general, but in this case, why it's not encyclopedic has been described at length (in this and related AfDs) as part of other comments. LjL ( talk) 16:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Selective merge and Delete. We already have an article on the fire itself. No need whatsoever for a list of victims. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The article Casualties of the September 11 attacks is similar and has attracted more discussion. In that article, people who died are categorized and grouped together in different ways but presented as numbers rather than names. The list of names in this article without context does not provide encyclopedic information which informs - the names are just sorts of data that give no context into this event. I think it would show more respect to communicate the right amount of information to make the reader understand the event. This is not an art project like a memorial, although I do wish this article could link to lists of names for the people who want to find that through this encyclopedic summary.
I could change my opinion about this but these are my initial thoughts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly, Wikipedia needs to have a policy debate about listing the people killed in major news events with enduring notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
In fact, the comment just above yours explains that such a debate has already been had about the 9/11 attacks, and it resulted in the decision to not list the victims, and in a policy reflecting such at WP:NOTMEMORIAL. LjL ( talk) 18:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep as per Geoland. Particularly in light of Bluerasberry's contributions as to sourcing. Article still needs much work with citations, however. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hari Parbat

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

Major copyvio already meets WP:G12 from here [4]. Fails WP:GNG as it is non-notable and all sources are fake except the one from which it has been copied. Does not meet WP:BASIC and fails WP:RS. Promotional article WP:PROMO with no independent or WP:third-party sources. Markangle11 ( talk) 19:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

<<<Difference of revisions when the article was nominated for AfD to review COPYVIO [5].>>>
Hello. For your information, WP:BASIC is for people. This Hari Parbat is not a person. Biwom ( talk) 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Thousands of sources exist for this massively famous place (you just need to click the blue links where it says Find sources above). Regards, Biwom ( talk) 14:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment They are all blogs and discussion forums and do not qualify for WP:Reliable Source. Markangle11 ( talk) 15:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The claimed copyvio affects at most one two-sentence section in a distinctly longer article, and the wording even of that section is sufficiently different to make the claim of copyvio doubtful. And, to me at least, the "fake" sources that the nominator condemns look far more likely, from the formats of their URLs, to be not particularly reliable tourist sites of five or six years ago that have since suffered from linkrot. The nominator also seems to be rather too dismissive of alternative available sources - the GBooks sources are definitely not blogs or discussion forums and, while it is usually not advisable to base the notability of a topic entirely on the (reasonably reputable) types of tourist guide and travel reminiscences that rather dominate the first few GBooks pages, they are usually a fairly good indicator of notability when, as here, they devote more than a paragraph or so to tourist sites of any age, even though one will have to dig further for properly reliable sources, such as this. PWilkinson ( talk) 21:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment:The article was a clear case of WP:CV and already met WP:G12. And no. The wording was EXACTLY the same. The words "<<<copyvio removed>>>" were copied directly from http://www.india9.com/i9show/Makhdoom-Sahib-Shrine-58219.htm. It was only yesterday that an editor removed the copyvio section which is a paragraph. Check the diffs. [6] yourself because clearly you failed to check it properly.
Let me explain further that how the urls are fake and do not open. The article contains 7 references:
The google results also point to non-notable tourist sits which are entirely self-sourced and cannot be classified as WP:RS such as [www.lonelyplanet.com], [travel.kashmironline.net/hari_parbat.asp] or [thekashmirwalla.com], etc.
You choose to comment for the first time on WP:AfD and after looking at your contributions [7], I am surprised that you only chose to comment on the two articles on which I placed a deletion tag. Markangle11 ( talk) 14:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The article is clearly a DELETE. The article section Hari Parbat#Legendary origin does point to WP:CV. Found more proofs here: * http://newsaraftravels.com/destinations/hari-parbat-fort/,

What a mess seriously. I request the admin to delete this article right away. This article has nothing to stand on and is violating Wikipedia policies as explained in detail above. Markangle11 ( talk) 14:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep and speedy close per SNOW. All mountains are notable for Wikipedia per WP:GEOLAND.
Additionally, the nomination follows the edit pattern of the nominator who - along with other likeminded editors affiliated to a Pakistan-based religious sect - has been heavily promoting a religious organisation "Tehreek Dawaat ul Faqr", [8] [9] [10] [11] whilst removing all references on WP to the religious title Sultan ul Arifeen if used in a context other than the sect's venerated Sultan Bahoo. Here, Hari Parbat is a mountain that hosts the shrine of Hamza Makhdoom, a Kashmiri saint known locally as "Sultan ul Arifeen"; Hamza Makhdoom article has already been subject of deletion tagging by the sect on several occasions [12] [13] [14] [15]; their final AfD attempt was unsuccessful [16] (read comments there) so they now moved to try to delete Hari Parbat. As one of editors who blocked this Wikipedia purge by the sect, [17] with 100% certaintly I can term this nomination as malicious. kashmiri TALK 18:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but delete copyright violations and delete all information not backed by references (except images). Here are two sources which establish WP:GNG.
This place is in a war zone and both India and Pakistan have a bizarre political climate which suppresses the quality of information coming out of Kashmir. The illustrations in this art establish some notability - obviously this is a place has a rare cultural legacy - and the coverage as a tourism destination is enough sourcing for me to consider this to be well covered considering its region. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is another one that seems like a no brainer. Per WP:GEOLAND, a named geographical feature for which sources contain more than just statistics and coordinates is notable. We know more about this hill than simply its name and location. As it is, the article could possibly be expanded. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Clearly, you have got nothing to defend your article. Tales from the past wont get you anywhere anyway so it is pointless. Also the very investigation you are referring to, the one you filed against me was closed way back by the admin because you failed to provide evidence [18]. So make use of a Wikipedia policy instead.
WP:GEOLAND pointed by User:Kashmiri and User:MezzoMezzo requires a topic "to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them." and your fake references and even the cherry-picking references (that merely have a mentio) pointed by User:Bluerasberry do not meet WP:Reliable Sources. None of the sources point to WP:Notability. So there goes down the all the 3 ivotes.
Even after your changes to the articles, it is WP:ARTN. You added [ [19] which is a WP:USERG and again not an RS. Reliable sources are published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people. By the way User:Kashmiri and User:MezzoMezzo are currently under suspected SPI [20] by other editors so the closing admin should bear this in mind while taking in account their ivoting. Markangle11 ( talk) 17:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please do not manipulate Wikipedia policies. WP:GEOLAND states clearly: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. For Hari Parbat, reliable information beyond statistics and coordinates does exist in abundance, as evidenced by sources, including those quoted by Bluerasberry. kashmiri TALK`
Additionally, you (purportedly?) try to mislead re. sources. [21] is an official website of Jammu & Kashmir Toursm, an agency of the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. Bluerasberry on the other hand quoted Lonely Planet - if you claim that LP is not a RS, perhaps we can end the discussion there. kashmiri TALK 18:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I do not have to manipulate policies but you finally stated a Wikipedia policy i am surprised. Unfortunately, even this policy says "A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them." and the sources are not WP:third-party sources and this topic fails WP:SIGCOV already so it cannot stand. The article violates more policies for it to exist. It is a clear case of WP:CV because it has been lifted from so many sources even if that is paraphrased, it is non-encyclopedic because it only talks about legends and stories that are not based on facts. It is WP:PROMO because it is being used to promote particular WP:NN places. You are only prolonging this discussion based on non-factual arguments. Markangle11 ( talk) 03:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Markangle11: Lonely Planet's India guidebook features a description of Hari Parbat. Please reliably prove that Lonely Planet has a vested interest in the mountain or its temples. Thank you. kashmiri TALK 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
It's worth noting that the SPI opened about Kashmiri was recognized as frivolous and baseless, and thus is irrelevant here. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, it was, naturally, closed as without substance. kashmiri TALK 14:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I've already pointed to how the article is a complete fail and violates so many Wikipedia policies. First you should work on that and then question me, while you seem to have changed your positions several times so that's irrelevant arguing further. Nobody in his right mind would keep this non encyclopedic article considering its lack of notability and 90% copyvio content and all fake sources and WP:WEASEL terms. Most of the article is WP:VAGUE see here [22] talking about legends and stories. To claim that this one reference is an evidence of notability and can cover all the violations, is like telling the community WP:ILIKEIT. Markangle11 ( talk) 16:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I have presented my arguments for keep as well as made necessary edits to the article to address the issues. I will end here per WP:DNFTT and wait for closing admin. kashmiri TALK 16:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm just confounded that an article about a real, non-hoax hill with reliable sources proving more than just coordinates and statistics is suddenly garnering accusations of weasel words and bold text. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 10:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hive Records

Hive 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)

The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) or at least enough to build a full article. No substantial hits in a custom Google search for vetted music sources. No suitable merge/redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 19:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 19:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Hard to find any substantial coverage at all online. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it stands - three artists with articles, one of which ( Duncan Avoid) appears notable himself, and nothing in the way of references. For this one to stand the references would need serious beefing up - David Gerard ( talk) 15:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Nothing to even suggest minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Edgey

Edgey (  | 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 topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources ( ?) or at least enough to build a full article. No substantial hits in a custom Google search for vetted music sources. No suitable merge/redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ ping}} me. czar 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as unreferenced BLP, as well as no evidence of notability - David Gerard ( talk) 15:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, and the references in the article aren't any help. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 11:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was clear keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Tom Wheare

Tom Wheare (  | 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 really not convinced articles should exist about head teachers of private schools, even if the music building at the school is named after them. The building was designed by an eminent firm of architects so I'm quite happy to add something to the Bryanston School article and turn Tom Wheare into a redirect (as happened with Sarah Thomas (teacher)). Sionk ( talk) 14:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 15:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think the overall notability of his career, particularly being FRSA, is enough to pass in this case. Andy Dingley ( talk) 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Really? I was under the impression that you applied and paid to become an FRSA. Hardly a great honour. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I agree that he passes the notability test and disagree with Sionk's odd idea that heads of private schools should form a category about whom articles should not exist. GooglerW ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
"Really not convinced this should exist" is different from "Really convinced this should not exist". It is established by unchallengeable precedent that all articles on high schools are implicitly notable. Like Sionk, I don't see that this means all head teachers are implied to be notable too. However I don't read their comments as meaning that in some cases, such as this one where he's notable for other achievements overall, head teachers can't still demonstrate notability. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Yep, I should have added the word "all" to my opening sentence. Some people who have been head teachers will meet the notability threshold. Most won't. Sionk ( talk) 22:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting. Although such things go on, I didn't realise the RSA was party to them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think the RSA itself has ever misrepresented its fellowship. People just tend to assume that because it's got "Fellow" in it it's some sort of honour. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The payment of dues does not mean that all one needs to do to be a fellow is to pay the dues. I don't know this society in particular, but I know that, for instance, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences requires annual dues of its members ($50, I believe?) but that doesn't mean anyone with $50 can be a member. The American Academy in Rome similarly asks for $40/year from fellows, but you need to win the Rome Prize to be asked to give that $40. There are other examples at lower levels (Phi beta kappa), etc. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You're correct, you have to submit an application explaining how you have demonstrated (and will demostrate) commitment to the values of RSA, which goes to an Application Board. But this is definitely not anywhere near 'being elected' on merit (as happens in some other institutions). Sionk ( talk) 23:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Relisting for additional policy-based !votes, especially given Sionk's evidence that being a fellow of the RSA isn't necessary as prestigious as it first sounds. clpo13( talk) 18:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Xxanthippe. Head of a national schools association. Also an editor. Being a head teacher is not a bar on the existence of a Wikipedia page, it is one indication towards notability. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 18:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep was Weak Delete -- the FRSA is the most important claim to notability. While the Headmaster position is important as is the appointment to the head of their conference, it's not in itself enough to me for WP:PROF and does not have the external reliable sources for GNG. I would have always thought that the FRSA position would be enough and as I noted above, having to apply and pay a fee isn't a deterrent for me to considering it notable. But spending 15 minutes trying to source notability in independent, RS, or get a list of all members elected in a year, etc. has come up absolutely dry. WP:PROF has decided that fellow of IEEE is explicitly notable, which elects about 300 Electrical Engineers in America a year. If RSA elected 300 fellows (across all arts and sciences in the UK) per year, then I would consider it an award similar to or rarer than IEEE. Same with if it elected 100 or 1500. But I can't get any figures on the number of people per year; if it's 10,000 then it wouldn't be on par. Or if it elected 500 but most of the major figures in the art and research world in the UK were missing, then it would seem to be like a US Who's Who type listing: selective on the surface but not on the criteria for admission (payment). If anything could be found to support the RSA selectivity claim, I'll change my vote, but I can't till then. (btw -- the Royal Society, is different and definitely, clearly notable). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Changing to Keep, based primarily on the Music School naming and the number of fellows cited by @ GooglerW: -- I do think the FRSA notability is a core, not peripheral issue--, but not based on the chairman of HMC or deputy chairman of GDST. If there's not a subject-specific guideline such as WP:PROF to refer to then we need independent sources saying that HMC Chairman, etc., is notable and I don't see them in the article or elsewhere. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
To reiterate, you apply to become an FRSA and pay a monthly fee. You're then automatically accepted if you meet the criteria (which are pretty broad and basically boil down to you agreeing to support the RSA's aims; it actually says this on their website - they're not claiming to be anything they're not). How on earth is this a notable award? A notable award is one to which you're elected by your peers or appointed by your country, not one where you select yourself and then pay for it. That's just self-aggrandisement. So, you're basically saying he's notable because he's paid to put four letters after his name? That's ludicrous. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is all getting a bit silly. The FRSA is a peripheral issue, mistakenly raised in his first post by Andy Dingley [for the record 2,723 Fellows joined and 3,375 lapsed in 2013-14 (p 16 www.thersa.org/globalassets/pdfs/governance/rsa-impact-report-2013-14.pdf)]. Wheare's notability is primarily from his career/position in secondary education and his involvement at a very senior level, and continuing. Being Chairman of HMC and currently deputy chairman of GDST and governor of several schools is much more notable than being one of a few hundred IEEE Fellows; and the naming of the Music School is another sign of notability in his field (which is obviously not well known to many). I agree that the article needs amplifying but let's not get distracted by the RSA, which is not 'the most important claim to notability'. I don't think there were ever cogent grounds on which the article merited proposing for deletion. Note that WP:PROF is not relevant to this case - he is not an academic in higher education. GooglerW ( talk) 21:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly notable; ( Music school named after him), the article's quality not withstanding. Jacona ( talk) 00:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is that he passes WP:ACADEMIC. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 14:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Ketan Ramanlal Bulsara

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

PROD by another user that was removed by an IP editor. Unfortunately there no reliable sources to discuss in non-trivial ways the subject of this BLP. Primary sources show only that the person exists, not that they are notable. DreamGuy ( talk) 20:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment -- Was created by an account that has same last name as subject. The user who created it had a speedy deletion notice for the same page already on his page (which was removed by that account) from 2007 by Pruneau, so a previous version of the page must have been created and deleted at least once before this article. Notice said it was speedy deleted before under criteria for not giving a notable reason to be here. DreamGuy ( talk) 15:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject is mentioned in a few reliable sources but notability is not established. Meatsgains ( talk) 21:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
FYI - IPs have been continuously removing the AfD template from the page. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Dr. Bulsara world reknowned neurosurgeon. The basis for addition to this page unfounded. He was elected president American association south asian neurosurgeons. He is vice chair of the cerbrovascular section in the United States. He has published 3 books with significant impact higher education and significantly influenced the field with over 100 peer reviewed publications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B014:92AF:7D26:BB0A:8906:BD09 ( talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC) — 2600:1001:B014:92AF:7D26:BB0A:8906:BD09 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Remarkable pioneering neurosurgeon. Recognized with Stephan curry as notable alumni from Davidson college in Forbes top colleges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.124.218 ( talk • contribs) — 66.87.124.218 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Widely recognized for contributions to technical neurosurgery and incrasing neurosurgical knowledge base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kankkank ( talk • contribs) — Kankkank ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - No evidence that the subject meets the specific notability criteria in WP:ACADEMIC or the general criteria in WP:GNG. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 08:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep [23] appears to assign him as "Director of Neuroendovascular and Skull Base Surgery Programs" at Yale, which is a notable position in itself. PubMed lists him as co-author on a large number of scholarly articles. [24] (over 100) as does Google Scholar. Clearly notable within his specialty in medicine. I know we would love to find all articles written by involved editors to be non-notable, but this is not actually one of them. Collect ( talk) 17:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Article appears to have started as an autobio and is still not very good. However, the subject is notable by guideline WP:PROF c1, as WoS indicates a strong publication record (h-index 19, with a few papers having at least 100 citations). Agricola44 ( talk) 20:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC). reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- only the double relist made me jump in to what seems like a difficult decision with some good arguments on both sides, but ultimately I'll trust Yale's decision to appoint as an Associate Prof and the high citation index (along with the good current state of the article) over its growing pains as an AUTOBIO. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment - It has been interesting reading the arguments above, as other people are interpreting WP:ACADEMIC much more generously than I have been. I would have expected a requirement for at least a Full Professorship at somewhere like Yale, or a h-index above 30 (or even 40?), or a single paper wth more than 500 (or 1000?) citations. My previous !vote should be interpreted in that context. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 06:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Comment When Yale makes a person an official "Director" of a program, that suggests he is quite above the "minor instructor at Faber College" level, indeed. Collect ( talk) 14:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Comment. FWIW, I think the double re-listing in this case was pointless, as the research record/impact is clearly conclusive. The h-index range of 10-15 is debatable (often depending upon research area), but in this case it's 19 or 20, which we always have accepted without argument. For reference, Hirsch's association of h-index and various levels of notability can be gleaned from his original paper: Fellowship in the American Physical Society might occur typically for h ≈ 15–20. Membership in the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America may typically be associated with h ≈ 45 and higher...so I think the above conversation reflects some misunderstanding of notavility vs research impact ;-) Agricola44 ( talk) 16:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC). reply
I understand the Hirsh index (I rejoice in a personal h=32), but does "Fellowship in the American Physical Society" really equate to "an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)" per WP:ACADEMIC? Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, it always has here. WP needs reasonable scientific representation, not just pop stars ;-) cheers, Agricola44 ( talk) 17:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Charan Andreas

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

Quite obvious case of no better notability and improvement and my searches only found expected minor mentions at Books, News and browser and this article has experienced multiple BLP issues with adding "dating Miranda Cosgrove]]". All in all, there's simply nothing to suggest keeping this. Notifying past users Kollision, Kww and The-Pope. SwisterTwister talk 09:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 09:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. MichaelQSchmidt, any further insight? clpo13( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After three weeks of debate, there is still no agreement on whether this meets WP:NBASKETBALL and/or WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jordan Baker (basketball)

