From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 June 15 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Phoenix Global

Phoenix Global (  | 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:ORG with the exception of recent scandal which is just drawing a bunch of editors with axes to grind. WP will be better off without this article. Jytdog ( talk) 23:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - while there have undoubtedly been issues with multiple socks, this is a relevant entry backed up with a variety of reliable sources. The fact that an article has had some issues should not be a reason to delete it. 79616gr ( talk) 01:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
What is notable about them outside the scandal? one-trick pony. see WP:ILLCON Jytdog ( talk) 02:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I disagree with you, but respect your opinion. Let's see what others have to say, as I am pretty sure we have already had this same conversation on the articles Talk Page a couple of months ago. 79616gr ( talk) 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that's lovely. really. Jytdog ( talk) 15:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
There's a lot of discussion on the article talk page, most of it because it's hard to keep that article in line with policy. All discussion ceased after the lunatic sockmaster was blocked and/or after WP:ILLCON was pointed out. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 17:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
As you and I have disagreed on this article several times on its Talk Page, Jytdog, I was merely being civil and will defer to consensus. Your sarcasm is unwarranted. 79616gr ( talk) 23:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
it wasn't saracastic at all - I really meant it!! it is rare in deletion discussions for people to be so civil. (that is why i added the "really") argh. Jytdog ( talk) 23:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Then I apologize profusely and withdraw my comment about sarcasm. If I knew how to strike the text, I would. 79616gr ( talk) 23:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
good, thanks, and whew. (I shouldn't have commented at all but it was just so nice.) Jytdog ( talk) 23:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Illegal_conduct: "Sources which primarily discuss allegations of unlawfulness shall not be considered when assessing an organization's notability per this guideline." I think this is important here. I was considering earlier if taking this article to AfD would be a good idea, based on WP:ILLCON, but I haven't gone and looked for more sources myself. But I wouldn't mind if it got deleted as it is, the article is titled "Phoenix Global" but the contents are more like "The Shady Dealings of Phoenix Global". There isn't much else to write about. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 08:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Perhaps a solution is changing the title of the article so it is headed more clearly as a description of what it is about. For example, 2015 FIFA corruption case, another ongoing investigation where charges have occurred but currently no convictions secured. The investigation in to Phoenix Glogal is large scale, and as stated previously, backed by a wealth of reliable sources. 79616gr ( talk) 23:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The difference is that FIFA is very notable on it's own. —  Jeraphine Gryphon ( talk) 10:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The students of our CCC study group have asked me to comment on the Phoenix Global encyclopedia entry on their behalf and for some reason I have problems posting on deletion and talk pages. The consensus opinion from the group is that the Phoenix Global encyclopedia article is very notable and references are substantive. Also the organization’s activities are broad and varied as reported by news articles from 2008 to 2015. What is concerning is that some students have also reported hostilities when trying to discuss this or other CCC matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prrabatt ( talk • contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Prrabatt ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment So lots of people with no knowledge and understanding of Wikipedia think it should stay? Doesn't seem like a good argument to me. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Prrabatt questions for you at your talk page. thanks. 00:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per Jeraphine Gryphon, there's no notability except for all the controversy/investigation. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Without the scandal, it seems that this company would have few, if any, reliable sources for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If the story is notable enough to include in the way that 79616gr mentions, maybe we should start over with a new article, but this one does not meet notability. Pax Verbum 02:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Actually, I am afraid Jeraphine Gryphon is correct. While I see where you are coming from 79616gr, after considering it, I think that if these scandals had their own article, they may not meet notability, falling under WP:NOTNEWS. Pax Verbum 01:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Andrius Genys

Andrius Genys (  | 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 enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. One article about a fund drive raising $416 is just not significant coverage. Jbh Talk 23:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. As per Jbhunley, also page would need a rewrite for tone/ad-ness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOtherGaelan ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or userfy for now as my first searches immediately found nothing to suggest improvement or independent notability. I doubt there's a language barrier as it seems the current coverage is in English. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete It may simply be WP:TOOSOON, but I looked and I can't source him. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. At best maybe WP:TOOSOON. If the result of this AfD is not delete the article needs to be rewritten. -- Jersey92 ( talk) 15:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Trash Pack

Trash Pack (  | 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 enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh Talk 23:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - Keep based on sources found, and improvements made since nomination. Jbh Talk 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm having trouble finding sources for the toy series as a whole (despite it [ http://www.ponymag.com/shop/magazines/trash-pack-magazine having its own magazine), but I was able to find several reviews for the Nintendo game from a few years ago. There's enough to assert notability for the game and it makes more sense to have an article for the toy series than it does for the game itself, so I'd say that this would merit a keep on that. I've cleaned up the article greatly since it largely relied on OR and had some issues with tone and so on. If anyone wants to flesh it out with sources I have no problem with that. The main reason I haven't is because many of the sources tend to be fairly brief. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Based on the sources now in the article I would not object to an article on the game which includes mention of the toys rather than an article on the toys that also mentions the game. It is just a matter of emphasis but the current sources seem to point to the game being notable (I know nothing about the consensus on notability for video gmaes.) rather than the figures. Jbh Talk 11:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I'd actually argue the opposite. The game only came about because of the popularity of the toys, so it stands to reason that it'd make more sense to have an article on the toys that includes information about the game. This would also be a good idea because if we have an article on the game but not the toys, the odds are high that the toy article would be re-created. Making one article about the toys makes more sense, TBH. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I can support the article as it stands. Very nice job on digging up sources and improving the article. I will withdraw mt nomination above. Jbh Talk 10:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn; nominating for A7 instead. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Danielle amy Marshall

Danielle amy Marshall (  | 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:BASIC, non-notable autobiography. Esquivalience t 23:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Joe van der Sar

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

Seems to fail WP:NFOOTBALL, would have heard of a 13 year old playing for Manchester. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Procedural close to lessen the drama and misunderstanding. This DAB was a DAB before the recent hullabaloo. The discussion should focus on the two recently added articles, not the pages that link thereto. Drmies ( talk) 20:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Transracial

AfDs for this article:
Transracial (  | 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 WP:NEO term (with the possible exception of its usage in transracial adoption) is a hoax, pushed by members of the 4chan forums [1] in response to the Rachel Dolezal case. It is currently being used to promote another article that is subject to an AfD, where the general opinion is that it is a hoax. There is no need for a disambiguation page for "transracial", as the word is only used in one established and real context, namely adoption, so it should either be redirected there or deleted. Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 20:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Procedural Close Bad nom. A dab is not an article. (and incidentally was in existence before the content dispute the nom is pushing). Although AfD is the correct venue, the nom is treating this as just one meaning, rather than as a dab with valid (or plausible) entries (at least one of which is in existence for 10 years). Widefox; talk 20:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Hours ago I marked this June 2005 dab for cleanup (which is the measured response already in action) can fix it up as there may be merit in the dab but the three articles need checking. A dab page is not an article, and issues such as NEO are already considered and discussed at the talk. Widefox; talk 21:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep There are many, many references to her being Transracial. It is exactly the same as Transgender. Man trapped in a woman's body - black woman trapped in a white body.-- Andhisteam ( talk) 20:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
This is not an article but a dab page. Widefox; talk 21:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