Jordan Baker (basketball) (  | 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:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Although the Mexican national team has been making some noise internationally, their league is not up to par to the NBA, ACB, Euroleague, Serie A, etc. Some of the teams don't even have articles, much less the majority of the players. The league is not that popular with the people, either. JTtheOG ( talk) 06:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There are several basketball players named Jordan Baker, including one who has played for the Canadian national team. This article title probably needs to be more specific as that player will probably get an article soon. Jacona ( talk) 12:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and Move to Jordan Baker, (basketball, born 1992). The nom asserts that the article fails WP:NBASKETBALL, but Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional qualifies as a "similar league", so Baker does qualify. There is no article as yet, but Canadian basketball player Jordan Baker from the University of Alberta, (basketball, born 1991) will probably get an article soon, (and there are at least two other up-and-coming "Jordan Baker's" in basketball) so might as well head off the conflict now. A disambiguation page will likely be needed very soon! Jacona ( talk) 21:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the Mexican league in no way is a "similar league" to the Italian, Spanish and Australian pro leagues (which are the non-NBA legacy men's leagues named in the guideline). That league does not garner the consistent independent coverage to assert it meets WP:NBASKETBALL. That said, the subject may very well meet WP:GNG, I will research and !vote accordingly after I get a chance to do so. Rikster2 ( talk) 21:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am just not seeing the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Most coverage when searching "Jordan Baker basketball" is for the Canadian player. I see some light coverage of his suspension (like this example), but not enough to meet the guideline in my opinion. Also, I would like to challenge the notability of this person per GNG, regardless of if some think he meets WP:BASKETBALL. First, as I said before there is no way in my experience that the Mexican League qualifies as a "similar league" to those listed. But if people want to think so, then I challenge the notion and ask that you prove the subject meets GNG, which is a requirement of the SSGs anyway. Rikster2 ( talk) 15:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 18:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in independent sources. Suspension and DUI I'd consider WP:ROUTINE coverage. WP:NBASKETBALL, unfortunately, leaves open-ended, subjective "similar league" wording. As such, I don't feel it is similar in coverage to the explicitly mentioned leagues in the SNG. I don't subscribe to the notion that a top league in a country is automatically notable or that it's unfair or biased. Simply put, notability on WP is based on coverage, and nothing more.— Bagumba ( talk) 03:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the SNG for professional basketball players, as he is a player in the Mexican LNBP — the highest level league in the country. Carrite ( talk) 20:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Bagumba: @ Carrite: However, the guideline does not say "the highest level league of any country." As I said in this debate before, although the Mexican national team is picking up steam, the national league is not "a similar major professional sports league." One of the teams does not even have an article, and the league does not get anywhere near the coverage as the other leagues listed. JTtheOG ( talk) 23:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Bagumba is not who made that comment. The basketball guideline does not state that playing for the highest level in a country confers notability. A grand total of 4 countries (plus multi-national league Euroleague) are named. What the guideline says is "comparable leagues" to the NBA, Lega serie A, Liga ACB, etc may be notable. I'd like to see substantiation from anyone claiming the Mexican League gets anywhere near that level of coverage. Rikster2 ( talk) 01:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Thank you for pointing that out. JTtheOG ( talk) 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This passes WP:GNG per Liga Nacional de Baloncesto Profesional aka meets WP:NBASKETBALL. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 05:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Please demonstrate that the subject meets GNG through sources. If notability is challenged per a subject-specific guideline like WP:NBASKETBALL it still needs to meet GNG. And as a "basketball expert" I disagree that the Mexican League is on the level of the league's listed. Specific examples needed, thanks. Rikster2 ( talk) 13:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Henry Flynt & The Insurrections

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

Band did not even release an material during their existence. Yes, it did include Henry Flynt but an article needs TWO notable members if they failed to chart nationally and his article page explains everything that is in this article. ABriefPassing ( talk) 17:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • KEEP: Rather than delete the article, why don't we develop it further, because Henry Flynt is a well-known figure in philosophy. Give the article a chance to expand or merge it with Flynt's article. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 19:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
P.S.: I have made a complaint to administration about user ABriefPassing I suspect sockpuppetry. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 20:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or keep - Henry Flynt is an innovative avant-garde artist. Either merge this info into his page or, if possible, expand the page. If the latter isn't possible I suggest the merger. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)|
  • Delete as there hardly even seems to be much to suggest minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep mentioned in a number of books as a start, [25] made a CMJ chart which implies the band did release something <g>. Within its limited genre, the group does appear to meet Wikipedia requirements. Collect ( talk) 23:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Henry Flynt; nothing here that merits a separate article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • More Reasons: Here are more reasons to keep the article. I have expanded the article. I have found a good book source and have added a lot of biographical information. The Insurrections are notable on several counts, one amongst which that their story goes hand-in-hand with the Velvet Underground. Flynt played with the Velvets Briefly, and Lou Reed gave him his initial guitar lessons. By the way, the band had two other notable members, Walter De Maria, sculptor, on drums, and jazz musician, Art Murphy organ. That equals three notable members. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 19:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Now that I've done the expansion, added new sources, and addressed the fact that there were three notable members in this band, I would say that the article should now be an obvious keeper. The only editor who voted to delete and those that mentioned the possibility of merger (including me) did so before the expansion. I would say that now, we have only one viable option left. Deleting should by now be completely out of the question. Merging should be less tenable at this point. So, keeping is the obvious choice remaining. So, please let's do the right thing. We now have a good solid article here that needs to be here. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 06:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Three notable members, a well sourced article, and tey accomplished far more than say Meg McGuffin. Nice job on the expansion. Legacypac ( talk) 08:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. 05:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Christiana Louizu

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

Lack of notability. Lucky102 ( talk) 17:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I'm using the same cretaria for creating articles about X Factor finalist. Will work on adding more sources, but the article still meet the creteria for notability. Chris Calvin ( talk) 23:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Aren't X Factor (Bulgarian TV series) and Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015 2 reality televisions? Chris Calvin ( talk) 12:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 11:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

BILLIONAIRES ROW

BILLIONAIRES ROW (  | 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 just seeing press releases and trivial mentions in RS, showing an apparent lack of notability. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The newslinks used in the article has no Pless release stuff and it has article from The Drinks Business (magazine) a monthly international B2B magazine and website published by Union Press having around 500000 readers featuring the Billionaires Row Champagne also article from campdenfb featuring Billionaires Row Champagne . It has 2 news links from America's most prominent news paper Newyork times , and the mentions from People magazine and famous extratv . So there is enough and more notability . Always :) 17:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom - most of the sources are press releases (including the Drinks Business link) and those that aren't are extremely trivial mentions (three different articles about a party where this champagne brand is mentioned...), plus one review on a wine blog. Nothing that indicates any kind of notability for the brand name. -- bonadea contributions talk 21:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment May i know what actually you meant by PRESS RELEASE , according to my understanding the links provided in the article has nothing to do with press releases. Kindly clarify ! where in the "Drinks Business" article and Newyork times article and other prominent articles do you find it as press release ? Please explain and give clarity when you say it is a press release !

Always :) 08:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A press release is a statement written by a company (or an agent, or a marketing firm, or similar) in order to promote something or somebody. The statement is then sent to various media - hence the name "press release". It is fairly easy to spot a press release from the writing style, and it often includes direct quotes. Learning to recognise them is largely a matter of experience, but when you see a short notice like the one here which reads as if it was published by the company itself, it is often a good idea to look further (because press releases are usually published in more than one place. Sometimes a publication rewrites it slightly or cuts it down, but it's still a PR even if a few words might have been changed or omitted.) The original press release reprinted in The Drinks Business can be found here. -- bonadea contributions talk 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment new link from lemillebolleblog.it added. Always :) 11:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayssmileguys ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per others, no indepth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Citobun ( talk) 15:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Latif Halmat

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

Vanity article of non-notable writer Hassan Rebell ( talk) 16:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I disagree with the nominator's assertion that this is a vanity article. However, it does not cite any reliable sources; not only does that mean it's deletable per WP:GNG, but it also means it could be subject to a procedural deletion via WP:PROD BLP. — C.Fred ( talk) 16:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The article seems to be part of a walled garden of cruft, most from the same editor. I made a search on Google books which didn't show anything notable for this person. The article does not meet WP:N. On Amazon I can see at most one book which is perhaps from this person and which is unavailable and without book cover. -- Hassan Rebell ( talk) 16:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - A biography with no references would be deleted as a BLP Prod if written now. Wholly unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   17:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've added one reference from US Kurdish website Kurdish Aspect. Once again, the nominator's claim that this is a WP:Vanity page seems wholly unsupported by the editor history. What's worse, the nominator is harassing editors, such as myself, who voice opposition to such claims by issuing unwarranted "civility" warnings. There is nothing "uncivil" about opposing your nominations or pointing out that you began editing yesterday under this username with the apparent sole purpose of mass deleting Kurdish bio articles. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. Thanks for constructively trying to improve the article. But this source, a website without editorial oversight, is not a reliable source that can establish notability. I have only given one mild civility warning, after being harassed. -- Hassan Rebell ( talk) 21:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Searching under the alternate spelling of his name, as stated in the lead, we see bylined articles such as this, this, this. Whatever the current state of the article, I think we have enough here that he meets both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, keeping in mind the difficulties in searching for non-English articles. Keep. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
This person falls into the WP:AUTHOR policy. The person does not meet points 1), 2), or 3). This leaves 4), but I don't think that those 3 articles in news sites and blogs is sufficient for winning "significant critical attention", and unfortunately it is difficult to say what the articles actually say in English. -- Hassan Rebell ( talk) 21:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You've misunderstood: that's not what WP:AUTHOR means. It's simply a set of additional criteria, any of one which he may meet. He doesn't have to meet all of them, or even any of them, if he meets WP:GNG's more basic requirements. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for clarifying. GNG still needs multiple reliable sources. Kulturname seems to be a blog, and diyarname a news blog. The only one of these source that could perhaps be reliable is Rudaw. -- Hassan Rebell ( talk) 22:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure any of them are WP:BLOGS as we define them here. A "newsblog" that is not self-published is perfectly acceptable as a WP:RS as indeed many news publications are becoming web-only. I'm still satisfied he meets GNG and am more interested in hearing from uninvolved editors. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The sites look like blogs but since they are not in English and googling the sites shows no other results, it's difficult to tell.
Actually, for biography articles, it is WP:BIO and WP:BASIC that is relevant, and WP:AUTHOR is the set of additional criteria. So we need significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.
IMO we have at most one published secondary source that is (relatively) reliable (the Kurdish news site "Rudaw"), and it is doubtful if the the depth of coverage is substantial or significant (but without English translation it's difficult to tell).
And the fact that on Amazon there is at most one book that is even unavailable by this writer doesn't help.-- Hassan Rebell ( talk) 22:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- had time to look at the article now and Vekoler and other's comments ring true for me. WP:ANI has given permission for an early Keep close for any admin. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I am astounded how can anyone without having any in-depth knowledge regarding Kurdish literature, can decide what is notable in this area by a simple search. I agree that reliable sources have to be added in the article but that can not be used as an excuse to delete articles about famous Kurdish intellectuals and writers. Google search is not a good measure in this particular case because almost all their work is in Kurdish which is written in a different alphabet. I will do my best to add reliable sources like the one from Swedish Immigrant Institute that lists several Kurdish authors and their books [26]. For instance, check out the page for writer Zeynelabidîn Zinar [27]. Vekoler ( talk) 21:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • — Note to closing admin: Vekoler ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
  • Vekoler, problem is, this wiki is built on verifiability and reliable sources. He may well be every bit as notable as you claim, but the thing is, we do need WP:RS and I'm afraid those online web listings aren't enough. It's a particular problem with any non-English subject. So the goal is to see if there are articles about him in Kurdish media, any media. On the other hand, the mass nominator has now been blocked and there's a chance this whole raft of Afds may get closed speedily as disruptive -- I don't know. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You are right. Even though the IP has been blocked, there is still a problem with verifiability in English. I recognize that and I would like to apologize for the emotional outburst, it was totally uncalled for. I have to work harder on finding better sources. Vekoler ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
No worries, and as I mentioned on your user talk page, also don't remove the Afd tags from articles yourself. I don't want to see YOU get blocked. ;-) And if some of these articles do get deleted, you should ask to have them WP:Userfyed if you want to keep working on them. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. One can find articles from literary magazines about his work and poetry, but most are written in Sorani with Arabic-based alphabet. Google search must be done using Sorani version of his name [له‌تیف هه‌ڵمه‌ت] or Kurmanji version [Letîf Helmet]. I wil list a few articles here: Sufism in Latif Halmat's work, Latif Lifetime Achievement Award, Interview with Xelk Media, Regarding Latif Halmat's Statement in the Second Congress of Kurdish Writers, Erbil, 1971, Literary Seminar at University of Garmian. These two are in English Translation of one of his poems and Halmat's biography and translation of one of his poems , This one in Kurmanji (North Kurdish) by Khalil Duhoki Poet of the Dispossessed, An interview with Rudaw [28], Poet of Resistance: Latif Halmat. Vekoler ( talk) 00:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - we're at a disadvantage in that Kurdish and Central Kurdish are not available via Google Translate. However, searches for the name brings up enough evidence of notability, such as his appearance in this hour-long Kurdish show [29]. This article should not be a victim of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, especially given the apparent motives of the nominator. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE and has admitted ban evasion. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Unless I'm missing something, he hasn't admitted ban evasion, Wikimandia, and I don't think he did evade a ban. He had to change his username and did so improperly, is the problem. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oh I see. I thought Srednuas Lenoroc was blocked. I struck through. Still, I'm guessing SPI will not go his way. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
No he was blocked, but just because his username was almost identical to another editor's, whom he successfully claimed not to be. It's odd. The whole thing around this chap is so odd, fishy, and frankly creepy. I sure hope he stays blocked. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, Wikimandia, keep in mind that for this crazy-ass affair, Senoroc Lrednuas is another editor entirely. We mean Lrednuas Senoroc. It's nuts. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Shawn in Montreal: Right, I mistakenly thought Senoroc Lrednuas was blocked and Lrednuas Senoroc was its sock, which is why when he admitted to being Lrednuas Senoroc I thought it meant it he was admitting ban evading. Still I never believe the "I was just an innocent IP editor before" claim when new editors act like very experienced editors. They're invariably guilty of major sockpuppetrocities. —Мандичка YO 😜 02:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Yes, Google Translate seems to be having trouble with the "Sorani with Arabic-based alphabet" thing, but from what I can glean, yes, we do seem to meet WP:GNG at very least. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Vekoler and Мандичка. Btw, the nominator is blocked now.-- Gomada ( talk) 13:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Good argument has been made on the notability of the subject of this article but at the moment it has a single source and is a WP:COPYVIO of that source. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per meeting WP:GNG. Believe the language is confusing to (almost) everyone here. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 04:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator indeffed and article kept!, I have no objections to renomination from any respected editors. (Despite the delete !vote this was as pointed below a pointy nomination so I'm closing as Speedy Keep) (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Dilshad Said

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

This is a vanity article of a non notable music teacher and hobby musician. Does not meet WP:N. Nothing on Google books that shows notability, even on Amazon.com there are no CDs from this person. Hassan Rebell ( talk) 16:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- per Мандичка. Note that WP:ANI has given permission for an early keep on articles nominated by this nominator. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - prominent Kurdish musician and composer, has bio in five other languages. Here he is conducting the Czech National Symphony Orchestra in Prague. I reported nom at ANI for his blitz of Kurd AfDs. —Мандичка YO 😜 19:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Nom has been indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Per Мандичка and Michael Scott Cuthbert. Btw, the nominator is blocked now.-- Gomada ( talk) 13:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - He does indeed seem to be notable. Here he is during a performance of his "Peshmerga", played by the Czech National Symphony Orchestra. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 16:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Above All

Above All (  | 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 appear to meet notability guidelines, either WP:NBAND pr WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I clearly found nothing better. Thanks for nominating this Walter Görlitz because if someone else including myself had nominated it and you hadn't come around yet, I would've notified you. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Once again the commonality of a name made it difficult to research. I couldn't find anything on the search engines which showed them to pass WP:GNG, but am open to re-evaluating if someone else finds good in-depth sources. Onel5969 TT me 20:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Research -- relevant sources (ie: mid-1990s UK metal/music magazines) would exist offline:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Time needed for responses to the research posted above Spinning Spark 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 15:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I looked at the sources offered by Hydronium Hydroxide. Most of them fail to meet our definition of a WP:RS. Most of them are blogs and other first-party sources. The oxfordreference entry is certainly a reliable source, in the sense that it's independent and has editorial oversight, but it simply establishes that this exists, nothing more. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I wasn't suggesting that those links could be considered RS, but that they were breadcrumbs to (offline reliable) sources (potentially indicating notability). In the absence of such evidence being produced, then WP:DEL7 would apply and the breadcrumbs are at least listed for any future re-creation attempt. Cheers, ~~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~~ 11:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to C++#Standard library. J04n( talk page) 16:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Core language

Core language (  | 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:DICDEF: the "core language" is the core part of a language. What is part of a language's core depends on the context and is always defined ad hoc. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 20:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Nom appears to be on a streak to rid Wikipedia of that well-known scourge, too much information. [30] [31] After nom prod'ed this article, I added a second source to the one already cited. Since the nomination, I've added two more. We generally accept that notability has been established once two good sources have been found. I think we're clearly past that. I urge nom to concede the error and withdraw the nomination. Msnicki ( talk) 22:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You've just proven my point. None of these sources defines "core language" as a technical term, except in ad hoc ways. I agree that "core language" is a common compound noun in computing, but it does not denote a single, well-defined concept. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 10:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Dictionary definition at best, neologism at worst. — Ruud 12:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • None of the provided sources seem to be treating it as a technical term, it just looks like a (differently-defined) combination of words that multiple authors happened to settle on to help them focus or split up a programming book. Never mind notability, outside of this Wikipedia article this doesn't even seem to be a thing. Every popular combination of words isn't a valid article topic. -- Consumed Crustacean ( talk) 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 01:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to C++#Standard library where it is mentioned and informally defined. Core language does seem to be used as a technical term by the C++ standards folk, see for instance C++ and C++11. In C++, the core language is the part of the standard not involving the standard library. Other uses seem to be more informal, where Core X means the essential or important fundamentals of language X. I've only found the term formally defined for C++--indeed, of the five articles that link to this article, four are C++ articles. I suggest redirecting to the C++ article; the standard library section informally defines core language in the first sentence. -- Mark viking ( talk) 04:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spinning Spark 15:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 15:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as dictdef. Normally, I would be looking for an WP:ATD, but in this case, I disagree with Mark viking about the redirect. If this was a term specific to C++, the redirect would make sense, but it's really not language-specific at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete AND redirect perhaps as there's not much of an article yet but there's no urgent need of deleting. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • DABify Right now, the article is a WP:DICTDEF, however in practice the term "core language" can refer to several things. It can refer to a programming language and its run-time support without the standard libraries, or it can refer to the syntax and semantics of a programming language with Syntactic sugar compiled away (i.e. anything that is not "sugar" is "core"), and that's not including minor meanings (e.g. the Glasgow Haskell Compiler immediate representation). De Guerre ( talk) 07:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For many things (not just programming languages) it at time makes sense to distinguish between "core" and "non-core". But what is "core" to a language is usually not strictly defined (with occasional exceptions such as C++), and can be a matter of opinion or purposes. While the concept exists, I don't think it is useful for an article to exist talking about this concept in a cross-language sense. I don't think there is enough WP:RS on this topic to actually make an article, because the topic is rather trivial. SJK ( talk) 08:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The fundamental argument from the people arguing to delete was WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There is some question about whether that was intended to apply to individual people or mass events such as this; this issue was never authoritatively resolved.

In the end, even though AfD is not a vote, the delete arguments are running about 2:1 over keep. I don't see any fundamental flaws in the arguments on either side, so going with the weight of numbers seems like the only reasonable course of action. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks

Victims of the November 2015 Paris attacks (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an obituary and a list of not otherwise notable victims shouldn't be provided. The rest of the content is present at November 2015 Paris attacks, on whose talk page there was repeated consensus not to list victims ( 1, 2, 3). LjL ( talk) 14:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. LjL ( talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 12

In cases such as this, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument, because it's unsurprising that on an emotional topic such as (mass) deaths people would create articles even when they are against policy, and the articles can be niche enough to pass below the radar. Some of your examples also don't apply: List of victims of Nazism is a explicitly a list of notable victims (it obviously can't list every victim of Nazism), which is acceptable; List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz is neither here nor there, since it admits to being "fragmentary" without specifying what the criteria for inclusion in the list are (so what is it, a completely random sample of victims?); finally, most of the articles that don't list notable victims (most victims having their own linked article is an indication) have their content or existence challenged with tags or on their talk pages (please check them). So, these are not good precedents. LjL ( talk) 19:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete all of them as well. - theWOLFchild 17:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 13

  • Delete: I see no blue-link entries in the list nor any probable blue-links. Fails WP:NLIST. Tom Ruen, WP:OSE; Nazism, Auschwitz and Sobibor lists are list of blue-links and hence perfectly valid. Rest others might someday also face the AfD. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 15:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A very expected AfD, I admit. Per WP:1E, the victims may not be individually notable for articles of their own, despite the fact that many had news reports dedicated to them (which were more than just trivial mentions), but the subject itself (compiling their names in a list, that is) is notable in its own right. Some examples include BBC, CNN, Toronto Star, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, La Stampa, El Mundo, etc. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 15:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
— Note to closing admin: Fitzcarmalan ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Newspapers have different duties/intentions to compile such names. Encyclopaedias don't have to do that. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 16:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that newspaper report on this isn't a strong indicator that it should be kept, while WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a stronger indicator that it should be discarded, as is consensus on the main article's talk page. LjL ( talk) 18:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
See WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Firebrace ( talk) 18:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • But User:Fitzcarmalan's point it that the news coverage of these victims confers notability on them. I agree that in mass casualty events such at earthquakes, nightclub fires, and train wrecks, no notability is conferred on individual victims. However, in the case of targeted terror - including those killed in Nazi death camps mentioned by User:Dharmadhyaksha - and in the case at hand, the fact that these people were targeted slaughter because they are in a category slated by an Islamist State to be intimidated into submission by mass killings makes their deaths notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: No – they weren't killed because of who they are, but where they were. It was an indiscriminate attack on people of all backgrounds. Firebrace ( talk) 20:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Was The Blitz indiscriminate because "people of all backgrounds" were killed? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Paris attacks were targeted at Parisians enjoying secular pleasures (music, dining in cafes alongside unveiled women, watching a soccer matches alongside unveiled women) defined as haram by the Islamic State in an infidel country (France) defined as an enemy by the Islamic State. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Indeed they were, and their deaths, collectively, are indeed notable. But individual notability is not inherited from association with a notable event. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial: we went through this with the 9-11 attacks. If we do this, where do we stop? I'm in complete sympathy with your intentions, but the way to do this is to create an online memorial website for these people, which you can do in far greater detail that would be allowed on Wikipedia, not to put it here: please see Wikia or other hosting facilities for how this might be done. Such a site could even be published as a book, which would put this into mankind's permanently archived record as a perpetual memorial. See WP:MEMORIAL and WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on this. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • WP:MEMORIAL states the following: Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. As I said above, the subject itself seems to meet the GNG criteria. The individual names within the subject, however, don't. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 16:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. You wouldn't find a list of victims in a printed encyclopedia and it shouldn't be on here either. Firebrace ( talk) 18:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment you wouldn't find 5,000,000 articles in a printed encyclopedia either, and yet here we are... Rklawton ( talk) 18:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Alas, many of the articles are of poor quality. Firebrace ( talk) 19:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I did a quick review of other mass shooting articles, and they contain victim lists. While I strongly support ignoring the fact that "other stuff exists" in most cases, the overwhelming consensus throughout Wikipedia appears to be to include a victims list - thereby rendering "other stuff" inapplicable. There is simply too much other stuff to ignore. Rklawton ( talk) 18:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
"The overwhelming consensus" on the very parent article of this spinout ( November 2015 Paris attacks) was, as shown in the nomination, to avoid having any such victim list, and that consensus was, importantly, backed by policy. "Other stuff" isn't. LjL ( talk) 18:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The consensus was to not include a list in the article, though it wasn't unanimous, and it has no bearing here. [32] Rklawton ( talk) 19:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Overwhelming consensus doesn't need to be WP:UNANIMOUS. It definitely has bearing here, since this is clearly a WP:SPINOUT article of November 2015 Paris attacks. You cannot WP:GAME consensus by just creating a separate article. LjL ( talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment Indeed. This is a content fork, and the consensus discussion at the original article was not to include a list. Using content forks to get around consensus is not a good idea. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. If you can't say it in prose it doesn't belong. Delete per wp:MEMORIAL. --TMCk ( talk) 19:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment "If you can't say it in prose..." isn't a policy. Wikipedia contains many articles consisting of lists. Lists are fine. Rklawton ( talk) 19:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • No, not a policy. It's a common sense test on when the policy applies. --TMCk ( talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Given the shear number of articles that consist entirely of lists, it should be obvious that your argument is without merit. Rklawton ( talk) 16:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Uh... You seem to (falsely) think that simply giving the shear number of other existing shit has merit as an argument despite not being backed up by any policy here? Strange. --TMCk ( talk) 16:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Uhm, actually, stand-alone lists as a concept are perfectly covered by policy. That doesn't mean that this particular list has to be, though. LjL ( talk) 16:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Only we're not talking about list-articles in general here. --TMCk ( talk) 16:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply


  • Delete, per policy, Wikipedia is not an obituary, even of particularly notable events of heinous nature. N2e ( talk) 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the wording in WP:Memorial clearly does not apply in this case. The wording in Memorial applies to individuals. This isn't an article about any one individual. This is a list of individuals, and the list is quite significant. Rklawton ( talk) 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The moment you name an individual of a group MEMORIAL does of course apply. --TMCk ( talk) 20:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rklawton: - we get it. You really, really want to keep this article. (With your bah-zillion comments here and counting...) But what kind of logic is that? The individuals don't count as individuals because they're on a "list"... of individuals?? Oh puh-leeeze... - theWOLFchild 18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is an obituary/memorial consisting of a list of non-notable names. The scope of the deaths is rightly addressed in the parent article. This article seems like an attempt to bypass consensus not to include names in the article about the event. WWGB ( talk) 01:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the reasons listed by Rklawton. Dimadick ( talk) 12:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep News coverage of the victims confers notability; as does the nature of the event as a deliberately staged massacre of Parisians enjoying secular entertainment. These are not the random victims of a traffic accident. They are deliberately inflicted, highly symbolic killings in an event intended to garner enormous public attention worldwide. Notability on this list of names was conferred by ISIS. And comfirmed by the response ow western governments and the international press. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Moreover, as User:Rklawton correctly points out, when a small number of people are slaughtered in a terror attack, their names, and, often, some brief description of who they were, is given in the article. See for example the Toulouse and Montauban shootings, and the longer list of victims in the 2015 San Bernardino shooting appears on that page. In this case, the list is so long that this separate page seems appropriate. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: WP:NOTPAPER: "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic... Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles, but Wikipedia can include more information..." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Interestingly, we have articles that list and individually describe the dead in this 2015 Philadelphia train derailment. I am increasingly puzzled as to why the deaths in Paris are being singled out for exclusion, when we appear to routinely name the individuals killed in other notable incidents. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We have 130 dead here, which is not as easy to hide inside one paragraph that maybe no one (who cares about the policies) will notice for a while as the 8 dead in the accident you mention. We also have precedents, and important ones, where listing all victims was put into question and ruled out. LjL ( talk) 16:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note that I was surprised by the train wreck victim list, and that I categorized such events as articles where such lists are not appropriate; the victims being randomly selected and the event itself, not deliberate murder. Here we are discussing terror campaigns targeting a selected, targeted demographic. OTHERSTUFF does not apply. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I would like to find a way to preserve some of this content, but as it is so blatantly against the consensus to not list the victims, that seems impossible. Even if Wikipedia is not censored, I find it to be somewhat dishonorable and heartless to spread names or other personal details of victims. A tactic usually supported by hawkish western governments and selfish money-obsessed media. Also: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ceosad ( talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Several commenters appear not to have read WP:NOTMEMORIAL, which states: "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." It us usually applied to the death of a loved one, or a beloved local figure (teacher, pastor, shopkeeper). WP:NOTMEMORIAL would apply if page creator was writing an bio/article about an individual killed in the Paris attacks, otherwise not notable, and supporting such a page with the argument that being mentioned in the newspapers among the dead supports an individual biography. That is the sort of MEMORIAL that WP is NOT. It does not apply in this case because here the notability of this list of massacred innocents is established in the routine way as per WP:GNG. i.e. What we have here is a list of casualties in certifiably notable incident, and the notability of these deaths is verified by coverage of the deaths that is significant, reliable, independent ans so forth. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
As a matter of fact, if you read the edit with which the NOTMEMORIAL guideline was introduced, it explicitly mentioned another terrorist attack, that of 9/11, stating that victims of it weren't suitable for Wikipedia inclusion but only for the wiki that had been specifically created as a memorial for them. So, historically, this applies completely to situations such as the current one, and was, in fact, created exactly for them. LjL ( talk) 17:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I see that it was discussed, but not included in the guideline. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
That policy hasn't "evolved". It is what it used to be, without the explicit mention of 9/11 because that problem has become less compelling and it ceased being appropriate for the policy to single out one specific case. One could in fact argue that removing the mention of 9/11 opened the policy even further to applying to every other similar incident. You don't like the policy, I get it, but unilaterally declaring it "evolved" (aka obsoleted, I assume you mean) won't do the trick. LjL ( talk) 17:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You must only know about Common law, because in Civil law systems, precedents don't make law, and on Wikipedia itself, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS if often cited to indicate a similar attitude. In particular, because of Wipedia's volunteer editing nature, it's not reasonable to argue that just because someone wasn't there to try to have existing policies enforced on previous articles, they are subsequently prevented from doing so on current articles. LjL ( talk) 17:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The fact every Wkipedia article about an Islamist terror attack in the last 2 years in Western Europe, the U.S., Canada (listed above), or Australia ( 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, 2015 Parramatta shooting) has included a list of victims. To me, not including them in this article feels like a change in a what has been our normal practice in writing up terrorist attacks. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Stefanomione: What does that have to do with anything? That's a category of notable people (they must be, since they have an article, and we only have articles about people if they are notable). In fact, categories can never contain entries that are not already articles. Did you miss the part of the nomination where the issue was with an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of non-notable people being made into an article? LjL ( talk) 17:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
What is being proposed is the opposite of what you imply, to keep a DISCRIMINATE list of human beings whose deaths are notable because they were killed in this specific, extremely NOTABLE attack; names reliably sources, just as they are in other articles about mass shooting, terror bombings, etc. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - show me a page with all 3000 names from 9/11 and I might change my mind... - theWOLFchild 17:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the mention of the name of a single Corporal killed at Ottawa's National War Memorial is not like listing 130 non-notable people. It would be unnatural to not name him for the Corporal was on duty paying tribute to all fallen soldiers and the attack on him was an attack on the whole military and nation. The only other victim was Sam who was shoot in the leg while he tried to wrestle the gun from the terrorist, slowing him down while other police responded, and potentially saving many lives. It is not out of possibilty that the Prime Minister and Cabinet were targets for example as the terrorist got within steps of him. Sam gets mentioned because he took notable heroic action, not because he was shoot. Legacypac ( talk) 21:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I accept the mention of the slain Corporal as a distinction re: condition (line of duty vs. innocent bystander) But why are we making a distinction between the dead in the Paris attack and the dead in the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 2015 San Bernardino shooting, listed in the articles, and the dead in the Paris attacks? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 14

  • Comment - current practice here on Wikipedia is to list all the victims of mass shootings. Check it out for yourself.
  1. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
  2. 2015 Colorado Springs shooting
  3. 2015 San Bernardino shooting
  4. 2015 Chattanooga shootings
  5. Charleston church shooting
  6. 2015 Lafayette shooting
  7. 2015 Tyrone shooting
  8. 2015 Harris County, Texas shooting
  9. 2015 Waco shootout
  • I could extend the list, but I figured I could safely stop here since I didn't find a single mass shooting at this point that didn't include a victims' list. Clearly, VERY clearly, WP:Memorial does not apply to victims' lists. Let's be honest, folks. No valid reason has yet been put forward to treat this list any differently from Wikipedia's current standard practice of including a victims' list in our articles on mass shootings. Rklawton ( talk) 00:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Rklawton: - Are any of the pages you listed here a separate article, just for the list? No? Then your point is dismissed. - theWOLFchild 08:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Why should the Paris Terror Attacks Wikipedia entry be discriminated against by highly selectively making this the only recent shooting without a listing of victims? XavierItzm ( talk) 02:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
It is not "discrimination". Stop calling it that. That's just a needless, baseless and inflammatory accusation. - theWOLFchild 22:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
And why are other terrorist attacks like 9/11 and Metrojet Flight 9268‎ being "discriminated" by having no victims lists either? The answer is, they aren't, they simply follow policy. The other shootings you mention should be addressed in due time as failing to meet policy. LjL ( talk) 02:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Terrorist attacks that take place in countries lacking a lively, free press: Russia, Egypt (re:Jet shot down over Sinai,) and, sadly, most of the world fall into this category. I suspect that it is lack of reliable sources, of freedom to edit online, and of English-speaking WP editors that leads to the paltry coverage of attacks in much of the world on Anglophone Wikipedia. The 9/11 article was written a long time ago. A well-sourced article on the casualties would fare very differently today, since WP practice has apparently changed. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Parsley Man: do you see a list of the names of the victims on that article? Because that's what this is about. I don't see one. LjL ( talk) 02:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Parsley Man: you should rerethink your position because your original reasoning was valid. Just because there is more information available here... the intent of the articles is the same and both are encyclopedic. Bod ( talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bodhi Peace:, nah, I'd rather not. Parsley Man ( talk) 01:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge content to November 2015 Paris attacks; the main article is not large enough to justify a split per WP:PAGESIZE. ansh 666 04:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Additionally, if consensus on the main article is that any of the content of this page should not be there, then having that content here is just an attempt to override consensus through forking, and should not be merged back. ansh 666 06:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I will additionally note that the presence of lists of victims on other articles of a similar nature is inconsistent (unlike what some say above), and that it shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion in any case, since this is about a standalone list of victims. ansh 666 06:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - ...and Pearl Harbor too. Until we list all 2500 people killed at Pearl Harbor, (and all 3000 people killed on 9/11), then we shouldn't be listing anyone. (unless they were already notable, or did something notable during the incident.) It's both sad and unfortunate that people are killed during mass attacks, but an encyclopaedia is not the place to memorialize random lists of victims. - theWOLFchild 08:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – If these people were written about in reliable sources, then this group, collectively, deserves to be written about. There is a difference between these people dying and people in warzones and we have better information now than for past articles, so there isn't the impetus to go back and list victims for the Oklahoma City bombing, but if someone wanted to go back and do that, it would be fine. Bod ( talk) 11:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
With the intent to rework the list – To be in line with Casualties_of_the_2008_Mumbai_attacks and Casualties_of_the_2004_Madrid_bombings, but not to be removed wholesale without reorganized summary. Bod ( talk) 23:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bodhi Peace: Those articles you mentioned do not list the victims individually, which is the crux of the matter. If we removed the list of the victims from this article, we'd basically be left with a section and table we already have at the main article, which if anything, could be expanded a little, with no need for a WP:SPINOUT. LjL ( talk) 23:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ LjL: Rename to "Casualties of..." –—- Support Merge if new article is small enough. Bod ( talk) 23:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
As a bit of Realpolitik, though... if this AFD passes as a "keep", people are bound to collectively see it as a license to keep the individual victims, not just to make it similar to those "Casualties" articles that simply mention numbers. Just read the (long list of) opinions here and you'll see that. LjL ( talk) 00:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bodhi Peace: Indeed they do deserve to be written about, and are, collectively, in November 2015 Paris attacks. Would you support the creation of an individual article on every one of these people? If so, why? If not, why not? User:The Anome
It's the logical consequence of your argument, if you believe that these people are individually notable. If they are not, then the only issue is editorial: do we list their names individually, or do we summarize the details of the dead, as is the general practice, which also has the advantage of being concise and in accordance with WP:NOTMEMORIAL? -- The Anome ( talk) 13:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, I'm also fascinated by your drawing a distinction between "these people dying and people in warzones" -- can you tell what that distinction is, please? Are their deaths any less tragic, or are they any less human or worthy of our pity? Or is it simply because there are a lot of them, and it would be silly to list them all? If the last, then we would be in agreement: then it's just a matter of discussing the cutoff point for there being too many to list individually. I would suggest that that cutoff point is the point at which you have to create a separate list article like the one we are discussing just to fit them in. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ The Anome: This is a special case that sets it apart from many other incidents. I was not 100% on my decision coming to this page, but the arguments for were strong. Don't be silly, these people are not notable individually. Yes, the deaths are more tragic because it is unexpected and out of the typical world order. The other shootings have had the victims listed. The 9/11 attack had a number killed bordering on 3,000 and it was not a one-by-one killing like a shooting. The other question is: What is the quality of information within this list? The answer: as much as I can tell from a name and age. I think it would be better as a placeofbirth-sex-age. Listing their names borders on Memorial. Bod ( talk) 12:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Every killing is a one-to-one killing. To think otherwise is to dehumanize the victim, and exonerate the killer. The killings of the victims of the Paris atrocity were indiscriminate, and it makes no difference if they were shot one-by-one or killed all at the same time by a bomb. The only common attribute of the victims was that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Slightly different in this scenario. The killer knew these people, worked with them. Bod ( talk) 13:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Really? That's news to me. If they knew them personally, or had worked with them personally, that would indeed be significant. Do you have any evidence for that? -- The Anome ( talk) 13:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You got me. I got roped into back-n-forth. Its late. Been working on "San Bernadino" where I also fought for a list. Totally wrong there. Bod ( talk) 13:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bodhi Peace: - You want more recent, non-warzone incidents? OK, how about listing every victim from:
List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2015, or
List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2015, or
List of terrorist incidents, 2014, or
List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2013, or
List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013, or
List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2012, or
List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2012, or
List of terrorist incidents, July–December 2011, or
List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2011, or
List of terrorist incidents, 2010.
I can keep going, there are plenty more at
List of (non-state) terrorist incidents,
List of events named massacres and
List of mass car bombings.
There is also Domestic_terrorism#Examples, but hopefully you get the point. - theWOLFchild 12:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Thewolfchild: Sounds like you want a formula. OK. (A) A shooting. (B) Small enough list of people. (C) Part of the "western" world. (D) The incident notable enough to have an article of its own. Now find me that list. Bod ( talk) 13:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
All the arguments for keeping this list are emotive, so let me follow on in kind. I could ask you: Why do you seem to think the deaths of people killed by bombing somehow less worthy? Why should the list be "small enough"? Why are the deaths of people not in the Western world somehow less significant? Or are your objections to this list that following this line of thinking all the way to its logical consequences would have deeply silly results?-- The Anome ( talk) 13:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Bodhi Peace: - we already have one, it's called WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and we should be following it. Just because a few people ignored it recently with some other mass-killing articles, doesn't we should continue ignoring it. It was already decided that Wikipedia is not the place to maintain lists of non-notable people, just because they died in a mass-death incident.- theWOLFchild 13:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Um... what? - theWOLFchild 13:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Really, 7&6=thirteen? Do you think this is the attitude of people who want to delete this list? This is not a matter of respect for the victims: these people certainly deserve to be memorialized, just not here, as spelled out in WP:MEMORIAL. If you are consistent in your beliefs in this, you should now immediately create List of victims of World War II. After all, if you're so concerned about the memorialization of the deaths of 130 people, the deaths of of the order of 60 million people should concern you roughly 500,000 times more. -- The Anome ( talk) 13:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I was not impugning the motives of the other editors. You have erected a straw man fallacy. I was merely pointing out the effects. I have neither the time nor the inclination to take you up on your excellent suggestion. I also understand and appreciate your argument. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. I'd like think its more of a logically valid reductio ad absurdam than a straw man. I fully sympathize with those who want to memorialize the dead, and I can see their intentions are good. But my concern is not with the intentions, but with the results -- doing so would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
This list is already done. Now you want to delete it. The argument about hypothetical lists is moot. Wikipedia is not paper, and having a link to this article costs nothing. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Not really. The argument for keeping this list is exactly the same as keeping List of victims of World War II once created. As you say, Wikipedia is not paper, and it's only a matter of scale. Really, it wouldn't take long to create a start on that from publically available sources, such as for example this. It would only be matter of a few minutes to do the appropriate scripting: it's only about 400,000 names. Would you like someone to do that for you? If not, why not? -- The Anome ( talk) 14:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
For that matter, why not earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis...? Since "respect" has been mentioned (which shouldn't play a role on an encyclopedia, but whatever), are victims of those things less tragically dead than others? LjL ( talk) 14:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
We are talking about deleting, keeping or merging this article. Differentials based upon different sets of facts have nothing to do with "respect." This article exists, and you want to delete it. Call it like it is. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
It should be deleted, as said many times before, because we have a policy on this matter: WP:MEMORIAL, and also against making indiscriminate lists. I'm merely pointing out the irrationality of making emotive arguments for keeping it, no matter how worthy their intentions. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Breaking: it is only possible to delete articles that exist (sometimes while comparing them to ones that don't exist and shouldn't). LjL ( talk) 14:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • User:LjL, If that is your argument (I and others argue that WP:MEMORIAL does not apply and that the notability of deaths in terrorist attacks are well-documented by coverage in reliable media, passing WP:GNG I think that you need to alert the editors of the terrorist attacks in Western countries with a free press that have taken place in 2014 and 2015 - all of them have victim lists. Since you argue that this deletion - should it go through - will set a precedent - it is only fair to notify the editors who improved of including victims names in all of the similar, recent attacks. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You are confusing "fair" with " WP:CANVASSING". I'm not going to do the latter on your behalf. Anyway it's very funny that you limit the scope of articles with victims lists to one "in Western countries with a free press". Not WP:Systemic bias at all, eh? LjL ( talk) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I did nothing of the sort, as you would know if you had actually read my arguments (above). I often create and build articles on terrorist attack in Africa and the near east. That is why I know that there are problems with the editing and sourcing of those articles. I am comparing this article with articles on terror attacks in parts of the world areas that, like France, have a free press and a substantial number of English-speaking Wikipedia editors. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Frankly, I fail to see how you can refuse to notify editors working on similar articles, assert that once this article is done it will permit the deletion of the names of victims on all other articles, and fail to understand that this is closer to Wikipedia:Gaming the system than it is to CANVASSING. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I am going to stop engaging with you. I am of course allowed to nominate an article to meet policy (as many have agreed) for deletion, and to suggest that the same should apply to similar articles - which, by the way, were brought up by you and others in an WP:Other stuff exists attempt to justify keeping this one. Ever heard of WP:Boomerang? Anyway, enough bickering. I have more than enough support on this to easily dismiss your accusations of "gaming". LjL ( talk) 15:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, neither you or anyone else has brought a link the black letter policy you assert. I can't find it. Does a "policy" forbidding inclusion of names of victims sourced to multiple reliable sources exist? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Neither have you engaged the argument that an apparent consensus has developed to list victims, an consensus implemented in all articles on terrorist attacks in Europe and the Anglosphere in 2014 and 2015 (haven't check further back). E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Your snarky, arrogant tone in pretending that you have engaged with arguments that you have ignored, and asserting the authority of a "policy" you have not been able to cite is not collegial. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: you mentioned WP:GNG to support your position, but you do realize that when talking about people, WP:BLP applies and it is stricter. That said, people who are otherwise non-notable, don't suddenly become notable simply because they had the misfortune of being killed in a mass-shooting or other mass-attack. Of course the media mentions their names, but only as part of the larger story, which is the attack itself. It's the event that is notable, not the victims. - theWOLFchild 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
User:RGloucester, I think you meant their individual notability is not effected by the event when you said "their deaths, are not notable at all, nor is a list of them." Certainly the event is notable. But perhaps that is not your intent. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
User: Thewolfchild, User:RGloucester, WP:BLP applies to notability of biographical articles, to apply it here is to mix aples with oranges. My argument, and that of others, is that sources support notability of the names for inclusion in a list. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE Parallel conversation now underway at Talk:2015 San Bernardino shooting. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This information is not encyclopedic. The policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site and Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.. These people are just not encyclopedic. This belongs on a plaque somewhere not an encyclopedia. HighInBC 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE: that the names and, often, life stories of the victims have appeared in multiple, reliable news media. WP:MEMORIAL does not address this situation. This debate is not a matter of policy. There is no policy re: including names of victims of terrorism whose names and life stories have been widely published in significant, reliable media. What we have here is a difference of opinion. And the citation of different precedents: Names of the 9/11 dead were not listed on WP. Those of the dead in more recent terrorist attacks have routinely been listed on WP. Since we have no applicable policy or rule, let's all stop citing policies that do not apply. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
What you do not understand is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or any sort of new media. It is an encylopaedia, and does not print everything that is written in every newspaper, only what is encyclopaedic, and has long term significance. This list of "victims" has neither long term significance nor encyclopaedic importance. The impact of this event from an encyclopaedic perspective has nothing to do with the people who were killed, and everything to do with the political ramifications of it. The encylopaedia will not indiscriminately contain a list of "victims" merely because said list was published in the news media, as that would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to the part of this event that matters the least. RGloucester — ☎ 17:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • How do we proceed? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Proposal treat this like any other aspect of the San Barnardino massacre story, simply treat this like all other information (type of weapons, reaction or heads of state) and include well-sourced information naming the victims in the article simply because it is verifiable, and has had widespread and significant coverage in multiple reliable forms of media. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not encyclopedic material. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Finally, a rational argument. Thank you, Cwobeel. Our quesiton becomes: what is encyclopedic in WP:NOTPAPER world. We certainly care in an ongoing way to know the fact that the parents or spouses of a person died in a a notable mas death event, like 9/11 [33], or this google search on 9/11 widow [34], or this one on parents died Auschwitz [35] - note how many Wikipedia article include that and similar Holocaust-related deaths of parents and grandparents. We don't read obituaries stating that someone's grandmother died in boating accident. We do if she died on the Titanic. Deaths in certain notorious incidents do acquire encyclopedic significance. I think we should keep this list because of that notability, because I suspect that Wikipedia articles written in 2045 will link back to this page and mention that the parents of thus-and-such a opera singer or organic chemist lost a parent to this attack. Just as they newspaper obituaries long mentioned that an individual's parent died on the Titanic, or in the Johnstown Flood. I see this incident as having that kind of notability. I could be wrong, but I do appreciate Cwobeel's rational approach to this question. Is the inclusion of a list of names of the dead encyclopedic in a WP:NOTPAPER world? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I think the list of victims must be made available to a reader, but this could be done by providing appropriate links (such as that one) from the main page about these attacks. This is unless the list is something controversial and must be compiled from multiple sources and based on multiple publications, so that an WP article would be required to create such list as a separate and notable subject. If that had happened, I would vote "keep", but not sure if this is really the case here. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: I absolutely agree, and I think that this is an ideal solution to the problem. While there's a good rationale for not having it here based on WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the list of victims is still an important piece of primary source information, and we should by all means link to reliable sources which have such lists, of which there are many. -- The Anome ( talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment So now there is this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casualties of the 2008 Mumbai attacks (2nd nomination). the 3rd AFD for that particular article, and a possible violation of WP:POINT. I looked at the article and old version of it, a list version deleted somewhat arbitrarily, made me rethink this discussion. Scroll down: [36]. Seeing the names of individuals creates a very different understanding of an event than a statistical summary. After seeing that list, I want to redouble my argument on behalf of creating and keeping such lists of slaughtered human beings. Lists of individual people Failing to list them as individuals, while describing the lives, motives, and circumstances of the killers at length - sometimes with empathy, but always as individual people with names, now seems to me to actively discount the loss produced by these attacks, to give WP:UNDUE weight to the perspective of killers and actually if inadvertently to tend towards producing the biased articles that we all strive to avoid. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 15