*Procedural Close The current disambiguation page uses "transracial" correctly - for inter-racial adoption. I believe you may be attempting to delete a vandalised version of the page. Indeed this new usage of the word is a hoax that has no place in Wikipedia. -- haminoon ( talk) 21:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, I had already marked the dab earlier today for clean-up (see the talk page), and assessed the validity of the entries. I've asked for more opinions from other dab project editors. Those subtle dab issues (e.g. synonyms aren't well defined in WP:MOSDAB) but that discussion was bulldozed by this ill-thought out nom, while at the same time edit warring and ignoring talk page (nom has been reported). Widefox; talk 21:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
You just added Interracial (disambiguation) then, but there is no indication to how it related to "Transracial". I suggest you read those sources you posted more carefully - they're not saying what you think they say. -- haminoon ( talk) 22:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Suggest you check wikt:transracial. The point is there's usage in RS and this has useful, plausible entries just like Interracial. I added the wikt link to the dab earlier today. Of course, I'm seeing if it's a valid dab (which it currently appears to be). Must be silly season, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial was recently closed keep with similar plausible entries (basically a synonym for this). Widefox; talk 22:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The 2nd and 3rd plausible valid entry per WP:FURTHERDAB WP:INTDABLINK (making at least 3 valid entries):
User:Haminoon Removing them [4] doesn't make them invalid. Widefox; talk 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
"Interracial" was added to the wiktionary entry yesterday with no citation. Passing has absolutely nothing to with transracial either. -- haminoon ( talk) 23:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - seems like a place to promote transracial as a term in a way to promote the (also nominated for deletion) racial transformation article. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is a 10 year old dab, 10 year old redirect, so note to closing admin that all arguments based on this weeks WP:RECENTISM promotion of the term (and any reaction to that single WP:NEO term here) is invalid. Widefox; talk 23:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • This is not a 10-year old DAB; this was first an article that was deleted 10 years ago, and then recreated as a redirect to racial transformation. Then last year it was turned into a DAB, going to transracial adoption and racial transformation. Recently " racial transformation (individual)" was added to it. Sorry, I don't see the point of this DAB. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, you're right, it's a 10 year old redirect, and a dab for over a year which predates the fever here by over a year. Widefox; talk 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Ping editors from the closely related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interracial User:Clarityfiend User:NinjaRobotPirate User:Artw User:Davey2010 Widefox; talk 00:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
FYI, I didn't say it should be deleted because of recentism. I said it was related to the racial transformation (individual) article (also not a new one), which I noted was also up for deletion. The nominator mentioned the drama, but it's not being argued as recentism by people supporting delete. BTW I don't think it's a good idea to leave "note to closing admin" comments. They are capable of evaluating the situation fine. :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 01:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Yes, deleting the dab and that one article are different discussions (and the article has consequences for only one entry on this dab). The dab predates that article. The dab had enough valid entries before and will have after that article is gone. Further, until the article is deleted (so long as the term is in the article) it is still a valid entry in the dab per WP:DABMENTION. The article AfD has a proper note to closing {{ notavote}} (now added here) and that suffers from NEO proponents, whereas here reaction against the proponents (of which I am not either, however many dab diffs or removing valid entries from the dab folk do). Widefox; talk 03:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
It's a dab page, there's several meanings (not just the NEO) e.g. transracial adoption Widefox; talk 01:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It's a disambiguation for a reason. The term is unstable, so it's a good call on WP's part to have this page. (Oh, and the term has a tremendous amount of usage, so its a valid concept for a bunch of articles, but they all need better names because of the instability of the neologism at present. Within ten years, "transracial" will settle down.) Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Talk:Transracial#Proposed dab has the 5 entries I see as (currently) valid and useful for readers, similar to Interracial. If that goes to 4 or 3 it's still valid per WP:TWODABS. Widefox; talk 04:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm just talking about language. Neologisms settle over time. There are a few that get broader, but those are the ones that fill a need for vague comparatives. The disambiguation may need to stay for another ten years, but "humans speaking and writing this word will begin to mean more specific things within ten years" is all I meant. Hithladaeus ( talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It is a useful DAB (it gets used!). It is spurious to pretend to delete after 10 years. XavierItzm ( talk) 05:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Is someone arguing for it to be deleted on a timer? I know that I argued that, like all neologisms, its range of meaning will narrow within ten years. That's a prediction about the word & has nothing to do with this debate today. Hithladaeus ( talk) 11:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to transracial adoption. The other meanings seem to be made up. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 12:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. None of the so-called dab entries are legit. At best, they're WP:partial title matches. Clarityfiend ( talk) 22:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's something of a neologism, but it meets the most basic notability criteria -- substantial coverage in reliable sources. This strikes me as less a "one-and-done" issue than the beginning of a broader dialogue, given our society's present interest in transsexuality and the Dolezal incident. 74.127.175.164 ( talk) 23:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • There are no people who identify as "transracial", no medical condition, no organizations who advocate it, nothing. This is just a hoax concocted by 4chan and others to make fun of Dolezal or transgendered people. The concept supposedly covered by the term is known by another, established term, namely passing, which in contrast to "transracial" is not an attempt to ridicule anyone. Tadeusz Nowak ( talk) 02:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This seems very real. Just because it may sound silly and there is also a media circus, does not mean it does not exist.-- TiberiasTiberias ( talk) 09:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT - This article is a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. It is not an article. It is clear that many people who voted keep or redirect did not look at the page. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep useful as a DAB BlueSalix ( talk) 18:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf ( talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Average attendance for cricket clubs

Average attendance for cricket clubs (  | 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 sure about this, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Adam9007 ( talk) 20:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Spaceman Spiff 05:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Definitely not what an encyclopaedia article/list should be. Attendance is something that can and is documented in individual club/team pages, and that's about all there should be to it. — Spaceman Spiff 05:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unsourced fanboy cruft. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete POV. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Johnston County School District. Usually I don't close on one !vote but schools are redirected to districts/locations per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Nom's not bothered and I obviously would've gone with R too so it's a win win really. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