  • Note that the RFC on whether to keep or delete the list of victims at the 2015 San Bernardino shooting has concluded with a tally of 15 for keeping 5 for deleting and 2 more complex opinions (one for keeping one for deleting). Just a point of information on a near-parallel case being discussed simultaneously with this AFD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • No, it has not. The RfC has barely been open for a week (default is 30 days), the tally was made by an involved editor, and is just that - a tally, which doesn't reflect policy arguments or the consensus-based decision making that is the process on Wikipedia. ansh 666 00:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC) (by the way, direct link to the RfC) reply
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why you don't add random "tallies" to surveys (which are WP:NOTVOTEs). LjL ( talk) 00:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Just to echo several of the earlier semtiments, one of the most effective and telling events in the Vietnam War for the United States was the running of Life Magazine's story with names and faces of one week's worth of casualties. See Faces of the American Dead in Vietname OIne Weeks Toll, June 1969 Time Magazine which has a link to the Life article. Putting names and faces on it gives it a whole different dimension and impact. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 01:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Maybe you've forgotten that you're contributing to AN ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a news magazine? ansh 666 01:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
No. These are facts that are involved in making editorial judgments. There are many ways to do our job. And content, judgment and consequences are part of the mix. It is a relevant example of the possible choices we are making here. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 01:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Again, you make this sound like a newspaper. It's not... it's AN ENCYCLOPAEDIA. And this isn't your "job"... we are all volunteers here. - theWOLFchild 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 16

  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTAMEMORIAL. If other victim lists exist contrary to these policies, then they deserve their own deletion discussions, but are not policies or guidelines. Newspapers have different inclusion criteria than encyclopedias. , Edison ( talk) 02:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In fact, there is no clear wiki-policy on whether to include casualty lists. Merely custom (we did not used to), current practice (in recent years, articles on terror attacks consistently list casualties by name), and the question of how we choose to interpret policies such as the ones you cite with regard to this and future cases. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • In fact there is, it's called WP:NOTMEMORIAL. What you don't seem to get is that when that policy was established, that was the community speaking loud and clear that an encyclopaedia is not the appropriate venue to list victims of mass-casualty events, unless they were already notable, or did something notable during the event. Simply having the misfortune of being injured or even killed in such an event does not, on it's own, make someone notable. Of course the media mentions their names... that's what they do. Not us. It is the event that is notable, not the person. Just because some people have either unknowingly violated the policy, or flat out ignored it, by creating lists of victims, does not make it "ok". - theWOLFchild 13:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. WP:MEMORIAL says not to write memorials for non-notable people, and WP:BIO1E says that people tangentially involved in an event are not notable. Lists of victims are inherently memorials. There are more appropriate places than Wikipedia to create these memorials. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 14:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 17

  • Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As the article stands, it's a summary of the main Paris attack article, and then a list of names. This isn't at all notable or add any information to the main article besides the names. If this included more reliable sources that talked at length about the victims as a group it could possibly work, but this article is not that. ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 04:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (for the moment). WP:NOTMEMORIAL (which is just a short paragraph) appears intended to prevent articles along the lines of "<Person> was a victim of <attack>. He <led an entirely non-notable life> before the attack." - the guideline says nothing specifically about lists. If lists of victims are not allowed than that should be clearly stated in NOTMEMORIAL (and then this page deleted). Pragmatically, having a list like this does little harm and may avoid people trying to shoehorn names of victims into the main article (or into Wikipedia in other ways). Perhaps, NOTMEMORIAL should be changed to say that a list article is only appropriate if a complete list of victims has been published in one RS - that would prevent "List of victims of WWII" etc. DexDor (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTMEORIAL was created largely due to 9/11. An encyclopaedia is not the place to list the names of victims of mass-casualty incidents. People who are otherwise non-notable. Sure, they are mentioned in the media, but only because they had the misfortune of being injured or killed in a notable incident. This is literally a "slippery slope". We start with a half-dozen names from a shooting, then several dozen names from a bombing, next thing you know, people want a list of all 3000 victims of 9/11, and on it goes, until people start looking to list all the 100 million+ killed, injured and/or missing from WWII. Then people will want to extend it to every type of event where people are killed; plane crashes, earth quakes, floods, various weather phenomena, epidemics of disease, etc., etc. There are multiple policies that address notability, beyond wp:notmemorial, and they all clearly establish that Wikipedia is not the place to list all these unfortunate people. - theWOLFchild 21:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
NOTMEMORIAL was (iirc) written after people had been creating bio articles about individual victims. Re WWII etc - please read the last sentence of my comment. Re "multiple policies" - please link one that's relevant here. DexDor (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Take your pick: WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:BIO1E, WP:BLP, WP:NLIST, WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT, WP:UNDUE, WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - theWOLFchild 22:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please stop quoting policies that don't apply here. I've already mentioned NOTMEMORIAL. I picked one of your long list - WP:VICTIM says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article ..." (my emphasis). DexDor (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please stop quoting policies that don't apply here - You can tell that to all the editors that quoted these policies are part of their arguments to delete. If you had read through all the comments, you'd see that for yourself. (it's not as if I just pulled these out of my ass) A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article - Good! Thanks for pointing that out. I take it you'll switch your vote to 'delete' this separate article, as per policy, then? - theWOLFchild 02:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You may think you have an obligation to reply to every keep !vote, but I'm under no obligation to reply to every delete !vote. WP:VICTIM tells us not to create an article on the subject of (for example) Anne Guyomard (unless, of course, she's notable for something); this isn't such an article. You've also referred to WP:UNDUE, but that's about not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints (e.g. Flat Earth) and has no relevance here. DexDor (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
No one is under any "obligation" to do anything here. This is just a discussion, there is no need to get upset. - theWOLFchild 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ DexDor: We also have WP:NLIST (where it says that inclusion in stand-alone lists must happen only if a person is notable), if WP:NOTMEMORIAL is not enough, but yeah, it was created pretty much for this: if you see above, you will find that it originally explicitly had 9/11 as an example. LjL ( talk) 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Afaics, WP:NLIST is about "normal" lists (List of Foobar School alumni, List of Norwegian musicians etc) - such lists are intended for notable people, but could easily be swamped by names of non-notable people which would make the list less useful to readers (and less encyclopedic). Lists like this one (and another example about victims of a specific event) don't have that problem. I'm not sure that NLIST is intended to prohibit lists like this - more likely that this sort of list wasn't considered when NLIST was written. DexDor (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
True that NLIST applies to "normal lists" and not to such abnormal lists because abnormal lists shouldn't exist maybe. Also, NLIST at last states that it applies to lists in general, so Lists of people dead in ABC tragedy, Lists of restaurants in PQR country which use unpeeled potatoes, Lists of books having less than 50 pages published by XYZ press are all covered in it.
Also, lets assume that such an article exists, per WP:LSC, none of the names should be included in this article having failed those 3 bullet points at LSC. So why keep a blank list? §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

December 18

  • Merge, It does have some informative information. Kiwifist ( talk) 08:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Kiwifist: are you quite sure it's not information that was taken from (or at least duplicates) information already found at November 2015 Paris attacks? The only thing I can possibly spot that is unique to this article is the mention that a list of the names was projected at a ceremony... LjL ( talk) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
"informative information" - - theWOLFchild 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. Merge any useful information. Carrite ( talk) 20:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

FFX Tools

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

Declined at AfC a few times, and previously speedied twice. I can't see that sufficient notability is shown, and I wouldn't think the referencing does much for it. Peridon ( talk) 14:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari Hangout 16:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Refs are a smokescreen. I checked most of them, they are trivial, primary or press releases. Nothing to establish notability. Too many refs to speedy reliably but going the same way. Szzuk ( talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as I clearly mentioned several times at AfC, simply nothing to suggest a considerably better article. Notifying tagger Ueutyi and AfCers Wikiisawesome and Thparkth. SwisterTwister talk 06:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Insignificant and advertisement-like. Ueutyi ( talk) 07:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the same reasons as I gave when declining the last draft, which as far as I can tell is almost identical to the current article. "Unfortunately I do not feel, based on the external sources referenced in the article, that the company would be found to be notable if nominated for deletion. Most of the sources provided are inadequate for establishing notability (e.g. Companies House listing, Trusted Reviews etc). The few real news articles have a commonality of language which suggests they were largely written based on the same press release - there is no real depth of coverage." Thparkth ( talk) 11:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 16:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen

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

Certainly questionably notable and improvable as I'm simply not gathering how this is keepable and the best my searches found was only this, this, this and this. The author's name "helmuthva" suggests it may be the subject himself and it's also not surprising this article hasn't changed since then. Notifying tagger Bonadea and also DGG who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Interesting The article on his company was deleted at the deWP in 2008 at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10._Dezember_2008#Neofonie_.28gel.C3.B6scht.29. The discussion indicated they felt the company never was notable--that its product was not major, and that they had no major market share. I can not see what the referencing was there, but in 2008 that wasn't the major factor in their deletion discussions. (it remains in the enWP--I'm lve listed it for discussion at [[ In the discussion, it was suggested that it would make more sense to have an article on the founder if he was also the developer of the software. I do not know if they ever had one, but there's no article on him at present. The material here after 2008 was obviously not in their article at the time, His more recent company, WeTab, has an unchallenged article discussing the firm and the product in both the en and deWP. The one in the deWP is much more detailed --reasonably enough, since it is/was a German company and product. Hoffer is discussed briefly in that article in the history section, "One of the two managing directors, Helmut Hoffer von Ankershoffen, .. was forced to resign on October 4 ... after it became known that he had written positive reviews under a false name at Amazon.com [ref. to the same Spiegel article as here]" That ref --and discussion of the matter, and other refs on it -- are not in our article on WeTab, but could reasonably be added there. I have no firm opinion. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- triple relist needs some sort of opinion: the article does not express much in the way of claims to notability beyond creating Germany's first search engine (which doesn't seem to have sources indicating that this was important to Germany) or founding companies that may or may not be notable in itself. It's a hard choice, and I could imagine going a different way in a different time with a slightly differently written article or a new source or two; but this AfD has gone on for nearly a month, so it'd be good to have a decision one way or another, and this is more of my gut feeling from similarity to other AfDs than on strong policy. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Per nom and MSC. In addition, the lack of interest does not bode well for this article being improved at any point in the near future to a level which meets notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Per WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) — UY Scuti Talk 18:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Experteer

Experteer (  | 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 references are mere notices, or promotional, inclusion in a list of other such firms or applications. . The firm is not notable DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as my searches appeared to find several links at Books, News and Highbeam but nothing convincingly better. Notifying tagger Theroadislong and AfC accepter Graeme Bartlett. SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Commment The references are essentially press releases and notices. Not notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Ahem DGG I would normally remove and fix your mistakes but....were you aware you're the nominator here? SwisterTwister talk 08:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Ooops. Thanks, SwisterTwister, there are just so many of them .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 19:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • At best if there's no better consensus before December 12 (Saturday), it may have to be relisted. Notifying MurderByDeadcopy and Cunard who have asked me to notify them of low traffic AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Heinemann, Gerrit (2010). Web-Exzellenz im E-Commerce: Innovation und Transformation im Handel (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 221–227. ISBN  3834917540. Retrieved 2015-11-09.

      Chapter 3 of the book beginning page 221 is titled: "Case Study: Experteer GmbH, München".

      That a book published by the reliable publisher Springer Science+Business Media has covered the company in substantial detail in a case study is enough to establish notability.

    2. Dannhäuser, Ralph (2014). Praxishandbuch Social Media Recruiting: Experten Know-How / Praxistipps / Rechtshinweise (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 393–394. ISBN  3658065737. Retrieved 2015-11-09.

      The book provides several paragraphs of coverage about Experteer.

    3. Bongardt, Dirk (2015-04-15). "8 Apps für die Jobsuche". PC World (in German). Archived from the original on 2015-12-09. Retrieved 2015-12-09.

      The article notes:

      Mit Hilfe der Android-App „ Jobs finden, Karriere machen “ lässt sich gezielt nach Jobs jenseits der 60.000-Euro-Gehaltsgrenze suchen.

      Unter dem Namen „Experteer“ findet sich die Android-App „Jobs finden, Karriere machen“ nach der Installation auf dem Android-Gerät wieder. Experteer versteht sich als Karriereplattform für „Deutschlands beste Köpfe“ und listet nur Jobs, die mit mindestens 60.000 Euro dotiert sind. Die App bietet einen einfachen Zugang zu dieser Plattform, sofern der Nutzer bereit ist, sich zu registrieren. Allerdings sind viele der Jobangebote nur für Premium-Nutzer zugänglich. Die zahlen für ihre Mitgliedschaft je nach Vertragsdauer zwischen 9,90 und 29,90 Euro im Monat.

      Nützliche Vor-Filterung

      Anders als die üblichen Jobbörsen lässt sich die Experteer-Plattform vorwiegend über Filtereinstellungen durchsuchen, die der Nutzer über die Schaltflächen „Branche“, „Funktionsbereich“, „Karrierelevel“ und „Ort“ definiert. Außerdem kann er auf einer Von-Bis-Skala seine Gehaltsvorstellung vorgeben. Ein Filter-Set lässt sich als „Suchagent“ speichern, die Jobsuche kann dann jederzeit wiederholt werden. Wer aktiv für sich werben möchte, kann über die App zusätzlich ein Profil anlegen, in dem er Angaben zu seiner Berufserfahrung und seinen Kenntnissen macht. Nach Experteer-Angaben greifen rund 10.000 Headhunter auf diese Profile zu. Das Design ist ansprechend und funktionell, die Handhabung intuitiv.

      The Google Translate of the article:

      Using the Android app "find jobs, make a career" can search specifically for jobs beyond the 60,000-euro-content limit.

      Under the name of "Experteer" there is the Android app "find jobs, make a career" after installing on the Android device again. Experteer sees itself as a career platform for "Germany's best minds" and lists only jobs that are doped with at least 60,000 euros. The app provides an easy access to this platform, provided that the user is ready to register. However, many of the jobs are only available to premium users. The pay for their membership depending on contract term 9.90 to 29.90 euros a month.

      Useful pre-filtering

      Unlike the usual job boards, the Experteer platform can be searched mainly on filter settings that the user defines via the "industry", "functional area", "career level" and "place". He can pretend to a from-to scale his salary. A filter set can be saved as "search agent", the job search process can then be repeated anytime. Those who want to actively promote themselves, can also create a profile, in which he gives details about his professional experience and his knowledge of the app. After Experteer information access about 10,000 headhunters to these profiles. The design is appealing and functional, intuitive handling.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 06:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Cunard. This is to be here due to the language, however, Cunard did the heavy work for me. Kudos! -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 03:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep – Per the sources listed above by Cunard. The last two sources above provide coverage beyond mentions, but are rather short. North America 1000 06:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I would sincerely appreciate it if this was relisted a third time for better comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nyttend ( talk) 05:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hunter Moore

Hunter Moore (  | 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 should be deleted and redirected to Is Anyone Up? per WP:CRIME. The only qualification for notability is his association with Is Anyone Up?, a more suitable article for biographical details on him. Founding the website is not inherently notable. He's simply not notable on his own. Keegan ( talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I say keep the entry. A minor figure, yes. But a minor public figure who served as the human face of a corporate entity that went about harming ¿hundreds of? ordinary citizens. Mr. Moore is sufficiently well-known and sufficiently connected to a semi-important public issue (i.e. revenge porn) to merit a wikipedia article, if for no other reason because people will consult Mr. Moore's entry when they read about his recent prison sentence. The most important daily newspaper in Spain (El País in Madrid) reports today (06 dec 2015) that Mr. Moore received a two-year prison term for his role at Is Anyone Up? Link here: El rey del porno vengativo, condenado a dos años de cárcel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis3333 ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Sure, but that information can be put into the parent article and the redirect will point the person looking up the information there. Keegan ( talk) 17:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect as mentioned as all in all he seems better connected to that so there may not enough solid independent notability for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Is Anyone Up?, not independently notable and has another place for info per WP:CRIME. L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 13:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The website should be redirected here, look at the sources, majority of sources have his name in the headlines - not the website, this is a pivotal legal case as the laws were introduced for him specifically plus he was also a entertainer on the side (DJ) and the legal coverage is better suited for this then the website article. Look here [37] [38] GuzzyG ( talk) 17:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could do with a bit more discussion. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect I can't see any point having two articles covering essentially the same case and policy is usually to write the crime not the perp. Also noting that no-one has bothered to update the sentence. That wasn't hard to find and is quite telling about the real significance of either of these articles. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Is Anyone Up? per Nom. - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 20:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the man has received media coverage about his criminal acts that may or may not be associated with the website he founded. Wooyi Talk to me? 21:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Granted the site was what brought the charges, however his actions (which were well documented, and have a number of sources) are enough to justify the page staying. RickinBaltimore ( talk) 21:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A reprehensible predator and little man. A felon who got what he richly deserves. But WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG nails it. I don't have to like him to keep the article. A cautionary tale; there might even be some lessons to be learned by having such an article. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 22:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He's an epic douchebag who is (or was) big enough on the internet to have this sort of notoriety displayed on a Wikipedia article for what went on. I mean just Googling what happened to him in 2015 alone brings up like five relevant pages of Google results from news coverage articles like The Smoking Gun and Washington Post. The internet really cares about this guy suffice to say, an article on Wikipedia is definitely necessary I feel like. Second Skin ( talk) 00:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but reduce the duplication. This is significant enough to pass WP:CRIME DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 09:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Adhuna Akhtar

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

Failing WP:ARTIST as a hairstylist, she seems to be getting all inherited notability from Akhtar family. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 04:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
See Wikipedia:Lankiveil's Second Law. Mid day's article is her own interview, MTV is a blog, India Times is about her and her husband; WP:INHERITED. And her organizations, hair cutting salon, doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG either. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks. The article is not about her salon, it is about her. Just because an article also has her husband, doesn't mean that it is not a feature about her. In fact, one could argue the article is about her and features her husband. Also, the term "blog" is used to loosely around here. MTV is not a site that anyone can just sign up and contribute to. They have an editorial process unlike a common blog that you and I could start on Blogger or Wordpress. Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Also, Wikipedia:Lankiveil's Second Law is about as reliable as a Wordpress or Blogger blog. It's not policy. Not even remotely close. "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously." -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
If her shop isn't notable, she can't be notable either. And the article doesn't have her husband, the article has her in her husband's article, who happens to be a critically acclaimed film actor and director. Her parents-in-laws are more notable than her husband and there are other family members too who are notable on their own account. She getting inherited press publicity due to them is very common from such Page 3 journalism which you think has "editorial process". It might have "editorial" process but the whole genre of tabloids isn't really noteworthy. Go and find independent references which talk about her work as hair-dresser/entrepreneur and not press-releases of shop-opening-ceremonies. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Read your contention for deletion. You state she fails artist. While she may be an artist, she is also an entrepreneur - which you tried to defuse over a joke Wikipedia policy that is only there for humor. First you say the references I provided are not reliable, then you state they are press releases.
"If her shop isn't notable, she can't be notable either" - That is way off base and an assumption. Based on what you say, all entrepreneurs who are notable mean their companies are also notable? So now you are talking about inherent notability. Basically, you are saying if her shop was notable then she would be notable? That is also inherent notability which is something you are arguing against, thereby conflicting your rationale for deleting the article. Not sure where you're coming from here, but again, we will have to disagree. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 07:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
I will let other editors have a look now because you aren't understanding a thing. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 08:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks for allowing other editors to look. I am understanding perfectly based on the information you provided. It could be you are not stating your contention clearly enough. Again, like the last two times, it looks like we are going to disagree. But I'll give you the last word if there is something you want to state more clearly. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 08:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
No thanks. Regular WP:INB editors would be competent enough to understand the subject case. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 16:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm going to assume good faith, but you are crossing the line. I understand less because I am not Indian? Don't be pissed because someone disagrees with you. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 21:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC) reply
I dont know if you are Indian or not. INB is open for all. But we do need WP:COMPETENCE. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 02:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 00:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - easily satisfies WP:GNG; lots of press coverage exclusively about her. - üser:Altenmann >t 00:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The deletion case is based on the claim that the subject claims notability just on inheritance. So its obvious that she gets mentioned here and there in press coverage. But if you think that this coverage is "exclusive" and "lots" about her, you need to present them here. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 07:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Notability is not "claimed" on inheritance. You stated that she is not notable based on such, which I agreed. Not sure why another editor needs to present you with evidence that I already provided above. There are plenty of reliable sources that cover her indepth as stated AND listed previously. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 16:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
If you are not sure then you need not bother. It was not directed to you in the first place! She gets press coverage because she is related to other notable people. Such "inherited notability" is not considered "notable" by wiki standards of WP:N. There are no plenty+RS+indepth sources about her, which you claim exists. She is a non-notable hairdresser who happens to have worked in films directed by her husband where her father-in-law wrote lyrics/story/screenplay of the film. Seems the selection was little based on merits. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia also based on the sources, which I provided earlier in my keep comment above. Seems like you are not happy with the way she was selected to work in films, but if the "selection was little based on merits" this is your opinion, not what the sources say WP:VNT. Since Wikipedia is based on what the sources say, your opinion about how she received the press is irrelevant. However, if you can show me a reference that states her being selected for the in depth coverage I provided was "little based on merits" I will be glad to change my vote to delete.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTINHERITED says "Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative." So what "something significant" and "notable" has she done? Hair dressing in 2-3 films directed and acted by her husband? Or opening a saloon? And 2 of 4 reference talk about her as Farhan's wife, one another is her own interview and second is almost an advertisement of her new saloon with plenty quotes by her. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 05:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Mostly attributed as wife of Farhan Akhtar. As noted by Rsrikanth05 and the nominator, she is the case of inherited notability. - Vivvt ( Talk) 04:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, almost bordering on "keep". There is clearly source material here, although I recognize the argument that the sources are so comprehensive in covering officers of fairly low rank that would otherwise not be considered notable. Nonetheless, there is no way that I can see anything approaching a consensus to delete here, and since there is independent sourcing I see no policy based reason to override that either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821-1863)

Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821-1863) (  | 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 has recently been deleted at afd and discussed at DRV. The DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_November_30 and the AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Mayhew_Wainwright_(1821–1863). Basically the sources are turn of the last centuary and this seems something of a walled garden of barely worthwhile standalone articles about a family that might be better as an article about the family.

This was userfied after the DRV and immediatelt restored so some kind of discussion is required. I would suggest merge to an article on Wainright Family Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The sources are old because this is history now. But notability does not expire because we are an encyclopedia with a historical perspective, not a news source focussing on recent events. See WP:NTEMP, "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Andrew D. ( talk) 15:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep once notable always notable, no valid reason for deletion. Entries in three encyclopedias. This is also the wrong venue, your suggestion is to merge, which is handled at the article talk page by consensus. This is articles for deletion. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that since this has been moved since the last discussions, this won't come up on anyone's watch list if they were using that to identify if this was under discussion. Therefore pinging the AFD contributors. Clarityfiend; Wikimandia; Necrothesp; Peterkingiron; Dual Freq; Peacemaker67; Jbhunley. I have noted this listing at the DRV discussion, which is the traditional way of advising those participants. Spartaz Humbug! 10:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He came from a very distinguished military family, but he himself did not reach a high rank, perform any noteworthy feat or receive a single decoration. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography has three sentences about him. He receives one page in Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War, but so do Musical Director John Y. Taylor, Commander Silas Wright Terry and a whole slew of others who don't merit articles. Clarityfiend ( talk) 10:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Nothing has changed from when this was deleted last month. Fails SOLDIER. Jbh Talk 10:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge anything useful to the ship article. Not notable in a military sense, and appears to not meet WP:GNG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per source provided by Cunard ( talk · contribs) at DRV Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863).
  1. Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. Boston: Biographical Society. p. 301. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

    The book notes on page 301:

    Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer, was born in New York city, July 27, 1821; son of the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew (q.v.) and Amelia Maria (Phelps) Wainwright. He entered the U.S. navy in 1841; became passed midshipman in 1843; was commissioned lieutenant in 1850; lieutenant-commander, 1861. He was lieutenant-commander on board the Harriet Lane, flagship of Commodore David D. Porter in the passage of the forts on the Mississipi, and he received the surrender of Commander Mitchell of the Confederate steamer Mississippi, and refused that officer the terms granted the officers of the fort on the ground that he had violated the flag of truce by firing the Mississipppi while the terms of capitulation were being arranged. He commanded the Harriet Lane in the gulf operations of 1862-63; and took possession of Galveston Bay in October, 1862. In the battle of Jan. 1, 1863, the Harriet Lane bore the brunt of the attack, and when the crew of the Confederate steamer Bayou City ran alongside and opened a musketry fire from behind a breastwork of cotton bales, Commander Wainwright was killed and his first lieutenant, Lea, mortally wounded. His son, Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright of the U.S. Naval academy, class of 1867, master on board the Mohican, San Blas, Mexico, died from wounds received in action with pirates, June 19, 1870; another son, Capt. Robert Powel Page Wainwright, of the 1st U.S. cavalry, was commended by Gen. Joseph Wheeler for good conduct at the battle of La Quasina, Cuba, 1808; and his daughter, Marie, became a prominent actress. Commander Wainwright's death occurred Jan. 1, 1863.

  2. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. 4. New York: J. T. White Company. 1895 [First published 1892]. p. 359. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

    3. The cover page says:

    Being the History of the United States

    Illustrated in the lives of the founders, builders, and defenders of the Republic, and of the men and women who are doing the work and moulding the thought of the present time.

    Edited by

    Distinguished biographers, selected from each state

    Revised and approved by the most eminent historians, scholars, and statesmen of the day

    Volume IV.

    New York

    James T. White & Company

    1895

    The book notes on page 359:

    Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer was born in New York July 27, 1821; son of Bishop Wainwright of the P. E. church. He entered the navy in 1827, became a passed midshipman in 1843, and a lieutenant in 1850, and in the civil war was engaged as commander of the Harriet Lane in the taking of New Orleans, Vicksburg and Galveston. Jan. 1, 1863, his vessel was attacked and captured by Confederates under Gen. Magruler, near Galveston, and he himself was killed in the fight.

  3. Powell, William Henry; Shippen, Edward, eds. (1892). Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War. Philadelphia: L. R. Hammersly & Company. p. 441. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

    The book notes on page 441:

    Commander Jonathan M. Wainwright, U.S.N. (deceased).

    Commander Jonathan Matthew Wainwright was born in the city of New York in July, 1821, and was killed in battle at Galveston Bay on January 1, 1863. He was a son of the well-known prelate of the same name, so long the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York.

    Commander Wainwright entered the navy as a midshipman in June, 1837, and performed the usual sea-duty of his grade until, in 1842, he was ordered to the Naval School, then at Philadelphia. He became a passed midshipman in 1843, in 1849 an acting master, and was commissioned as lieutenant in September, 1850. His service in the "Lexington," "San Jacinto," "Saratoga," "Dolphin," and other vessels did not differ from that of most junior lieutenants. Never very robust, he managed always to do his duty well, and was a great favorite with his messmates and shipmates on account of his pleasant manners and officer-like conduct. The outbreak of the Civil War found him engaged in special duty at Washington. He was ordered to the command of the "Harriet Lane," the well-known revenue streamer which had been transferred to the navy. She became the flag-ship of Commander (afterwards Admiral) Porter, of the Mortar Flotilla, during the operations against Vicksburg. In October, 1862, the "Harriet Lane" took part in the capture of Galveston as a part of Commander Renshaw's little squadron. Their tenure was not long, for on New Year's Day, 1863, the small squadron, some of which were ashore at low tide, was attacked by a Confederate force, which soon resumed control of the town and the bay. General Magruder had, for the water attack, fitted out three-steamers with cotton-bale defences and placed on board as many rifleman as could find room to act. They came down the bay at four A.M., and, as the "Harriet Lane" was the highest up, she was first attacked. Boarded by these vessels, swarming with sharp-shooters, the decks were swept by a shower of balls. Wainwright fell almost immediately, at the head of his men, endeavoring to repel boarders. The executive officer, Lea, was mortally wounded, and the next officer severely so. Half of those on deck were shot down, and in ten minutes the vessel was in the enemy's possession. A curious incident of the fight was, that young Lea's father was an officer on the Confederate side, and found his son in a dying condition after possession was taken.

    To complete the tragedy, Commander Renshaw, of the "Westfield," and the senior officer present was summoned to surrender under favorable conditions, which he might have done, as his vessel was unmanageable from the state of water at that time. This he refused, sending most of his crew on board an army transport which was afloat and remaining, with a few people, to destroy the "Westfield." Unfortunately the flames spread so fast that she blew up just as they got into the boat, and Renshaw, his first lieutenant, Zimmerman, Chief Engineer Green, and about a dozen men, lost their lives.

    Commander Wainwright had a son, also named Jonathan Mayhew, who was appointed a midshipman the year his father was killed, and who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1867. This young officer also lost his life by rifle-shot only three years after graduation. He had attained the rank of master, and was attached to the Pacific Squadron. In command of a boat expedition against the piratical steamer "Forward," in the lagoon at San Blas, he was shot in leading the boarders at her capture, and died the next day. The attack was successful, and the vessel was captured and burnt.