McGee's Crossroads Middle School

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

Suggest deletion per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES as the district this school is in doesn't seem to have a page. No indication of notability or significance on this school per notability guidelines. 331dot ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to school district article or the school's locality as per standard practice for non notable mainstream schools. Nominator appears to have either misunderstood WP:OUTCOMES or is not aware of 'Redirection' as a policy alternative to deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
As I indicated, the school district doesn't seem to have a page, and SCHOOLOUTCOMES states redirecting to the locality is typically done with non-North American schools. 331dot ( talk) 20:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
331dot please understand that the recommendation to redirect to the school's locality applies quite obviously to all regions, territories, and countries. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
If you want to do that, it actually doesn't bother me- but that's not what the guideline says: "Schools that don't meet the standard typically get merged or redirected to the school district that operates them (North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere) rather than being completely removed from the encyclopedia." It seems to draw a distinction between North America(where schools are often run by a separate body than a municipality/county) and elsewhere. If you don't think that's the intention of the guideline, I would suggest changing it. 331dot ( talk) 10:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
331dot, the intention of OUTCOMES in respect to non notable schools, which is not a guideline but a neutral summary of how some articles are treated, is to demonstrate a clear policy irrespective of whether there is a local governing body or not. I would have thought that where policy trumps essays, summary pages or guidelines, it should be blatantly obvious. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
As I indicated, if you want to redirect it somewhere, go ahead, I will not stand in the way. Personally I think it should be redirected to a page on the school district instead of an unrelated locality(the town or county) but I suggested deletion because a page on the school district does not seem to exist. What is "obvious" to me is that the "policy" does not seem to indicate what to do in such an event so I deferred to the "essay". Personally I would be careful in presuming to know what is "blatantly obvious" to the other 7 billion people on this planet. 331dot ( talk) 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Asghar Bukhari

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

Merge/DeleteThis page is a 2 liner followed by controversies section of someone who makes a statement once every three or four years. Asghar Bukhari as a result does not seem to be a known public figure. This page should be deleted, or at most redirected to Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK.

  • To add, he has appeared in media once in 2006, 2009, 2013, and twice in 2015 (in some blogs). I don't think it's notable WP:N#TEMP

Asifkhanj ( talk) 21:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This incorrectly formatted AFD was created on 8 June 2015 but not listed. All comments above were before it was listed. The AFD notice on the page was not visible on the page for very long. It is now on the page and this AFD has been listed today, 14 June 2015. Woody ( talk) 19:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Absolutely WP:GNG, supported further by recent events and a trending hashtag on Twitter. -- Bombuzal ( talk) 20:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Ousman Jeng

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

Contested PROD, with no justification. I agree with the PROD rationale of @ Fenix down: " Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Could be notable per WP:NFOOTY if he ever played for Tai Po, but the article does not indicate he did and I can only find indications that he played for the U-19 team." Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per my original prod. Nothing has changed. Fenix down ( talk) 06:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Carol Yu

Carol Yu (  | 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 may be missing something because I only read English, but I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 18:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, withdrawn. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Fred Lange-Nielsen

Fred Lange-Nielsen (  | 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 assertion of notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines, WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. Jbh Talk 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator - Keep Jbh Talk 14:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 17:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable as a physician; Sourced claim to discovering/defining syndrome. That's a big deal. Also found a source for his youthful career and later sideline as a professional. The article on Norwegian WP is single sourced to same single source appearing on this page when it was nominated. I suspect that someone with the ability to search/read Norwegian newspapers would find more. It is, after all, a tiny, highly literate country with very few significant medical discoveries. He has to have been writtn up in the Norwegian press. and his jazz career probably was written up too. Multiple sources exist in English that establish his notability based on the syndrome. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 18:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

سئویل موغانلی

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

This article has gone untranslated for two weeks now. In addition, it doesn't seem like an effort is being made to translate it. Therefore, it's time to delete. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 17:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as obviously not in English - I'm surprised it can't be Speedied (A2 doesn't work unless it exists on another WP) ... Personally I don't see the point in sending it to WP:Pages needing translation into English but if someone really wants to send it there I have no objections. – Davey2010 Talk 17:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Ah I wasn't aware of that so thanks, In that case we won't send it there . – Davey2010 Talk 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, has been listed at WP:PNT for two weeks without translation now (prod would have been fine for this by the way)-- Jac16888 Talk 18:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I chose the AfD process for this article in the hope that an administrator can come along and close this discussion early and deal with the article sooner. The PROD process requires seven days to expire and make an article eligible for deletion. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 18:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Is there some reason this article needs deleted now rather than in 7 days? Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
This article has already had its two week opportunity for someone working on it to translate it. The PROD process would only instate an unnecessary extension of this time to three weeks. I was actually hoping to get a speedy deletion criterion in place for these types of articles with this thread, but it doesn't seem like it will achieve consensus. Eventhorizon51 ( talk) 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Roxadustat

Roxadustat (  | 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 assertion of notability. Not enough coverage in reliable sources or medical reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines Jbh Talk 17:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 21:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: Because the article is about a drug in phase III trials, it needs to pass a world of different hurdles for notability than if it were simply a compound or substance under investigation. I.e. it is arguably in a marketable form and therefore is in a position of being a commercial product rather than a scientific finding. Because of that, it needs testimony to notability, and contributor expertise becomes potential COI. However, in general I think it's probably good that people working on basic research are contributors. Hithladaeus ( talk) 11:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • weak delete per hithladaeus. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted at G12 (copy vio). Diannaa ( talk) 04:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

9W9 - The Nine While Nine Legacy

9W9 - The Nine While Nine Legacy (  | 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 self-published book. Article created by book's author. Blackguard 16:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • SPEEDY DELETE, G12 (Copyright violation) of [5]. Crow Caw 18:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

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

As was pointed out on a recent thread at WP:FTN, none of the sources in this article are actually about the subject of the article. Yes, the name is mentioned (as a so-called "name check") but simple mention of the name of an organization does not notability make. We need something that indicates that this particular organization has been studied and evaluated by more than just trivial mention. As such, I think the subject does not pass WP:ORG. jps ( talk) 04:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as it stands - you're right, the third-party sources aren't actually about the organisation and so don't constitute sources on the organisation. I just went through them all - literally none are actually about the organisation. They're generally quoting someone who gives his affiliation as the IEET. Coindesk article writes up an IEET press release because they mentioned blockchains. The WSJ piece is an op-ed from someone at IEET. This is a bit ... puffy - David Gerard ( talk) 10:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Note where I mentioned this on the talk page here. The article was then puffed up a bit, but it has lacked evidence of notability for quite a while - David Gerard ( talk) 10:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ David Gerard: Sorry, but that's false. Many of those are specifically about the organization. Here's just one as an example: the book The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. -- Fixuture ( talk) 17:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No evidence this meets GNG or ORG. In the (rather unlikely) event that evidence of notability would be found, WP:TNT certainly applies. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Bemused - I am not an editor, just a humble occasional contributor. I find it difficult to understand the 'delete' status of this article. I have no connection to the IEET - indeed had never heard of it. I was looking for information on David Wood, a futurologist, and was redirected here. And I am pleased to have arrived - pleased that Wikipedia knows about this organisation. However, I was concerned at the article's status - the implication is that it is a bogus organisation, that all the links were self-promotional. So I went and looked at its website, only to find an obviously active non-profit scholarly organisation that publishes regular articles by a wide range of authors, one with a regular programme of events, and which publishes its own scholarly peer-reviewed journal.
    • On this basis, it would seem to me that two things are obvious; first, that Wikipedia would be the poorer without reference to this organisation, and second, that the organisation is obviously NOT a self-publicising one, since it would be trivially easy for them to address the failings of the article discussed above.
    • So my question is, why is the article slated for deletion, rather than for improvement? Why has someone spent the time to review every single one of the 20 or more references cited in the article, but not the time to improve the article? And yes, you could ask me the same question - why not improve the article instead of writing this comment? As a wikipedian, the answer should be obvious; the attitude evidenced here is presumably affecting thousands of other interesting and useful pages, and I am concerned to raise the issue. And I will do some work on the article in the near future.- dilgreen ( talk) 18:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
      • You'll note it's been lingering flagged as needing improvements for months, as detailed above. This strongly suggests there's very little helping it along. The ideal proof otherwise would be adding details that are up to the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and at the least meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria - it's ridiculously short of them at present - David Gerard ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: The article being on AfD is not an implication that the organization is bogus. This is a common mistake that many Wikipedians themselves make, whereby they cannot dissociate the article from the concept discussed nor the presence/absence of an article from endorsement/condemnation. If the article fails to meet the standards necessary for inclusion, the organization will be as good as it was. It's true that, if the organization has qualities that could satisfy requirements, the article should reflect that, but it's not the explicit duty, that I know of, for people to move to keep on the basis of what isn't present, anymore than to delete because of the absence of something they know could be added. Instead, they have to make a good faith judgment about whether the article meets and can be made to meet the guidelines. Hithladaeus ( talk) 18:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There may be a conflict of issue problem with David Gerard being so influential in the deletion of this article considering he is a trustee of RationalWiki, a wiki dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, and the IEET is dedicated to publishing many transhumanist ideas considered pseudoscience. If you visit the RationalWiki page on transhumanism [6] you will see that the majority of the page is dedicated to criticizing the ideas the IEET promotes. This type of conflict of interest is similar to Wikipedia's prohibition against staff members of a political candidate editing articles on their opposition. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Campaigning.2C political. What we have here is a staff / board member of one policy non-profit promoting the deletion of its opposing non-profit. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The original notability templates were added by David Gerard, and he has been consistently promoting this article's deletion. [7]
There has also been a consistent double standard applied to this article. Other US non-profits have even fewer references and they are not challenged. Others even have a notable members sections but the notable members section on this article is repeatedly deleted. See [8]. A user deleted the section allegedly due to Wikipedia's prohibition against directories, but creating a notable members section is not a directory and is an accepted Wikipedia practice if the listed members are actually notable. Wikipedia even has a consensus accepted template for building a notable members section. See Template:Member and Template:Mem. Another think tank, the Cato Institute, has a very large notable members section with even subsections. See Cato Institute#Notable Cato experts. And a search of Wikipedia using the phrase "Notable members" gives hundreds of articles with "Notable members" sections. See search [9].
It is a common feature of non-profits for the reference to be about the member of the non-profit because the members, as representatives of the non-profit, are the people generating the ideas.
A few notable members of the IEET who were not allowed on the page for unjustified reasons.
Waters.Justin ( talk) 15:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
If you believe the article should stay, you need to add references that are about the organisation. Literally none of the references at the time of the nomination actually check out. Attacking people who notice this - and literally positing a conspiracy theory - is much less likely to make your case than making your case would be - David Gerard ( talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
I will note also our past discussion on the talk page: Talk:Institute for Ethics and_Emerging_Technologies#Notability_2. Anyone considering Justin's argument should read the past discussion on this precise matter - David Gerard ( talk) 18:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment You're absolutely right that many articles violate WP:NOTADIRECTORY by including a "notable members" section. Without reliable sources that those members actually did something of note for the organization involved, all that stuff needs to be deleted. Remember that we have no deadline, which is why this stuff sometimes stays around. But if that were an argument to lower our standards, we would end up with accepting the worst article on WP as the standard used to measure all others... Finally, you above "keep" !vote does not contain a single policy-based argument, meaning that the closing admin will most likely ignore it completely. If you want your voice to count, you should base your arguments on WP:GNG or WP:ORG, instead of aspersions about peoples' motivation. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Nobody cares about the political motivations of either the people !voting "delete" or those !voting "keep". All that counts in an AfD is policy-based arguments. Anything else will be ignored. Personal attacks, including speculation that some editor perhaps has some ulterior motives, seriously weaken your arguments here and can get you into serious trouble. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The IEET has long been the leading voice of left-liberal transhumanism. Perhaps a "Criticisms" section might be added to strengthen the article - if anyone believes that e.g. RationalWiki's criticisms of one (or all) strands of the transhumanist movement aren't adequately reflected in the entry as it stands??-- Davidcpearce ( talk) 19:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The same as has been said goes for your !vote: it is not baed in policy and will likely be ignored. And what Rationalwiki writes or writes not is completely irrelevant to the discussion here: as a wiki, it is not a reliable source and being covered there does not contribute to the IEET's notability. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know what does and doesn't constitute a policy-based argument. If they have "long been the leading voice of left-liberal transhumanism", do you have a citation from a WP:RS that says so? - David Gerard ( talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Please assume good faith. I was trying to suggest ways that the entry could be strengthened if the result of this discussion is a keep. It’s easy otherwise to waste countless hours on polemics about what is and isn’t notable for no constructive purpose. -- Davidcpearce ( talk) 20:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I have no reason to doubt your good faith, or familiarity with the area! I mean that I can use WP:WTF to you in reasonable confidence of comprehension. But, e.g., this is an area I'm not unfamiliar with and yours is the very first claim I've heard to this effect. Surely it's then citable - David Gerard ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This is the most unenlightened delete request I've ever seen on Wikipedia. So what if nobody ever wrote about IEET in an ancient newspaper or magazine? That concept comes from the old paradigm of paper and pencils. Welcome to the 21st century where groups form overnight to deal with accelerating technological advances. Nobody has the time anymore to deal with archaic forms of recognition like "registering a non-profit with the IRS" or "publishing papers in a journal". Everthing the IEET does is published online instantly and available for peer review at any time by anyone. 