These all give him significant coverage not one to two sentence for a historical figure prior to the turn of the 20th century where fewer sources exist. Valoem talk contrib 13:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Given the latter dictionary appears to be a list of all regular officers who served in the ACW, are we to take it that you think every regular officer who served in the ACW is notable just because they appear in it? That's basically saying they're notable for being a United States military officer. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, he had a ship (at least partly) named for him over 100 years after his death, USS Wainwright (CG-28). Had he not been notable, they could have easily just said the ship was named after the Wainwright family or the ship was named to honor for the prior ships that were named USS Wainwright. Non trivial mention in a book published ~40 years after his death, "The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans". He needs to be mentioned in all three ship articles, so it is best to do that with a link to his own article rather than a paragraph in each article. -- Dual Freq ( talk) 13:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- In UK, anyone in the 40 or more volumes of Dictionary of National Biography is regarded as notable. His appearance in American equivalents leads me to regard him as notable. I would also suggest that in choosing his name for a ship, the US Navy did so. That of course does not mean that other military officers in the family should get inherited notability. The present article is quite short and has some redlinks: they probably need de-linking. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • No biographical dictionary he has appeared in comes close to the status of the DNB! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) and the sources Valoem quoted above. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard ( talk) 20:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable on the basis of the ship named after him and the sources provided by Cunard and Valoem. clpo13( talk) 20:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 20:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, without prejudice to merge to a Wainwright family article about the four generations of U.S. Navy officers of the same name. While I believe that the subject officer satisfies the minimum criteria of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, given the brevity of available content about the subject, he may be better covered in the context of a combined article about him and his navy namesakes. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I dont see anything notable, joined the navy, had a family and was killed in action, one of many with nothing to distinguish him from others. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As before. Junior officer killed in action, just like hundreds of thousands of others. No especial notability. He didn't have a ship named after him; his family did, as one that had produced several military officers. That doesn't make every member of the family notable. And in any case, we have held a number of times that having an American ship named after one does not automatically make one notable. There's lots of people with USN ships named after them that aren't notable at all according to our guidelines. This has already been deleted at AfD and that closure endorsed at DRV; are we to take a leaf out of the EU's book and continue having votes until we get the result that certain individuals want? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sources have been provided that show the subject meets the requirements of the GNG. That is our definition of notable here. Hobit ( talk) 10:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Not sure what sources you're talking about, but I don't see them. A few passing mentions and brief bios in an old biographical dictionary and a list of all regular officers who served in the Civil War, that's all. We've rejected many individuals with far more coverage as not being notable. Just a bloke who was killed in action and was a member of a family that produced several officers. Fails pretty much every notability standard we have. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Then I'll claim you were wrong before. We have enough information from reliable sources to write an article. That's all we need. Wikipedia's level isn't "did something cool enough" it's "reliable sources have written about them". If there is enough for an article (and the above quotes clearly are) it's enough to _have_ the article per WP:GNG. Hobit ( talk) 04:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note that every single American and British serviceman killed or decorated in Iraq and Afghanistan has reams of reliable stuff written about them. I can't believe you are saying that this is enough for an article no matter what their notability, but that is what you seem to be saying. If you are saying that, then no, we've held over and over again that having a lot written about you doesn't necessarily equate to notability. To say otherwise would be to utterly fly in the face of long consensus and turn us from an encyclopaedia into a memorial for the recently dead. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Necro, you've been around far too long and you're far too experienced not to recognize that you are confusing perceived importance with the Wikipedia concept of notability per WP:N. They are two entirely different concepts. If there are "reams of reliable stuff written about" . . . "American and British serviceman killed or decorated in Iraq and Afghanistan," then they are notable per WP:GNG. I know you already know this. That said, notability is a prerequisite, but not a guarantee that a particular subject may have a stand-alone Wikipedia article. If you are saying that this subject would be better covered as part of a list of notable Civil War officers or Civil War KIAs, or a merged article about the Jonathan Wainwright U.S. Navy namesakes, I don't disagree, and Hobit and I have already said as much. If that's what you want, I'm happy to change my vote to "merge" now. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 16:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am confusing nothing. You, I'm afraid, seem to be confusing Wikipedia with something which is bound by strict rules as opposed to consensus. And consensus is that people are not just notable (in a Wikipedia sense or any other sense) because they've been written about on websites or in books, whatever GNG may say. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the many deletions at AfD of American military personnel who just happen to have got themselves killed. Neither would we have had deletions at AfD of people who appeared in Who's Who (the genuine British one, not the self-promoting knock-offs). Yet we have done. Reliable sources so they must be notable, right? Clearly wrong. They need to be obviously notable as well. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Please re-read WP:GNG again: significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources = notable. We can argue about what each of those elements means, and we can argue about the "encyclopedic" topicality of a subject and whether it merits a stand-alone article, but the battle you're trying to fight was resolved in favor of significant coverage (not perceived importance) long ago. And, no, it's not enough that there merely be "reliable sources" to establish notability; those reliable sources must include significant coverage of the subject to establish notability, which far too many AfD participants seem to believe means a sentence or three in a newspaper article or other larger work. We may also discount some coverage per WP:ROUTINE.
BTW, the Powell & Shippen book you dismiss as a "directory" of all regular U.S. Army and U.S. Navy officers is not what you describe; the book includes biographical sketches of roughly 480 army and navy officers, and there were about 1,080 regular officers (full peace-time commissions, not war-time brevets and commissions, etc.) in the U.S. Army alone in 1860, with several hundred more active-duty regular officers in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Moreover, the ranks of "regular army" officers who served from 1861 to 1865 were swelled by the 900 or so West Point and Annapolis graduates and officers who were in civilian life in 1860 (including such notables as U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman who returned to active duty). So, Powell & Shippen were clearly selective in choosing the 450 or so regular army and navy officers based on some criteria of their noteworthiness; it clearly did not include all regular army and navy officers, who would have exceeded 2,000 with war-time academy graduates. And these numbers apparently do not include the war-time officers of the "Volunteer Army," who would have numbered several thousands more. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Necrothesp Sorry did not want to comment until the AfD was over but I must because I believe you viewpoint is very flawed. What you are saying is Wikipedia is not bound by policy, yet we have policy overriding consensus all the time because Wikipedia is bound by policy. If reliable sources do not define notability than what does? If these sources are discounted then it becomes purely I like it or I don't like it. WP:ROUTINE is define by whether the coverage is routine or not, not the event itself. While yes this person does not appear to have amazing accomplishments, the coverage he received is unusual. Much like a cat being stuck in a tree covered in local news is routine, but a cat stuck in a tree covered by national news is not routine. This is the very definition of a cultural phenomena know as a meme. Memes generally appear very routine, but for unexplained reasons rises above the rest. Social construct is define by this nature and our goal is to document it throughout time. I am not saying this is a meme, but documenting the unusual coverage this solider received embodies his notability. This is the fundamental principle of GNG. Valoem talk contrib 07:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Valoem: What you said above is mostly right, but dangerously misleading by virtue of what you omit: yes, notability is defined by coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, but that coverage must be significant. Coverage that does not rise the level of being significant -- however defined as trivial, passing mention, routine, etc. -- does not count for purposes of determining notability, regardless of the reliability of the source. The notability of a subject should not be determined by two or three sentences in The New York Times, The Times or The Washington Post. This is where I part company with the so-called "inclusionists," too many of whom seem to believe that any subject that's ever been mentioned in three reliable sources is notable per WP:GNG. That was never intended, and the constant erosion of the meaning of "significant" is one of the reasons why we have so many heated AfD arguments over stub articles about encyclopedically insignificant subjects. Without the emphasis that coverage in reliable sources must be significant, the whole basis upon which we determine what subjects to include and exclude breaks down. Some "inclusionist" editors believe that's entirely acceptable, even desirable. I think that's madness. We may argue about the merits of this particular topic -- and reasonable people may differ as to whether the coverage linked above is "significant" -- but the larger principle regarding the necessity of significant coverage must be clarified, emphasized and enforced as best we can. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'm curious about the madness. I certainly lean inclusionist, but within the GNG. I agree that a couple of sentences don't make for significant coverage, but I also don't think covering massive bits of knowledge of the world is a problem. I like the idea of Wikipedia being a central repository of reliable knowledge about the world. I certainly see the harm keeping around non-notable (by any definition of the word) BLPs can have. But I don't see how a reliably sourced article on a historical figure can hurt. Someone out there may care, and that's what we should care about. (I just had reason to need an article about a fairly obscure and small church. It would have been sad had that article not been there (complete with a really useful picture). My point is, there is rarely good reason not to cover material that is covered by reliable sources. The only reason I'd care about a stand-alone article is that merged material is often cut back to the point of being useless...) Hobit ( talk) 04:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per passing notable and Cunard! -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 20:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep without prejudice to a later merge per Dirtlawyer1. Sources are enough for the GNG to be met, but this AfD shouldn't be treated as a reason to disallow a later merge for editorial reasons (rather than GNG reasons). Hobit ( talk) 10:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I had closed this discussion as Keep, as it seemed to me that the clear consensus, based on policy, was in that direction, although I acknowledge that there was some merit to those who favored delete. The preponderance of the policy !votes, to me, was clear to keep. However, the nominator left a message on my talk page requesting that I undo my closure. I am only alerting an admin, Northamerica1000 (my go-to admin on all things AfD related - hate to bother you... again), in order to make sure that my undo of the closure didn't mess up any formatting stuff. I will check the article's page and talk page to see what needs to be done there as well. Onel5969 TT me 22:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. A biographical directory that includes every officer in charge of a ship is not being selective in its coverage,and is not a RES from notability . (I general, I consider National Cyclopedia of American Biographya very questionable source for notability because of this sort of sweeping and uncritical coverage. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    Comment I don't know either way, but the premise of your comment here is disputed in a comment by Dirtlawyer at 18:10 on 16 December. Perhaps it would be helpful to continue discussion in order to determine which view is accurate. -- joe decker talk 02:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious keep. The article's full of secondary sources, print secondary sources. Regardless of the fact that he didn't appear to have done a ton of distinguishing stuff, he got lots of coverage in actual secondary sources. This isn't some flash-in-the-pan Internet celebrity who's forgotten a few months after first appearing in the news: this is someone whose coverage postdates his death by decades. Whether 100+ years or 100+ days have passed since the creation of the sources is irrelevant: what matters is his appearance in the sources (who cares about passing mentions), their reliability (his appearance in an oral history interview from his grandkids wouldn't matter), and their secondary status (we care about information that's republished by historians writing well after the fact, not primary sources such as newspapers from the time of an event), all of which appear to be satisfied here. I understand the difficulties of the NCAB (see its article) about citing its sources, but the DANFS is a top-quality source (his appearance in each article being useful), and the other book sources appear to be solid. Nyttend ( talk) 05:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Gonstead technique

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

Dubious ability to stand alone in an article in and of itself (a redirect to Chiropractic would be reasonable), this article, however, is right on the border of being deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A3. No content: It fails utterly to provide a coherent definition of the subject, and the sources linked seem unable to define it either. There's a source to show that it's a buzzword in chiropractic circles, with over half of American chiropractors surveyed saying they use it, but a coherent definition of it seems beyond anyone. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • A3 no content would certainly not apply, sorry. There's far too much content for that, even as a short stub. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • That would require presuming this was a coherent definition. It is not (see below). Though I gave my reasoning explicitly in the nomination. Quite simply, this appears to be more of a buzzword than a coherent technique, and all the sources reflect this in their vague definitions, full of "may include" and "might include", with the things meant to be definitional appearing to be standard chiropratic practice for at least half a century before Gonstead. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Chiropractic from what I can tell, if this technicque is practiced by the majority of chiropracters then this technique is synonymous with chiropractic. -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, I am interested to know what avenue of research the nominator took to determine lack of sources? There are an overabundance in regard to this technique. According to the American Chiropractic Association this technique is used by 58.5% of chiropractors from this source. The technique has gone under clinical trials A Profession Seeking Clinical Competency: The Role of the Gonstead Chiropractic Technique, another trial here from Robert Cooperson Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, and another study here [43]. Cunard ( talk · contribs) has listed numerous sources regarding the founder of the technique here. Additional sources were provided by 009o9 on this founder's AfD. This subject clearly passes out GNG guidlines for inclusion. The article need expansion not deletion. Valoem talk contrib 00:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Unless the term can be defined using one of those citations, it's a buzzword more than the subject of an article that can stand on its own. Again, it's quality of sources that matter, not simple mentions in sources, or vague collections of traits ill-linked to a coherent system of practice. Don't give me the result of a google search, give me one concrete source able to define the supposed technique. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 04:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Right here,

    This is a specific chiropractic technique and is a variation of the Diversified technique that utilizes manipulation/adjustment by hand that usually results in joint cavitation. X-ray analysis, palpation, and temperature gradient studies may be used in clinical decision-making (i.e., what segment(s) to manipulate/adjust).

    . Chiropractic Techniques. American Chiropractic Association. August 2003. Valoem talk contrib 06:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • And how does that differ from standard practice? "Manipulation/adjustment by hand that usually results in joint cavitation" is pretty much a definition of chiropractic. Is there any chiropractor that doesn't do that? The other half of the definition is qualified by "may", so doesn't serve to distinguish the technique. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)\ reply
  • So you are denying the definition? It is a tweaked version of diversified technique with the implementation of new tools such as X-rays. Valoem talk contrib 13:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It says it "may" include diagnostic techniques. That's not necessarily usage. Secondly, and more importantly, History_of_chiropractic#B.J._Palmer_re-develops_chiropractic makes it clear that: "B.J. also worked to overcome chiropractic's initial resistance to the use of medical technology, by accepting diagnostic technology such as spinal X-rays (which he called spinography) in 1910." - that's long, long before Gonstead. Using techniques chiropractors have used since 1910 does not uniquely define a technique. Give me a coherent definition. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • delete or smerge, meaningless fictional nonsense. Guy ( Help!) 11:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • What do you mean, "fictional"? You're claiming the Gonstead technique or system doesn't exist? Because a Google search immediately confirms that it does. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
It is rooted in the fictional part of chiropractic. Guy ( Help!) 11:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that it's sufficiently synonymous with the practice in general to merge, but this "fictional" swipe is very disappointing coming from an administrator here, who ought to have read WP:NOTFORUM. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Artw: I rather object to your characterization. I'm asking for a coherent definition that separates it from standard chiropractic practce, and not getting one from anyone. I hardly think nominating what's basically an undefined term (at least, in a way that separates it from standard chiropractic) is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you think I'm wrong to say it's defined, please explain how it differs, but attributing motives not in the nomination while utterly ignoring the problems raised is a bit much. A term that's basically synonymous with chiropractic doesn't deserve its own article unless we have good sources discussing it as a term. If there is a definition that separates it from standard chiropractic, then we can discuss whether to merge or not, but, as it stands, this just isn't enough. (One further alternative for dealing with vague definitions is to contextualise it: move to List of chiropractic movements or the like, and cover all of them, trying to differentiate them as best as one can. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 15:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You don't have a proper deletion rationale, sorry. Also as you discuss how the article might be salvageable here but appear to have put no work into it. AFD is not cleanup, and if you want to start a merge discussion start a merge discussion, don't come here. 16:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
@ Artw: I'm sorry, you're saying WP:NOTDICTIONARY doesn't apply? If we cannot define it separate to chiropractic - indeed, are seemingly unable to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden ( talk • contribs)
It doesn't seem like a good rationale for deleting this article, no. And reign in your shitty tone. Artw ( talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. We have tens hundreds of thousands of articles on "fictional nonsense". It's established policy that we cover pseudoscience--and worse, and do it objectively. I & a number of other science editors left Citizendium7 years ago in part because they insisted on covering chiropractic as an establish medical science;not covering it all would be just as foolish. Merge would be rather foolish also: We cover each particular drug or distinctive surgical technique, though even in the same specialty some physicians avoid using some of them and prefer to use others, even for the same conditions. Another of the arguments for merge would be a good argument for not including Asepsis--after all, every surgeon for 150 years has used it. . DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ DGG: it might be salvageable, if sources that define it in some coherent way that isn't just "Chiropractic" can be found. We may cover every surgical technique, but we don't have separate articles for, say, heart and cardiac. Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger covers this situation completely. However, there is nothing in this article that is at all useful. It seems to be a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning behind it - and no-one not one of the people voting keep has been able to provide a coherent definition separate from chiropractic as a whole. 'This simply isn't a stand-alone article subject, and cannot be without sources.' Adam Cuerden ( talk) 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Peterson, Dennis; Wiese, Glenda (1995). Chiropractic: An Illustrated History. St. Louis: Mosby. p. 252. ISBN  0801677351. Retrieved 2015-12-11.

      Page 252 has a section about the Gonstead Technique. The book notes: "Gonstead Technique uses engineering principles to analyze and..."

    2. Redwood, Daniel; Cleveland III, Carl S. (2003). Fundamentals of Chiropractic. St. Louis, Missouri: Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 654. ISBN  0323071333. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes:

      Gonstead Technique

      Potential advantages of the Gonstead technique:

      • This technique provides multiple options for patient placement, such as prone, seated, and knee-chest positions.
      • Specific short-lever adjustments are incorporated.
      • Force potential is variable.
      • Motion into specific segmental areas is introduced.

      Potential limitations:

      • Knee-chest table may not be suitable for elderly patients with decreased flexibility.
      • Some patients may prefer noncavitating methods.
    3. Davidson, Autumn, ed. (2014). Pediatrics, An Issue of Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 358. ISBN  0323287298. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes:

      There are a wide variety of chiropractic techniques available to restore normal range of motion in patients. A modified Gonstead technique is likely the most commonly used in animals. This technique involves the application of a low-impact, high-velocity thrust at a specific contact point in a specific line of drive to gently increase the range of motion to hypomobile areas. In spinal areas, the restoration of range of motion has secondary effects, including improved nerve conduction, improved nutrient delivery to intervertebral disks, and increased toxin clearance from tissues.

    4. Mantle, Fiona; Tiran, Denise (2009). A-Z of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A guide for health professionals. Edinburgh, New York: Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 81. ISBN  0702049999. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes:

      There are various types of chiropractic. The Gonstead technique uses high velocity-low amplitude thrusts directly on the locus of impeded movement.

    5. Hoppenfeld, J. D. (2014). Fundamentals of Pain Medicine: How to Diagnose and Treat your Patients. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 24. ISBN  9781451144499. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes:

      Individual chiropractors use a range of techniques based on their education and personal preference. Some of the more commonly used treatments involve the Thompson technique (which relies on a drop table and detailed procedure protocols), activator technique (which uses a spring-loaded tool to deliver adjustments to the spine), Gonstead technique (which emphasizes evaluation of the spine along with specific adjustments that avoid rotational vectors), and diversified technique (full spine manipulation).

    6. Forum. Vol. 19. Consumer Attorneys of California. 1989. p. 163. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes:

      The "Gonstead" technique is one in which the chiropractor relies upon x-ray to diagnose spinal rotation. He then places the patient, using the hand, either in a kneeling, side-lying, or prone position on a flat table. He places his hand on a small ...

    7. Masarsky, Charles S.; Todres-Masarsky, Marion (2001). Somatovisceral Aspects of Chiropractic: An Evidence-based Approach. New York: Churchill Livingstone. p. 235. ISBN  0443061203. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes on page 235:

      Gonstead technique A chiropractic method developed by Clarence S. Gonstead, D.C. of Wisconsin (1898-1978), in which x-ray analysis, paraspinal temperature readings, static palpation, and motion palpation are used to characterize the upper cervi- ...

    8. Homola, Samuel (1999). Inside Chiropractic: A Patient's Guide. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 239. ISBN  1573926981. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes on page 239:

      Gonstead technique. System of correcting pelvic and sacral "subluxations" to correct secondary subluxations elsewhere in the spine. The alleged problem areas are located by motion palpation and skin-temperature instrument measurement ...

    9. Keough, Caroline (1997-12-28). "Miramar Chiropractor Has International Patient List". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-12-11. Retrieved 2015-12-11.

      The article notes:

      He specializes in the Gonstead method, a specific style of chiropractic. It's based on an idea developed by engineer-turned-chiropractor Clarence Gonstead that uses full-spine X-rays and heat sensors along the spine to produce precise adjustments.

      "Gonstead looked at the body like an 80-story building. If you're off a little bit in the middle or at the base, think of what it will look like at the top," said Jerome McAndrews, a former professor at Palmer Chiropractic College in Davenport, Iowa, who is now a spokesman for the American Chiropractic Association.

      Because few chiropractors practice the Gonstead method exclusively -- although many have studied it and use it as part of their general chiropractic repertoire -- Steiner's patients sometimes travel long distances to see him.

    10. Blair, Nolan (2015-06-29). "Local doctor's life experiences led him to become a chiropractor". WJFW-TV. Archived from the original on 2015-12-13. Retrieved 2015-12-13.

      The book notes:

      Now Michaels practices a technique that originate in Mount Horeb, Wisconsin. It's called the Gonstead System, named after Clarence Gonstead. Michal's says the technique really took off in the '60s and '70s.

      "He (Gonstead) was getting massive groups of chiropractors to make these trips out, and at the height of the Gonstead clinic there was a big hotel that was built next to the clinic, which is still there today, actually," Michals said. "There was even an airstrip that was built in Mount Horeb for people to fly in from around the world."

      The Gonstead System is now practiced around the world, and it brought Michal's from the Twin Cities to Rhinelander. He will one day take over a Rhinelander practice.