162.255.108.184 ( talk) 19:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — 162.255.108.184 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment. I fear that your !vote may actually not be ignored, because your remark that "nobody ever wrote about IEET in an ancient newspaper or magazine" is actually a very powerful deletion argument. Please familiarize yourself with WP's policies and guidelines. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • ?. That doesn't make sense. It's like saying "Your X hasn't been found in archaeological stone tablets and therefore is not real". Just because something doesn't meet your old standards doesn't make it any less real. I'm actually very doubtful that what you're describing are real wikipedia standards because most articles would be deleted based on them. It sounds like you're just making things up... 162.255.108.184 ( talk) 07:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. All guidelines and policies have been linked, so feel free to check for yourself. "[N]obody ever wrote about IEET" is basically a definition of not being notable. It does not mean it doesn't exist (we have their own website to verify that), it just means that they have not made a measurable impact and that there are no independent reliable sources on which we can base an informed article. Face it pal, you just shot yourself in your foot. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • ?. Nobody writes about it because it's all completely new. There aren't even journals that deal with these topics. A journal wouldn't even be able to keep up because it would take months to publish something and by then the technology would have changed. There are only a handful of writers with sufficient knowledge to even understand this, let alone put out an article. I think you need to step into the 21st century, look around, and see the new paradigm... rather than clinging to semantics and technicalities based on outdated definitions that no longer apply. Wikipedia is supposed to be a crowd-sourced information portal. You're just trying to remove information. 162.255.108.184 ( talk) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I think you need to step into the 21st century. Publishing moves at a much faster pace nowadays. But I get it, nobody has written about this, few people even understand it. Your argument that this has not been noted outside of a tiny circle of intimi is really a very powerful deletion argument! -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is not a policy-based argument. They've been linked here a lot.
Look, is there any news media coverage of IEET itself? That would count. Go on - give me a policy-based reason to change my opinion - David Gerard ( talk) 19:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Davidcpearce has not in fact advance a policy based reason as yet - David Gerard ( talk) 21:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comments Don't be ridiculous, that's not a COI. -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note also the notifications Justin made, listed there: looks like canvassing. Please comment there - David Gerard ( talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Canvassing is "perfectly acceptable." Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. Waters.Justin ( talk) 22:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Frankly, I wouldn't mind about the canvassing at all, if they could at least get their act together and provide policy-based arguments, instead of the crap that this debate is being smothered under. Please people. Two good sources and it's a keep. If you can find that, you either !vote "delete" or you don't !vote at all. -- Randykitty ( talk) 22:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I concur. FALSIFIABLE CLAIM: Find two articles actually about IEET - not passing mentions, not quoting someone who happens to claim IEET affiliation, but actually about IEET, at length - in sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources and I will firmly support keeping this article - David Gerard ( talk) 22:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Is the fact that numerous reliable sources frequently talk about work coming from the organization without discussing the organization itself at length really cause for deletion? 73.195.30.34 ( talk) 23:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep.
    • Publishes its own journal with many articles by notable individuals.
    • Anti-transhumanism activist blog Amor Mundi run by a notable individual mentions it 437 times. To cut down on archive based duplications, I used "site:amormundi.blogspot.com/yyyy/ ieet", and came up with the following list: "2006: 3", "2007: 11", "2008: 6", "2009: 18", "2010: 92", "2011: 170", "2012: 41", "2013: 18", "2014: 13", "2015: 6". The result is 378 mentions for years 2006-2015.
    • Provoked mild left-wing criticism from an animal rights blog, One Green Planet, however this is listed as published and removed before the site officially launched per the date on their about page. The Post-Humane Age? When Transhumanism And Animal Rights Collide
    • Conservative site National Review mentions it twice, both times critical of its left-wing agenda and one complaining of its lack of Anthropocentrism. Survey results it obtained were also used for the sake of criticizing Transhumanism as a materialistic religion.
    • Nomination appears to have been made by the same person who nominated George Dvorsky for deletion, and who also tagged transhumanism as "engineer woo" and "science woo" on RationalWiki, a site which has been referenced by multiple media sources and is thus notable by WP criteria.
    • Occupies a somewhat rarified niche in being both transhumanist and left-wing, which contrasts with transhumanism's frequently libertarian roots.
    • I feel that this organization is notable, given the amount of criticism it has received, and that the nomination was most likely motivated at least partly by anti-transhumanist activism, whether it counts as COI or not. The article does need improvement. Could perhaps be merged into an article describing left-transhumanist organizations, at some point. Lsparrish ( talk) 05:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) — Lsparrish ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Comment Thank you for trying to give a policy-based argumentation. Unfortunately, none of the sources you mention are acceptable. Almost all are blogs, which are not considered to be reliable sources. The only other source is Rationalwiki which, as a wiki, is not an acceptable source either. As for your other arguments: 1/ publishing a journal does not make an organization notable, even if the journal would be notable itself; 2/ Who nominated this and what else they did here or elsewhere is irrelevant; 3/ Occupying "a somewhat rarified niche" does not make an organization notable, unless this stance has led to substantial coverage. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thanks for the reply. WRT WP:SPA, my account's main purpose thus far has been correcting cryonics related articles. I found this article by looking at David Gerard's history after he made erroneous edits to 21st Century Medicine. I am admittedly a cryonics advocate, but my intention on wikipedia is to to stick to factual corrections and diversify to other niches of interest. WP:COI based on "transhumanist" activism could be plausible, provided David Gerard's anti-transhumanist activism is given equal consideration.
I do think it's weird for an organization as visible (and, in the case of Carrico's blog, much maligned, although I still think many of those were duplicates) as IEET to be non-notable, but I can accept that it may not be per WP policy. WRT sources, National Review is a print publication, so I think it might count per WP:RS despite being a blog. JET seems like it might be as well (per their History page, "In November 2004, the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies assumed control of the journal.") Lsparrish ( talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The claims about the nominator editing at RationalWiki appear to be false. (Lsparrish also edits there, fwiw) - David Gerard ( talk) 09:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comments Correction acknowledged WRT nominator identity. I incorrectly thought David Gerard was the nominator here, actually he was just voting and commenting; evidently User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc originally nominated it. Here are the sources for claims WRT David Gerard: science woo, engineer woo, Dvorsky nom.
FWIW: "also edits there" (present tense) is possibly misleading. I made recent edits to RW after posting my vote and accompanying remarks here, and they have been reverted since. Apart from those, the most recent were talk comments from December 2010. My old comments from that era were recently (April) referenced by David Gerard, in a comment on a cryonics-hostile blog, and portrayed (speciously, I think) as evidence of my irrationality. I was somewhat involved in the original formation of RW Cryonics several months previously because I (at the time) thought it was intended to eventually be a credible source on the topic. Multiple inaccuracies that had already been addressed in the talk section were left intact for the intervening five years (one of which was added to Wikipedia a few days ago by David Gerard). I began making remedial edits to RW shortly after commenting here, but they were subsequently reverted in their entirety by David Gerard. None of that is terribly relevant to the issue at hand, but might give useful context for any friction between us. Lsparrish ( talk) 19:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
None of this is evidence of notability for Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies; it appears to be an extended assumption of bad faith and personal attack on one commenter (and not even the nominator) in a deletion nomination. As I noted above: If you can produce two articles actually about IEET - not passing mentions, not quoting someone who happens to claim IEET affiliation, but actually about IEET, at length - in sources that pass Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I will heartily change my "delete" to a "keep" and advocate that others do so - David Gerard ( talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Above was intended as a response to points raised, including verifiable sources for previous statements I had made while thinking erroneously that DG was nominator.
Given lack of good sources, strongest argument so far for Keep is common sense, as most transhumanists are at least aware of the existence of this organization due to it frequently publishing interesting articles which get shared and discussed a lot among this niche. Sources issue is hard to explain given its visibility and prominence. May have to do with incomprehensibility of mission/interests to the majority of people. Lsparrish ( talk) 08:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Continued This entire New York Times article is about an article from the IEET's scholarly journal. [14].
This entire article from CoinDesk is also about an article from the IEET's scholarly journal. [15]
This entire article by Wesley J. Smith published in the National Review is about the IEET and its ideology. [16].
Many other articles mention the IEET scholar as a spokesperson of the IEET. In those references, the scholar is speaking on behalf of the IEET, so that is not a passive mention of the IEET. Waters.Justin ( talk) 23:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply
That's not an NYT article, it's a blog post, and is not a WP:RS on the IEET.
The Coindesk article has no information on the IEET.
The National Review, apart from being an opinion piece, mentions an IEET article and then goes off on a tangent. It is not a source on the IEET.
- David Gerard ( talk) 07:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
'Blogs' on newspapers are by regular columnists and RS, see WP:NEWSBLOG. Darx9url ( talk) 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Ignoring the personal attacks and non policy based arguments, there are no reliable sources present in this debate or the article which provide significant coverage independently of the subject. This was the closest thing to a significant mention, but the subject is only being mentioned as it relates to the concept of transhumanism as a religion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for reasons given by Lsparrish and others. -- Janepharper ( talk) 14:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Called here by bot, never heard of this Institute before. Keep per sources found by Justin Waters and others. Also, cursory google news and google books search shows multiple RS treating the institute as a reliable source and a 'real' institute. Shows that it is notable. Darx9url ( talk) 00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kraxler ( talk) 16:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete What a weird discussion this is. Wikipedia has very low standards for what it includes and as best I can tell, no one here has acknowledged those rules and tried to meet them. A lot of people are saying to keep this article. I encourage everyone who wants this article kept to say nothing more at all and instead post 2-3 citations to reliable sources which feature this organization as its subject. This is the most common standard by means of which deletion is judged. I regret that so many people have come here to make strange proposals for keeping this which are unrelated to Wikipedia's rules. This is not complicated - 2-3 URLs shared here constitute a complete argument for keeping this article. Waters.Justin - you came close because you shared links, which is more than what others are doing. Do you understand the criticism that the links you shared do not feature this organization as their subject? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment I believe the delete voters are defining the subject of the article too narrowly. If the subject of the article was only the mission of the organization then I agree there are few references. However, the subject of the article also includes the academic journal and the views of the scholars speaking on behalf of the organization, and there are many references on the journal and the scholars speaking on behalf of the organization. I understand "notability is not inherited" but there is a difference between an organization that is only associated with a notable scholar and a notable scholar that is speaking on behalf and as a representative of the organization. Waters.Justin ( talk) 15:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Waters.Justin The conversation and the speaker are different things. The sources which are acceptable to prove WP:N must feature this organization as the topic of conversation. You seem to wish that when the speaker is asked for an expert opinion then that constitutes coverage of the speaker. The community here routinely rejects such sources.
You may disagree that Wikipedia should be so narrow, but I hope that you would at least agree that in hundreds of thousands of cases in the past the Wikipedia community has consistently rejected sources in the same way and passed consistent judgements in this way.
Even if this article is kept all or almost all of the content in it will need to be deleted immediately. The content in this article is not a reflection of the sources cited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Blue Rasberry: I have added some print sources that I believe address these concerns, referencing the organization itself rather than a representative, and sticking closely to what is specifically said in those sources. @ Winner 42: I think that my aforementioned additions meet that "two reliable sources" litmus test. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Other "Keep" voters have, in my eyes, successfully argued a case for the notability of this organization. Ideological bias seems to be a possible issue from both sides of the argument, but objectively the article meets notability guidelines. Voyaging talk 22:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep By all means. If you google 4 letters, ieet, you get plenty of first results referring to the IEET. If that is not notability, I wonder what it is!!!! -- Robert Daoust ( talk) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I concur with Bluerasberry, if all you keep !voters can just find two reliable, independent sources about IEET, I will change my position to keep. Until then I remain unconvinced that this passes WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Second that! The relist was, in my eyes, completely unnecessary. Several well-argued "delete" !votes, no policy-based "keep" !votes. Clear case... -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Having !voted in an AfD discussion it is not good form to comment on, let alone to harshly criticise, a neutral mediating action like a relisting. The discussion was open for a whole day longer than the customary 7 days, and no admin felt like making a decision in this case, so relisting was a legitimate move to both clear up the backlog and get more input to make a decision easier. As you say yourself here above (10 June, 16:59): "we have no deadline". Kraxler ( talk) 23:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
"We have no deadlines" does not mean that we should drag out a discussion endlessly, especially if the outcome is as clear as is the case here. And "no admin felt like making a decision in this case"? Really? We now have routinely AfD closure backlogs that are often much more than a single day. All obvious "keeps" get often rather rapidly NAC closed, so the fact that this wasn't is perhaps more an indication of the fact that a NAC close was not possible, rather than no amin wanting to burn their fingers. -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
"We have no deadline" means that we have no deadline, could we agree on that? No, there are no AfD closing backlogs these days, although participation in a general way is still quite low. There are a few admins who routinely close everything that has a not too controversial outcome. Having voted one way, then saying, in spite of several contrary votes, that there is a clear consensus for one own's opinion, and then drag out a discussion to support that is verging on being conduct unbecoming an admin. The discussion was relisted, so, please, get along with it. Kraxler ( talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No backlog? Sure, sure. And, please, do look at the "keep" !votes, which have almost no policy-based arguments, just "I like it" and similar. Including the recent "keep" !votes below. And giving one's opinion at an AfD, including commenting on other people's !votes is absolutely not "conduct unbecoming". This is a *discussion*, remember? And all I did before was saying that I found the relist unnecessary. In fact, whether that comment was justified or not, to explode like you do and start accusing people of "conduct unbecoming" because an action of yours is being criticized really is out of line. It's relisted, that's done. Now contribute to the discussion here or let it rest. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
All discussions up to (and including) June 7, listed in your link have been closed or relisted, and are awaiting bot archiving. As we speak an admin is going through the rest of the list. I never comment on pages which I relist. As a !voter in a discussion you can not close it and can not assess consensus, it's that simple, it's actually basic admin knowledge. Kraxler ( talk) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I object. There is a Wikipedia policy saying that there is no rule when arguments are good enough: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. I find the "Keep" arguments better than the deletionists' until now. I mentioned Google search results for ieet... they are interesting not only because they show that IEET is enough known and appreciated to come out strongly, like only valuable organizations would with only four letters, but also because they lead to many high quality pages, which is by itself a recommendation for keeping, as it is the role of a good encyclopedia to allow access to first class knowledge. See also alexa.com: IEET website is ranked 188,660 globally and 67,446 in USA, which is remarkably high. Compare with Institute_for_Energy_and_Environmental_Research (IEER): 1,527,741 globally and 585,035 in USA. -- Robert Daoust ( talk) 18:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. How is this even a question? The Holy Grail states: "extensive coverage in independent and reliable sources". Does IEET count with such sources? A resounding NO! All sources are either associated with it, or are passing mentions within articles about or written by any of the founders. It's very simple: fail General Notability and you can't be on Wikipedia. I don't see why this is turning out to be so tediously controversial. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 03:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Hang on Keep. A Google Books search yields several hundred hits; at first glance, a few seem to be independently published books. I am going to look a bit deeper into this. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    Here's one source: Joseph R. Herkert, "Ethical Challenges of Emerging Technologies", in Gary E. Marchant, Braden R. Allenby, Joseph R. Herkert, eds., The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight (2011), p. 38:

If emerging technologies pose unique ethical challenges, who is in the best position to meet those challenges? As noted earlier in the discussion of robotics, the promoters of emerging technologies have begun to stake out the “moral ground” surrounding these novel technologies. For example, The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) ( http://ieet.org/) (associated with the World Transhumanist Association) has as its mission:

...to become a center for voices arguing for a responsible, constructive approach to emerging human enhancement technologies. We believe that technological progress can be a catalyst for positive human development so long as we ensure that technologies are safe and equitably distributed. We call this a “technoprogressive” orientation.

We aim to showcase technoprogressive ideas about how technological progress can increase freedom, happiness, and human flourishing in democratic societies. Focusing on emerging technologies that have the potential to positively transform social conditions and the quality of human lives–especially “human enhancement technologies” – the IEET seeks to encourage public policies for their safe and equitable use, and to cultivate academic, professional, and popular appreciation about their impacts.

  • Here's another: Katarina Felsted, ‎Scott D. Wright, Toward Post Ageing: Technology in an Ageing Society (2014), p. 109:

[T]he Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) has proposed several categories within the matrix: Libertarian Transhumanists, Technoprogressives, Left-wing Bioconservatives, and Right-wing Bioconservatives based on several key indicators such as definition, exemplary groups, citizenship, humanism versus religious right, individual liberty versus yuck factor, , technological risks, the equality challenge of enhancement technology, procreative liberty, ecological protection, structural unemployment, and globalization. ... Although IEET prefers the label technoprogressive to transhumanist, some scholars prefer to group the entire matrix into "strong conceptions" and "moderate conceptions" of transhumanism and argue that one particular criticism, moral arbitrariness, undermines both forms of transhumanism (McNamee and Edwards 2009).

I am adding these to the article now. bd2412 T 19:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: There is also a footnote in Ron Novy, "Transhumanism: Or, Is It Right to Make a Spider-Man?", in Jonathan J. Sanford, ed., Spider-Man and Philosophy: The Web of Inquiry (2012), p. 157, n. 2, which states: "Hughes is the executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a hotbed of transhumanist thought", but this is perhaps too passing a mention to bother adding to the article. bd2412 T 19:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is another source: Jacquelyn Erdman, Library Web Ecology: What You Need To Know as Web Design Coordinator (2014), p. 148:

The mission of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) ( http://www.ieet.org) is to 'promote the ethical use of technology to expand human capabilities.' The IEET is an example of one of many groups formed around emerging technologies that is often missed by the mainstream library circuit, mainly because it is not focused on libraries, or even academia. Organizations like this give a perspective on how different industries are using technologies.

  • One more, and I'm calling it a day: Max More, ‎Natasha Vita-More, The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future (2013), pt. II:

After Extropy Institute was closed, the WTA — renamed Humanity+ — became and remains the central organization of the movement in general, although organizations such as the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) and the Future of Humanity Institute play a strong role in the academic arena.

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Notability is obviously given. The deletion-proposal is baseless and I don't think any further discussion is needed in this case. Just Google the following and you'll find tons of news-articles , books and websites featuring it: "Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies" -site:ieet.org -- Fixuture ( talk) 17:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Kanten Clay Studio

Kanten Clay Studio (  | 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 business tagged for notability since 2012, with no improvement since. -M.Altenmann >t 16:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The info on the entry seems to be pulled straight from their website or product brochures. Not seeing any notability. ThurstonHowell3rd ( talk) 03:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete unless good Japanese sources are found, my searches found nothing relevant and good. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

DrumPattern (software)

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

Unreferenced article about non-notable software Helpsome ( talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - My searches found no good coverage for this and it's not surprising if it was released within the past month. SwisterTwister talk 22:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Already deleted per G11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

W3 Hosting Services

W3 Hosting Services (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company, possibly created for promotional purposes. Fails WP:CORP. Borderline A7/G11, but I thought a discussion would be more helpful. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I have already gone ahead and tagged the article for speedy deletion. Optakeover (Talk) 15:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Jerry Easow Oommen

Jerry Easow Oommen (  | 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 unsure whether these politicians are notable. The references don't help much - need more expert eyes on Indian politics. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Based on the references give, the subject appears to be an unsuccessful candidate who came second in an election to the Kerala Legislature, so fails the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Nor are searches finding anything which might indicate that the subject meets broader biographicxal notability criteria. AllyD ( talk) 18:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails GNG and BLPNOTE as never elected. Flat Out ( talk) 05:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

George Sebastian (politician)

George Sebastian (politician) (  | 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 unsure whether these politicians are notable. The references don't help much - need more expert eyes on Indian politics. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. Can be considered for addition later if he acquires more prominence. One thing to consider is that his party does not have a single seat in the Kerala assembly as of today: Kerala assembly seat distribution. It is an obscure party with an obscure agenda. Also, the sources do not tell us anything about his political views, or his ideas on economics. Soham321 ( talk) 03:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no inline citations and a search doesn't show much at all to support notability Flat Out ( talk) 05:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Thomas Kunnapally

Thomas Kunnapally (  | 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 unsure whether these politicians are notable. The references don't help much - need more expert eyes on Indian politics. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A level 3 elected politician (equivalent to a Mayor), so doesn't pass WP:Politician although his constituency has a population far greater than the state of Wyoming! There's nothing anywhere in terms of significant coverage to pass WP:BIO. — Spaceman Spiff 20:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 15:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. Can be reconsidered again later if he acquires more prominence. Soham321 ( talk) 03:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Flat Out ( talk) 05:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

BQ Aquaris E4.5 Ubuntu Edition

BQ Aquaris E4.5 Ubuntu Edition (  | 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 product. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails general notability guidelines Jbh Talk 15:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Davewild ( talk) 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Moid Rasheedi

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

Out of 8, first 7 references do not relate about the subject. The last reference just only mention his name among other poets. The subject lacks significant coverage in independent, secondary and reliable sources.  sami  talk 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Maybe delete - It seems obvious sources are not going to be English that much and I'm not sure how notable the two awards are (probably not notable) but I'd say maybe delete for now until more notability can be established (unless better sources can be found). SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Lucy Hannah

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:V, as no sources can be found on her despite being the third oldest person to live. One source used is a her social security death record (which would state she is dead, link no longer works) and the other source used goes into no significant detail on her and states "her claim to age 118 did not gather much attention" so it's extremely unlikely any offline sources will exist. Article has had little improvement in over 5 years and is unlikely to ever improve due to the fact that sources simply do not exist. If you remove the unsourced information about her life, you are left with nothing that isn't already available in List of the verified oldest people and other longevity articles. CommanderLinx ( talk) 14:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Commanderlinx, ever since you have stated, that the GRG is the reliable source for list aricles, you must understand, that this also applies for articles for remarkable individual people. Mrs. Lucy Hannah is definitely notable and deserves her own Wikipedia article. She has achieved 117 years of age, which makes her one of the 5 oldest people ever. In other words, in the documented history, only 4 other people managed to reach that extraordinary age. What is more, she holds notable records of longevity. Not only she is the oldest ever verified black person, but also she is the longevity recordholder of the state of Michigan.