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

    Cunard ( talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability says:

    For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

    The Gonstead technique (also known as the Gonstead system and the Gonstead method) has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Unless you're giving really misleading quotes, I'd hardly considder most of those substantial. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 12:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per User:DGG. He's right. We don't really give a flying f##k whether it can be defined by normal methods. There are myriad RS which describe and list it as a major chiropractic treatment technique for dealing with the fictitious chiropractic vertebral subluxation. We document far worse shit than this all the time.
David Goodman ("User:DGG") is one of our most esteemed and experienced editors. In real life he is a librarian, and here he is an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee. Here is his wiki inclusion philosophy:
  • "[I have a] distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." — User:DGG#Biases
Goodman points to a very real problem: attempts by certain skeptics to delete quack articles are a form of deletionism which violates the principles of the NPOV policy, as well as the notability policy (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to an article here). This is very biased editing. Since articles on fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream point of view, the quack point of view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. The bias in favor of the mainstream should be clear, because that is the bias found in the best sources, and in most reliable sources. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 06:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I wrote that passage many yeas ago here, and i still stand by it. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ BullRangifer and DGG: While it's true this kind of thing is worth documenting, I don't think there's enough concrete information behind it (separate to chiropractic) to justify a stand-alone article. This is a terrible precedent, whereas, say, List of chiropractic techniques would contextualise and (as a lot of them are defined relative to other techniques) better explain the topic. We shouldn't delete just because it's alt-med, but nor should we keep merely because it's related to it: I don't think this article, framed as it is now, will ever reach any sort of coherency. The term's simply too vague, too mixed in with chiropractic as a whole, and too defined in opposition to other techniques. It's like pulling one chapter - or even one page - out of a book on chiropractic so you can file it under a more precise Dewey decimal/Library of Congress reference number. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Then try to fix it. We try to preserve content here. I agree that it needs improvement, so you should have contacted the creator and gotten them involved in such an effort. Even if it never gets beyond a stub, it can just sit here. I'm going to ask the creator to do more. As far as the mainstream perspective, find something. Like most chiro techniques, this is aimed at treating a fictional "lesion", so that should be mentioned, and then something about VS might be appropriate. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 15:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • After some considerable thought, I'm going to have to go with keep. Here's the problem: there comes a point in writing about medical subjects where you have to rely on medical sources. Likewise, one would think that in writing about chiropractic there would come a point where you would have to use chiropractic sources. There are plenty of such sources which are independent of Gonstead himself (after all, he has been dead almost forty years) and indeed it wasn't hard to find survey papers (in chiro journals, of course) comparing its use with other techniques. And my survey of the chiropractic sources is that the field does make distinctions between a set of different "techniques" (meaning, in context, different systems of manipulations: it's confusing because the word "technique" leads one to think of one particular manipulation). If it's too hard to make a clear picture of what this technique involves, at least there needs to be a list in the main article of the different techniques, for this to redirect to. It's clear that nobody in field thinks of this as being basically synonymous with chiro as a whole, and I'm not on board with the "it doesn't work anyway so who cares" sentiment. Mangoe ( talk) 21:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hemd London

Hemd London (  | 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 claims the company is one of the largest fashion companies in Europe, yet this is not substantiated by any references, and I'm struggling to find any reliable 3rd party sources to show that this meets our notability criteria. └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 11:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete This seems to be an Indian company, information in the article is not verifiable. Peter James ( talk) 13:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 18:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I really doubt it's a major company. I've found a brand name "Hemd" on some German fashion websites, but I think it's not related. The links to Hemd (or is it 'Hémd'?) for various countries on hemdwear.com] all seem to point to the same page (i.e. no localisation that you'd expect for an international company). The hemdwear.com domain was only created three months ago, and their Twitter account only two months ago.-- A bit iffy ( talk) 19:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources mentioning this company. The website is all imagery and doesn't even have any basic details such as an address. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Abdur Rahman. J04n( talk page) 16:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

List of footballers called Abdur Rahman

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

Seriously? This is trivia, and has a place in Schott's Miscellany, or in the Big Bumper Book of Boys' Ballgame Bull, but has no place in Wikipedia. It is unreferenced, and a trivial intersection. It's amusing in a bizarre way, but not encyclopaedic. Fiddle Faddle 10:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. No way this is encyclopaedic. — Vensatry (Talk) 11:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into Abdur Rahman#Sports, unless the list there is also deleted. The footballers and cricketers were split to separate pages but the cricketers were moved to (disambiguation) and added back to the main list; the footballers are only listed here. Peter James ( talk) 13:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Recategorise or Merge as above. This is useful as a disambiguation page, and needs to be considered as such. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, this seems to be a disambiguation page. I'll add it to that discussion page. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: This is a given name or surname in the same way that Scott may be. It's not a statistical anomaly of two separate names that is disproportionally found in football. Not suitable, not encyclopaedic. Can be worked into the Abdur Rahman article. Rayman60 ( talk) 23:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back to Abdur Rahman, no need for a "sub-diambiguation page" -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 07:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and delete - no need. Giant Snowman 10:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Abdur Rahman, but remove names that don't really look like the claimed one. LjL ( talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The names concerned are all just transliterations of Arabic: عبد الرحمن and that's what they look like. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 11:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedied as A7 & G11 by Jimfbleak (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Mohamed Bin Johar Al Mohamed

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

Meeting WP:GNG isn't clear. There are few Google hits on his name in English or Arabic. I can't really check the Arabic ones without Google Translator, so I'm going by the overall paucity of hits (44 in Arabic, 16 in English), and the fact that in the English hits he's only being quoted in connection with some subject. I also find no matches for "alumara real estate & trade". —Largo Plazo ( talk) 10:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 10:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 10:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I can't see anything either that looks like a decent source. The article is only just not a CV in appearance, and is unreferenced. If someone comes up with the necessary, I'm willing to change my !vote. Peridon ( talk) 11:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Tagged as A7 & G11 as this seems obvious. SwisterTwister talk 03:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Miss North Carolina Teen USA#Winners-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Melissa Lingafelt

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

Miss North Carolina Teen USA is not normally given an article. However Melissa is "an American role model", once sang the National Anthem and has a sister named Mackenzie who will always be 10 on Wikipedia. She enjoys traveling, dancing, make-up ect. Delete this all. Legacypac ( talk) 10:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Biju Ningombam

Biju Ningombam (  | 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 one of several articles created by a COI editor. Offhand I just can't see where this actress is particularly noteworthy, as a search for her name on Google and the India WP's search engine doesn't bring up anything to show that she's particularly noteworthy. It's possible that coverage might exist in other languages, but offhand I just don't see anything with my searches. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. I nommed this for a speedy delete, it looks like the creator or his associates are using a couple of unregistered IPs to edit all these linked articles now that his COI's been noted and one of them removed it. I dug around and there's nothing on this actress except the 2 films she's done this year for their company. Clearly promotion of non-notables. JamesG5 ( talk) 20:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - None of this even minimally suggests basic solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Sanagi Nga

Sanagi Nga (  | 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 a speedy as a promotional article, but it wasn't overly promotional. It'd also been PRODed, but since this was removed at the same time as the speedy it can't be rePRODed, making it necessary for this to go to AfD.

I can't really find any coverage for this film at all to show that filming has even really begun or that it's notable enough to pass NFF. There's a possibility of coverage in other languages or alternate spellings, so I figured that AfD would be the best option for this. I have no objection to anyone wanting to userfy this or for it to be recreated once it receives coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete This is clearly a promotional article and does not need to be kept as the account used to create it was used only for promotion. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 15:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was the PROD nominator. My opinion that this does not pass WP:NFF remains unchanged. -- Drm310 ( talk) 16:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
per WP:INDAFD: "Sanagi Nga" "Romi Meitei" "Rajkumar Kaiku" "Redy Yumnam" "Bala Hijam"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 11:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Scrilla king

Scrilla king (  | 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 and G11 speedy, but the article was cleaned up somewhat. There's an assertion of notability here, namely that he was mentioned in various websites, however at the same time I can't really find anything about him that doesn't pertain to his relationship with Tom Hanks's son. As notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, I just can't see where he's ultimately notable enough for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 09:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 09:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 09:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Easily questionable material and nothing to even suggest basic notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 16:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Penelope (Australia band)

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

Non notable band for which no significant coverage in reliable sources exists to support it. At first glance it appears that reliable governmental sources exist to establish notability, but this is not the case. Ref 1 is a government directory listing which includes promotional. content from a (possibly defunct) www.mono.net blog. Ref 2 and 3 are listings. Ref 4 is a blog. Ref 5 is likely a listing from a playlist but is dead. Ref 6, 7, and 8 are also all listings in directories. My searches past these references were unable to uncover significant coverage of this late 90s rock band therefore it should be deleted. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 06:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, just - non-vanity album on Phantom - David Gerard ( talk) 10:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Can you explain what you mean by this? I can see from the page Phantom is Phantom Music, a label in Australia I presume (is it actually Phantom Records??). How does being a band on a certain label confer notability? FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Yep, that label. It doesn't confer notability, but having a real label releasing it rather than a vanity release helps notability - David Gerard ( talk) 17:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per my previous AfD discussion. Dan arndt ( talk) 01:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per previous AfD. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 18:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think it would be helpful if the above two editors could explain what they mean by "per previous AfD." The previous AfD closed as no consensus, and the keep votes didn't provide any references with which to judge notability. The references on the page right now are, as pointed out by nominator, to be unreliable. As always, will change vote if more evidence can be brought, but I didn't find anything when I did a search. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment In the previous AfD, some eight months ago, I declared my belief that the subject passes WP:GNG. Nothing in this new AfD nomination has convinced me otherwise. AfD is not a reference check – the sources provided show the subject is notable enough for a WP article. shaidar cuebiyar ( talk) 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Which references? The one's in the article currently were commented on by the nominator and I think were already fairly assessed. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 16:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my previous AFD !vote - Still fails BAND & GNG. – Davey2010 Talk 03:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 19:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - Blogs, SPS, Amazon, and then Australian Music Online. The question of notability hinges on whether AMO is considered a reliable, third-party source. It's defunct now, but now integrated into Trove ( link). A quick search will confirm that if you had a mate in high-school or uni who played in a band for a few years before becoming a lawyer, his band is probably on there. On the other hand, they did have an album published by an actual (if small and indie) record company. Winning an award might be notable, but it appears that the WAM award is specifically to encourage new and not necessarily notable bands (there is a specific category for published artists, and Penelope were not in this category). On balance, I think the lack of actual independent sources points to non-notability. -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 02:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:BAND. no notable albums, no major awards, no notable members. LibStar ( talk) 10:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn I jumped the gun with nominating this article. I did not know about him starring in a Fox series Eat Pray Thug. If the show never airs though, I will renominate this article. JDDJS ( talk) 05:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Utkarsh Ambudkar

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

Not a notable actor. JDDJS ( talk) 05:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus ( WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Neil Pauffley

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

Tennis player lacking notability, per WP:NSPORTS and WP:NTENNIS. SOAD KoRn ( talk) 02:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  10:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ "Tennis: Derby's Neil Pauffley lands biggest career win". Derby Telegraph.
  2. ^ "Pauffley is living the dream but with strings attached". maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk.
  3. ^ "Ace Neil Pauffley powers to Tipton victory". Express & Star.
  4. ^ "Pauffley secures biggest win of career at AEGON ITF Futures event". maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk.
  • Delete other than a couple local papers, this guy has accomplished nothing to make him notable. What he won isn't even the minor leagues... it's the minor league of the minor leagues. Not notable in baseball, football, or tennis. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 10:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • If you feel he has met GNG that's fine with me. He is not notable for anything in tennis though and that's what I tend to look for. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 16:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 01:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Malpaís (group)

AfDs for this article:
Malpaís (group) (  | 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 considered PROD again as it this is especially PROD material but it's time to have another AfD nomination anyway (and my thoughts echo the first nomination's), my searches simply found nothing better than this, this and this. It's worth noting some of this is actually more about the founder Fidel Gamboa but I'm also not sure if he's solidly notable for a separate article. Notifying the only still noticeably active user J04n. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep' per Michig and Neodop's comments. Erick ( talk) 07:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:15, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Chess diagram

Chess diagram (  | 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 indication of notability as a stand alone subject. It just describes what a diagram is. No WP:reliable sources. Prod disputed without rationale. noq ( talk) 14:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No secondary sources. I know "not much to say on the topic" is not a WP policy, but the information could be put in the article on chess or one on learning chess in one or two sentences. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 15:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It is easy to find sources which talk about such diagrams in detail. For example, see Resemblance and Representation. The worst case would be merger into another page such as chess notation. Please see alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
That's a book about diagrams in general and chess diagrams are used to illustrate a point. Is it significant coverage of Chess diagrams themselves? noq ( talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep It's a sufficiently distinct and describable sub-topic related to chess, and it complements chess notation and chess problem well enough. Needs improvement, obviously. Aspirex ( talk) 21:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
How is is sufficiently distinct? What makes it worth it's own article? How much can be written about it other than a definition? noq ( talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't see the reference to WP:Definition as relevant here; there is plenty that can be detailed about the history, usage and conventions around chess diagrams that goes well beyond what would be found in a dictionary. Aspirex ( talk) 06:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It has its own entry in The Oxford Companion to Chess, by Hooper and Whyld, page 108, the most authoritative encyclopedia of chess. (I added that under Further reading.) Other books undoubtedly discuss it too. This is something people need to know, so at worst, merge it into Chess notation. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC) reply
A merge to Chess notation makes sense to me. Chess diagrams are already mentioned there. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 15:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm the guy who removed the PROD "without rationale", as any wikipedian is perfectly entitled to do. I think from the point of view of the different fonts that have been used for chess diagrams this is potentially a notable topic, however sources are scarce. (If they exist they are probably not on the internet). See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess#Chess_diagram. I would not object to a merger with Chess notation. MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Valid subarticle. Chess is 1,500 years old, so there is most definitely information for this article. Esquivalience t 02:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Uncontested.  Sandstein  09:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Aussies (headwear)

Aussies (headwear) (  | 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 unreferenced, cannot find anything convincing on a quick search to show that an Aussies is a distinctive hat style or name. I see some discussion on chat boards and forums such as this which suggests it may be/have been a popular nickname, but it's mixed up with (usually pejorative) commentary on Australians in general (such as the cork-trimmed hat stereotype). If Aussies hats are definitely a well-documented thing (not that I'm seeing much convincing evidence for this so far, a lot of what is out there atm appears to post-date the 2006 Wikipedia article creation), then it probably ought to be merged somewhere (but where?) Mabalu ( talk) 12:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - there's a stereotype, sure, but the reason this article is unsourced is that there is no fixed thing of this name, and nothing beyond a little colloquial usage on a non-Australian forum to back it up. This is pure WP:OR on a non-notable topic. The original editor was not quite an SPA but came pretty close to it. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 13:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. On the basis that there may later be a compelling argument confirming the academic's notability per WP:NPOSSIBLE, as the academic has not retired yet. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 02:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Georg Essl

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

Assistant Professor does not meet WP:PROF JMHamo ( talk) 17:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Uncertain. Looking at whether he might qualify as WP:PROF-- From Goodle Scholar [49], his most cited papers have 279, 166, 78, 87, with h=21, but the most cited of them was part of a large group, and for many of the others he was the junior author to G Tzanetakis, who is definitely notable. The question is whether his non-academic importance in the field of computer music is great enough to be notable, and this need not correlate at all with academic rank. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep -- I agree w/ DGG that it's quite uncertain. These are actually very high citation numbers for computer music, btw. (I got tenure at MIT with nothing over 100), but whether they're high enough to go against the general principle that assistant professors w/o major coverage or major awards aren't generally notable, I'm not 100% sure. Jumping back to the old average professor test, yes, he's significant beyond that in terms of how well he's known in the field (personal knowledge). My sense is it's basically on the fence, but it's a well-written non-puffery article that we'd just need to recreate in a couple of years anyhow, so based on the even more general principle "does this help the encyclopedia?" I'll vote for a keep, but on pretty weak criteria. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep The numbers on google scholar, in what seems to be an insular and specialized field, are enough to push me over. User:Mscuthbert makes some good points; I wouldn't want this to be deleted only to be recreated in identical fashion three years later, when the subject definitely passes GNG. If it were promotional in the least, I would say delete, but it's not. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 06:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
I've made this argument enough times that it finally seemed worthwhile to put my thoughts about it down in an essay. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think his level of contribution to his field causes him to pass prong one in the notability test for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 07:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Warren Chaney

Warren Chaney (  | 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 one is going to be a bit difficult. At first glance at Chaney's article, you'd think that he was quite obviously notable. However if any of you have been following along with the Chaney stuff, you’ll be able to pick out the issues quite easily. For those who haven’t, here’s a basic background of what’s going on. For a more in-depth explanation, you can see Rhododendrites’s page about everything at User:Rhododendrites/Chaney.

Long story short, we’ve had a few sockpuppets come to Wikipedia to add information about Chaney. The major issues, however, is that almost all of the sources in his articles are unusable. Most of them are primary and many do not seem to actually exist in any place other than official websites for Chaney. Several of related articles have been brought to AfD and multiple people have questioned whether or not many of his claimed accomplishments actually happened.

For example, the articles have claimed that Chaney created a docudrama in 95 ( America: A Call to Greatness) with an extremely large and well known cast of various performers that includes Charleston Heston and Mickey Rooney, among others. Yet a search for sources brings up almost nothing to substantiate that this ever aired. There are things from Chaney claiming that the film aired and that he was filming, but not anything about the airing itself. That’s extremely fishy, given the amount of star power in the film as there’d likely be something out there. The same thing can be said for a TV series he supposedly wrote and directed for the military in the 50s. The series went on for over a hundred episodes, yet there’s barely even a whisper of its existence outside of things Chaney wrote himself.

The sources in Chaney’s article are very much the same. The vast majority of them are primary or go to Chaney’s website. A search for many of the sources doesn’t seem to show that the publications exist or wrote anything. I’m aware that it can be difficult to find sourcing that was pre-Internet, but the almost complete lack of sourcing makes it fairly difficult to really assert notability here. The only places that seem to really back him up on any of this is one newspaper, the Kentucky New Era, which is local to Chaney, and when they do claim some of his past accomplishments they’re always quoting Chaney and some have pointed out that they’re always saying about the exact same thing – which can mean that they’re just quoting the same press material that he’s put out and may not be doing any actual research into the claims. Few other places have covered him, unless you count the news stories about his legal issues relating to stock fraud.

There is some coverage for his film The Outing and I can find some reference to one or two of his works in various places, but the references aren’t really in-depth enough to firmly assert notability. At the same time there’s a huge issue with verifiability. There’s more than enough reason to suspect that a large portion of the claims could be a hoax and that this might have been something he’d been claiming for a while. Is it a hoax? I’m ultimately not sure, but there’s a very strong argument to be made that many of the claims here are either a hoax or they’re so overly inflated that they’re as good as a hoax. The only thing we can really guarantee is legit is the horror film he put out, The Outing. So the problem here is that even if we could assert notability for Chaney, there’s still too much in question here. I made a draft article, but even then we can’t guarantee that the claims are legit. I’m arguing for us to delete this article and leave it deleted until we can actually 100% verify that any of the claims are legit. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • See the following related AfDs for more information:
I'm also going to ping the following people since they can help explain anything that I may have left out. Again, while at first glance Chaney may appear notable, there's an extremely strong argument to be made that the majority of these claims are a hoax, to the point where we really can't trust anything that isn't through an extremely, extremely reliable source. Something that also adds on to the difficulty level is that these pages were made in 2011 and while there are some sources that mention these things, many of them were published after these articles were written, so we can't trust those either. I'm also going to ping the following people since they can help explain anything that I may have left out. @ Permstrump:, @ CactusWriter:, @ Dbrodbeck: @ Rhododendrites: @ Stevietheman: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. For all of the reasons Tokyogirl79 said. I have more to say, but for now, the bottom line is that there's no notability when you take away all of the self-published articles and sources that based their information on interviews with Chaney (e.g. Kentucky New Era) or self-published articles (mainly Wikipedia, IMDb and americamovie.org). What's more, the user who created this article was told about the existing violations numerous times by multiple different users since it was first published in 2011. However he used deceitful tactics to evade detection as he made edits that further violated known policies and backlinked this page to many other articles and external websites based on fictitious claims of notoriety, medical expertise & credentials, fame and success. The confirmed sock puppet accounts were probably the least disruptive of his surreptitious edits that span across numerous articles on Wikipedia, including other BLPs, as well as all over the internet. Permstrump ( talk) 06:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and the other posts above. A number of editors have put in a ton of work on tracking down all of the ins and outs of this. It is possible that all of their work could be gathered and a page created at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia as a guide for others to learn how to track down things like this. It would also be a fitting record for those that have put in so much commendable effort. MarnetteD| Talk 07:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • That's not a bad idea - Rhododendrite's page could probably be a stand in for all of this since there are so many pages out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. For what it's worth, this is what I've got. The local coverage includes [50], [51], [52], and [53]. Reviews that mention him by name include [54], [55], [56], [57]. There are a few trivial mentions on Google Books that are not really worth highlighting, but you can do a search there yourself if you're curious. And, if you check Chaney's Wikipedia article, you can see a bunch of primary sources. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 08:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This whole WP:WALLEDGARDEN is fascinating as an academic exercise, but nothing in the Chaneyverse is notable. Indeed, some of the stuff, such as Magic Mansion seems to be an outright WP:HOAX. If we take out all of the haoxy content we are left with very little. Subject is not notable. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 11:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most of his books listed in the article, the vast majority, are self published using names that sound like real publishers. So he'd throw the word 'Oxford' or "Harcourt' to make them sound like academic publishers. But, they aren't they are his personal vanity presses. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and WP:TNT isn't strong enough, as this is a resume built from a web of deceit. Previous arguments are sound, although I would note that the supposed TV series Magic Mansion "aired" in the 1960s. In the final analysis, this person is not notable, and won't be until the press widely reports on this hoax he (and possibly some close associates) perpetrated against the Wikipedia and entertainment databases (and beyond). Perhaps in the end that is the notoriety he has sought. Anyway, I have to say that in my 11 1/2 years of being a Wikipedian, this is the only biography where I initially thought "this is too fantastical to be true" but with such an overwhelming presentation of citations, I was feeling blown away at the prospect of peeling this fat onion. Thankfully, what has developed is an intelligent, persistent crowd-debunking of this walled garden. I may have more to say as this proceeds. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt per WP:BLP policy and a failure to meet our core principle of verifiability. I agree with Tokygirl79's nomination statement. Although there are a few accomplishments by Chaney that can be verified, the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources will not pass the general notability requirements. Furthermore, the systemic seeding of dubious (if not outright fraudulent) Wikipedia entries by SPA accounts over several years has created problems of Circular reporting. And the creation of hyped, promotional and self-published outside sources by Chaney or associates has probably poisoned the well for reconstructing a future page on Chaney. For that reason, I would suggest Salting the article so that an administrative review would be necessary before any page is recreated. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete more or less per Tokyogirl79. This is a complicated one, but the closer one looks, the more this is an exemplary WP:TNT scenario. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the article is incredible. As in not credible. Sources either fail Verification, don't exist, are utterly unreliable, or exaggerated. I've looked into this enough to endorse nuking any article identified as part of the Chaneyverse. The socks involved in creating these articles have been actively deceptive. NOTHING related to these articles can be trusted without skeptically scrutinizing each source in detail. The work that has gone into manufacturing this Chaneyverse is staggering. Alsee ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I think that salting is an excellent idea. I'm not opposed to an article about Chaney at some point in the future and heck, I already have a stub in my userspace. However the actions by the SPAs (be they Chaney, someone he hired, or someone else entirely) have pretty much stripped him and almost every source out there of any credibility as far as we're concerned. I don't even know that we can trust the local paper because there's a little bit of a COI there since most local sources want to say nice things about someone from their hometown. Ideally they'd have done their research and verified everything, but honestly... we can't guarantee this, especially since they're really the only place that's actually talked about any of these accomplishments. That sends up a huge red flag. I suppose we can always try to contact the military organization about the show and see if they can verify it, but that will take time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep #1 Non-admin closure Jobrot ( talk) 15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Cultural Bolshevism

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

Essentially the same as "Cultural Marxism" which has been the topic of many long deletion discussions. Whoever created this was defintely trying to game the process. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The two are not mutually exclusive. You can redirect the page now if you wish, and the AfD still be allowed to run its course - that way we avoid that someone else comes along and recreates the page. By letting the AfD run its course, we can preempt that situation. It certainly is silly to oppose the deletion when you are in fact not in favor of having a separate article on this topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Ah, I misunderstood the direction of you proposed merger. I definitely don't think the cultural Marxism should be moved from the Frankfurt school page to the Cultural Bolshevism page. I think that would be SYNTH unless you have some very good sources suppoorthing that there is a continuity between the two ideas and terms. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose; the reason for this deletion isn't accurate (the article dates back to 2009, before our now-deleted article on Cultural Marxism even existed). And there's a clear distinction between the two cases; this term has significant coverage from reliable sources in the context of its usage in Nazi propaganda. It hasn't seen much editing in that time, and I'm not necessarily sure we need an article on every term used in Nazi propaganda, but at the very least it predates the current controversy and was not created as an attempt to game the process. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
ie an "overlap" argument for the two being merged: "Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability."
  • Oppose: this article is a valid topic in its own right.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose (Keep) - Sourced, non-trivial, it and "cultural marxism" are related but not equivalent concepts from different historical periods. BMK ( talk) 05:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Beyond My Ken. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 06:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nomination obviously misrepresents the history of this topic. Note also that there are equivalent pages in other languages. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. As above: "this article is a valid topic in its own right". Dnm ( talk) 00:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. North America 1000 05:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedcubers

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

Duplication of Speedcubing. Salimfadhley ( talk) 04:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Roach Killa

Roach Killa (  | 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 indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources was given even before the article was shortened. Huon ( talk) 02:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 02:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No indication of notability. No sources in the article and no reliable sources could be found. An internet search only turned up trivial database entries. Johanna talk to me! see my work 03:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as it seems he may've gotten some attention here and there through the radio media but there's nothing to suggest solidly satisfying the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was user has conceded that it's not ready yet, so I made it into a draft DS ( talk) 16:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

In the Hell of Dixie (film)

In the Hell of Dixie (film) (  | 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 sources results in one lone review, on a website which doesn't appear to have been cited on any other article here. The only other sites I could find are illegal download sites, movie profile sites such as IMDb, or sites where you can buy the film. Interestingly, the article states that it is a 2016 film, but it appears that it may have already had a limited release this year. Either way, should the article be deleted, I'm not opposed to it being recreated once more sources appear and the film has a proper release. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - The lede appears to have been copied from a magazine, according to the article text itself. Users should check if the rest of the article are potential copyvios as well. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 02:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding In the Hell of Dixie. I just set up the page today. (Gosh, y'all move fast) The film was limited released last 4 days ago. I went back and changed the film date to 2015 (from 2016) since you made a comment that it should be 2015 since someone made a review. The films stream/dvd release is January 26, 2016.
I just uploaded the infobox film. It looks great. Go check it out. I plan to put more photos up. I also went back and "cited" the magazine because I notice a comment was made about the citing. I will work on all the "references". { UPDATE- I completed my references} I am attempting to correct everything that you mentioned. I will be perfecting this page with nice posters and an good image of the cast too. I will also create a section for reviews at the bottom and I will cite each review.
Please work with me here. I really take pride in the film and this page. Wikipedia is an incredible site and I believe my film is a asset, not a prospect for deletion. Thank you for you consideration.
I also donate to Wiki because I am a big fan. Thanks. Richard Whetstone Richard Whetstone ( talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC). reply
Here is another review that just came in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2QwgYPLfsE
also, here is our IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3355152/combined — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Whetstone ( talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: I added links and an additional reference. December 12, 2015 Richard Whetstone ( talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Whetstone ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: I created several links in the page. It looks very informative and professional. I will continue to perfect this page by adding and citing reviews and they come in. Already received a few reviews but waiting for the perfect descriptive sentences to pull from the review before I start quoting reviews. Thanks Richard Whetstone ( talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Whetstone ( talk • contribs) 14:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: The page looks great. Lots of references and links and more to come. Richard Whetstone ( talk) 17:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
UPDATE: Page looks great now. 4 references and more coming as the reviews come in. The release date is January 26, 2016. The film is an 80's style slasher film shot on Super 16mm. Look, we even made the cover of a German magazine for 16mm film users. Richard Whetstone ( talk) 18:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) http://www.celluloidfilm.de/24a6bc97e30fff60a/index.html reply
UPDATE I got on the wiki forum and they said i had an easy fix. I followed their direction and I sent two separate emails to the wiki admin email with the statement they gave me; I hereby irrevocably release images under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. I posted this and another statement they gave me on my In the Hell of Dixie FB page which has all the photos I had on my wiki page and the synopsis that y'all removed. I wrote that synopsis y'all removed. But I understand now, I sent y'all links giving permission to use the synopsis/plot and photos Richard Whetstone ( talk) 00:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n( talk page) 16:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan

Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan (  | 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 representative of Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan contacted OTRS to ask for deletion of this article ( VRTS ticket #  2015112810011271). Despite being a wealthy member of a ruling dynasty, Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan himself does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Information about him is so scarce that we don't even know how he's related to the rest of the dynasty. He's not quite WP:BLP1E but rather 2E, mentioned only for his extensive car collection and some sand writing. I don't think that's enough for us to write a reasonable encyclopedia article about him. Huon ( talk) 19:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 19:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • See WP:BLP2E. Agree article is poorly sourced but search suggests that can be improved. I'm unsure whether this should be kept, deleted or merged/redirected somewhere. Peter James ( talk) 04:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect (only if likely and needed) but I would perhaps definitely say Delete as I actually found several links using "Hamad bin Hamdan Al Nahyan Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates" at News, Books and browsers but perhaps not considerably enough for a better article especially given its current state. It's worth noting, from looking at the article's history, it has experienced considerable changes and removals, almost changing the comparison to beneficial contributions since it first started in June 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 19:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Borderline notable person who has requested article be deleted. No pressing reason to keep article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus among editors is that sufficient source coverage about this upcoming film's production exists to satisfy the notability standards for future films. (non-admin closure) Mz7 ( talk) 00:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Mamaboy

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

Unrreleased film — teb728 t c 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) To be more specific it fails WP:NFILM. — teb728 t c 06:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • This is a Movie that just wrapped. I does not need to be deleted. Boxofchickens is just upset because iot no longer redirects to a page that it does not need to be redirected to. The movie info is of more interest to the general public. -- SacramentoJoe ( talk) 02:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Do not delete.The article is now correctly formatted and sourced and I see nothing wrong with it. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 04:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
What is wrong with it is that it doesn't satisfy the notability standard for films. (Films almost never satisfy that standard until they are released and draw public response.) — teb728 t c 06:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Teb728: Wow... unreleased films can (and often do) meet inclusion criteria, and to state otherwise is an incorrect thing to tell any new contributor. Inclusion for any topic is based upon available sources and is only modified by guideline. So please go re-read WP:NF to see the gross error of your assertion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 12:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. This isn't the most strongly sourced article, but the filming did seem to get a small amount of coverage that confirmed the filming start and stop. It's sort of weak sauce coverage, but it's enough to make it technically pass NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: Has at least one mainstream actor, appears to meet minimum NFILM standard. Montanabw (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The only reason it was originally nominated for speedy deletion is because it was unsourced and formatted like an advertisement. I only reverted it back to the redirect because of the advertisement-like formatting, which the creator then fixed. BoxOfChickens ( talk · contribs · CSD nominations) 15:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
There is blame to go around for the modified re-speedying and an improper AFD, but I appreciate you saying "do not delete" above. Schmidt, Michael Q.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is a very slight majority for deletion, but nothing approaching a consensus. Even though this is a BLP, Cunard has pointed out that the subject received significant coverage in the cited news article, and that sort of evidence weighs heavily in AFD discussions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jay Mo

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

Only two reliable sources. Other than that not notable. The Avengers 16:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  01:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Worth noting that this is almost certainly a paid-for article. Number 5 7 18:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  20:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searches unsurprisingly found nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk 19:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ssт✈ (discuss) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep A few of the media mentions checked out. The article needs some clean up, though. South Nashua ( talk) 03:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I read the article and refs and they don't shout notability, they say nn individual and hum drum internet 'refs' with no depth. Szzuk ( talk) 20:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per RS. I agree with South Nashua| that the article needs to be cleaned up. ADDED - Nom even admits there are at least two RS! -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 06:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Searches turned up no in-depth coverage from reliable sources in which to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 14:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In addition to the sources in the article, here is another source about the subject:
      Twum, Chris (2013-11-15). "Jay Mo Picks Up African Oscar". The Ghanaian Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2015-12-20. Retrieved 2015-12-20.

      The article notes:

      As well as England, Mohan also grew up in Liberia, Nigeria, Ghana and India, before relocating to Los Angeles in 2010 to pursue a career in the film industry.

      In the last 12 months, he has collaborated with, and promoted various music artistes, and has now directed and produced over 100 music videos, 40 shorts and documentaries, seven commercials, and one TV pilot.

      Fresh from his African Oscars success, the musician and film maker has seen his debut short film, ‘The Successor of Katunga’ winning rave reviews on the independent film and festival circuits.

    Cunard ( talk) 07:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Daniel Bremner

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

Another young racing driver who has no coverage in reliable sources. The references provided only have fleeting mentions, and a search struggles to find any mentions of this driver at all. Possible WP:TOOSOON, though certainly non-notable. QueenCake ( talk) 19:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 19:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13( talk) 19:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and redirect per consensus and the complete lack of valid arguments for deletion. I'm redirecting as a couple of contributors have suggested since this is already covered better in the article on the series. No prejudice against it becoming an article again in the future if the sources and content justify it. Michig ( talk) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Up the Faraway Tree

Up the Faraway Tree (  | 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 not had significant activity. NJ ( talk) 16:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Highly notable book by one of the world's most notable children's authors that has been read by millions of children worldwide. No good rationale for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Seems to be a very notable book from one of the most famous children's authors ever. A simple internet search will turn up plenty of results. I'm not sure what "has not had significant activity" means in the context of deletion, but I also do not get a good sense of the nominator's rationale. Johanna talk to me! see my work 03:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Faraway Tree, the series to which it belongs. No evidence of notability independent of the author or the series is offered, or readily to be found. Nor does this stub really offer anything beyond what is already available in the series article. It currently serves only as a pointless content fork to the series article. There is plenty of room within the series article to accommodate expanded content there about this book, where it would better serve readers. If and when content about this book outgrows the series article, then by all means break it out into a separate article. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to The Faraway Tree per Hobbes Goodyear. - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 20:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lack of article activity is not a reason to be in AfD. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 06:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America 1000 08:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Zara Peerzada

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

Promotional article having no reliable sources. facebook.com and whisperingirls.com are definitely not reliable. Pixarh ( talk) 16:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails BIO all around, and should already be mentioned in other articles. DreamGuy ( talk) 19:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 08:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Week keep per above. But should be cleaned up of promotion and / or WP:COI. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

OpenPAT

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

I don't see any evidence of reliable source third-party notability for this open-source academic software project. All of the coverage appears to be from primary sources (i.e., authored by the creator of this project). The relatively few (~1k) Google hits don't help the cause either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric ( talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now at best until a better article can be made and that's interesting to say because this was accepted via AfC in November 2013 and not much has improved. SwisterTwister talk 03:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The nominator is reminded that AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Irl A. Gladfelter

Irl A. Gladfelter (  | 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 not been improved or had references added. AMDG4 ( talk) 03:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa  Talk  06:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Turkmeneli

Turkmeneli (  | 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 short article was replaced by a redirect following a short talk in 2012. I recently recovered it on the grounds that even if controversial, it seems the concept of of Turkmen land claims dubbed "Turkmeneli" is relevant enough to receive its own article. It also doesn't look like this concept is only used within Iraqi Turkmen Front circles, but at least also within Syrian Turkmen circles, if not in Turkey.
I'm therefore procedurally filing an AfD to find a consensus on this article's status. PanchoS ( talk) 05:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: The article is quite sourced and notable. Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 08:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The topic certainly appears notable, and the sourcing looks good, though I can't confirm any of the offline sources. - Bryanrutherford0 ( talk) 20:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Who Is Fancy. The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Goodbye (Who Is Fancy song)

Goodbye (Who Is Fancy song) (  | 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:NSONG AmaryllisGardener talk 04:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 10:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 ( T) 02:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Who Is Fancy – Position 98 on the Billboard Hot 100 is not particularly remarkable. The article about the artist actually has I would say more cited information about this song than this article has right now. Mz7 ( talk) 05:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Who Is Fancy Agree with Mz7. Artist passes GNG. -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 05:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 18:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Brieselang Forest Light

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

This is an interesting one because my searches only found a few passing mentions and a few photos and this has noticeably stayed the same since being started by SPA author "Aliensearcher" in November 2006. It was tagged for improvements by Wikicology last June and, frankly, I see no better signs of it happening here and especially confirming any of this is actually accurate. It's also worth mentioning that since starting, this has simply gotten a few changes here, almost half of them IPs, and there so that's also of concern SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Xxanthippe -- why do you think its an hoax? Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 15:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Because there is, as yet, no evidence otherwise. I am prepared to change my mind on presentation of such. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC). reply
FWIW There's enough hits when searching for it that I doubt it is a WP:HOAX in the Wikipedia sense. It may well be a tall tale that people are spining outside of Wikipedia, but that itself is not grounds to exclude it if it proves notable. Artw ( talk) 01:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
You are welcome to go ahead and prove it. Xxanthippe ( talk) 02:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC). reply
Proove what exactly? That people have written about it exterior to Wikipedia? sure they have, there's apparently even a book. As I say, I'm not sure that amounts to notable but it's not a hoax article. Artw ( talk) 02:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - tge sources in the external links do not seem sufficient to meet GNG, mainly falling outside of RS, and Googling doesn't throw up much better. Could possibly be brought into shape by someone who speaks German but I am not sure it is worth the effort. Artw ( talk) 01:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 20:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Fringe topic sourced only to four deadlinks and a web site. No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. While this is not an hoax, I don't see any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy t@lk to M£ 22:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Now to get those sources into the article! The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Emilcin Abduction

Emilcin Abduction (  | 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 may be fitting for an encyclopedia article but I question if it's actually notable and accurate as my searches only found several passing mentions about it and without any solid facts, this simply seems like local folklore. Notifying Piotrus for Polish insight and also notifying author StewieK. SwisterTwister talk 01:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The current sources may be poor, but there are better. Here's a decent news story about investigative journalism on done on this ( [59]), and it reviews a book on Polish myths which has a chapter on this. There was an entire book dedicated to this in 2005 ( [60]). Then there are some other occasional news pieces ( [61], [62]). Half of them are tabloid level, but I think all together they suffice quite well. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Piotrus. Thanks for providing all the RS! -- MurderByDeletionism "bang!" 05:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. ( WP:NPASR). North America 1000 08:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Lon Safko

Lon Safko (  | 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 as I'm unable to find any substantial coverage in RS. Specifically, I can't find anything to support the claim that he developed the first voice recognition software and the only recent coverage I can find is passing mentions of him being a social media consultant, but I can't find anything with more detail. SmartSE ( talk) 13:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 23:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Although I am undecided about notability, Smartse, this Smithsonian Institution web page verifies that he was a pioneer in attempts to commercialize voice recognition technology. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Cullen328: I had a look through that before but I don't think it is much use as a source or for demonstrating notability since it was donated to the Smithsonian by the subject. Wouldn't there be at least some independent references if the claims were correct? SmartSE ( talk) 13:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 17:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience t 01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 11:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Daybehavior

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

Non notable band failing WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Went through an AfD before but it lacked sufficient participation to achieve consensus. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete my searches turned up no significant coverage, and two sources provided on page aren't any better. Fails WP:MUSIC. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Their debut album is reviewed in Option, issues 78-81, p. 82, as well as Billboard, vol. 109, no. 52, p. 6 (where it is placed as a top 3 AOTY by one critic). Their latest material has been covered by Release Magazine. Neodop ( talk) 17:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13( talk) 17:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Cited coverage does seem slightly thinner than expected of a notable topic so relisting for one more !vote.. Esquivalience t 01:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Moderate keep albeit red links on page, Google search result returns results. [ EnigmaLord515 ( talk) 17:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC) ] reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_12&oldid=1142626491"