The sources for the article have been updated. The GRG citation has been added, which makes her notability unquestionable. The Gerontology Research Group is the world's leading authority in extreme longevity tracking and supercentenarian study. Mrs. Hannah, as one of the oldest verified people in history, is included in every elaboration on the very oldest people developed by the GRG.

It is unfair to nominate an article for deletion and pose an argument, that "the article is unlikely to ever improve". That way of thinking we should remove thousands of other important articles, which hasn't improved in the last few years. That would be irrational. Among the goals of Wikipedia is to educate the society. The article on Lucy Hannah fulfills this goal in respect of how long can people live. Waenceslaus ( talk) 19:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Reply - How does a mention in a GRG table help establish notability? According to the WP:WOP, a GRG citation cannot be used to state records held. CommanderLinx ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Because the GRG is a reliable source which verifies the age of supercentenarians. WP:GNG requires "coverage in reliable sources" but that doesn't have to mean news articles. Do you seriously not think that the third oldest person ever is worthy of note? -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 13:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep She was, at the time of her death, second longest-lived person in history behind Jeanne Calment, as well as oldest American ever. and even now, she is the world's third oldest person ever. I think there is no need to delete this article.-- Inception2010 ( talk) 10:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Inception2010, articles are only kept if there are sufficient reliable sources that can be cited. See WP:NOTABILITY. This article has only one source that meets that definition, the Robert Young book, and in that she is only mentioned in a footnote (while others get multiple pages). The listing in the Gerontology Research Group is just a listing in a table. Neither of these establishes notability under WP's requirements. LaMona ( talk) 15:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Reliable sources don't have to be news articles. The Gerontology Research Group is a reliable source, contrary to what you say. That she is "just listed in a table" doesn't mean that her notability is in question. This isn't someone like Kim Kardashian who is just famous for being famous, this is someone who is notable for their longevity. Such people do not always receive attention from the media, but that doesn't make their feats of longevity any less notable. The issue here is the lack of biographical information. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 17:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Reply - No. The issue here is she is not notable because there is no "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A mention in a footnote, a listing in a table and an SSDI (which isn't reliable under WP:OR anyway) do not demonstrate "significant coverage" or that she is notable. CommanderLinx ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
We could redirect this information to the List of supercentenarians from the United States as Ollie231213 has pointed out. Longevitydude ( talk) 02:44, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or merge with List of supercentenarians from the United States. As I have explained above, I don't believe her notability to be in question. The issue here is whether or not the content and sourcing is sufficient enough to justify a stand alone article. I believe that, if the article is not kept, a mini biography should be created in sub-section of the article on American supercentenarians. As the third oldest person ever, it's possible that a news story about her could be published in the future. Even if not, details about the records she has held can still be included in a mini biography. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ollie231213, the article on Lucy Hannah is the article on the notable person, one of the oldest ever recorded in history and verified by the Gerontology Research Group. She has articles in other languages as well. Redirecting = Deletion. Such action would cause the article being non-existent, which is not desirable, because this would be an impoverishment of English Wikipedia. I am convinced to protect the important biographical article on English Wikipedia, which has the greatest number of articles and they are of the best quality. How can an article exist on other language versions of Wikipedia, while it wouldn't exist on the English version? CommanderLinx, your actions are destructive. You constantly nominate articles for deletion one after another from the English Wikipedia. I can't allow such action being continued. I please you to refrain from it for the sake of the quality of English Wikipedia. Otherwise, I will be forced to report this to ANI. Consider this as a warning. Sincerely, Waenceslaus ( talk) 12:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - WP:OTHERLANGS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. CommanderLinx ( talk) 15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep She lived to be 117, she was the oldest person never to become WOP. She was the oldest person in America and the verified oldest African American ever. Longevitydude ( talk) 02:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

These reasons are all useless without reliable sources. Nothing that isn't already present in List of supercentenarians from the United States anyway. CommanderLinx ( talk) 15:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ollie231213, Longevitydude, Redirecting or merging the article with another one, which is a list article is not the rational option. Firstly, Lucy Hannah has article on other Wikipedias than just the English one. It would not look good, when English Wikipedia, which is the most popular one, would miss the important biographical article on the very notable person, whom Lucy Hannah is. Secondly, list articles and biographical articles should not be merged, for the sake of maintainment of basic order. Eventually, more and more information would be transported to the list article, which would inevitably result in the lack of order of its content. What is more, there is a risk of losing important information from the biographical article, which currently is well sourced and should be left untouched. Finally, the article has been already nominated for deletion once and the result was keep. Since that time, the article has been expanded, new valuable and reliable sources and citations have been provided. Therefore I can see no reason for deleting/redirecting/merging of the article and the only rational option is KEEP. Waenceslaus ( talk) 10:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - Again, WP:OTHERLANGS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. The previous AFD was closed over seven years ago and there hasn't been much (if any) improvement. As stated in the article, she escaped media notice which means sourcing is unlikely to improve beyond mentions in GRG list. The unsourced information about her early life needs to be removed and you're left with a name, age and country. Merging the article to say List of supercentenarians from the United States results in no loss of info. CommanderLinx ( talk) 11:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Lucy Hannah is the oldest African-American-person ever as well as the second oldest American of all time. CommanderLinx you are the only person who does these totally unnecessary nominations for deletion regarding supercentenarians and I wonder why you are so opposed to people learning about them? 930310 ( talk) 14:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Simeonie Amagoalik

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

Delete: as non-notable. Quis separabit? 12:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Flawfinder

Flawfinder (  | 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 enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh Talk 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - a quick search didn't result in any real coverage. Some instruction on different sites. Single source is directory which doesn't establish notability. Kigelim ( talk) 18:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references with significant coverage. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 15:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Fire Chronicles

The Fire Chronicles (  | 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 coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Non-notable series of non-notable books by non-notable author. Jbh Talk 10:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only one book has been published, volume 1, and it is self-published. So the series does not yet exist, and self-published books are not considered notable. The one book was not reviewed in Booklist, it cannot be found in WorldCat. LaMona ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note, the SPA who created this page also added DeLoach to this page: Norte_Vista_High_School&oldid=662211677#Notable_alumni. I will remove that link as the author has not been determined to be notable. LaMona ( talk) 01:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I wish the author well, but I can't find where there has been coverage that would show that this book series passes notability guidelines for books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Fire Chronicles

The Fire Chronicles (  | 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 coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOKS. Non-notable series of non-notable books by non-notable author. Jbh Talk 10:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Only one book has been published, volume 1, and it is self-published. So the series does not yet exist, and self-published books are not considered notable. The one book was not reviewed in Booklist, it cannot be found in WorldCat. LaMona ( talk) 01:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note, the SPA who created this page also added DeLoach to this page: Norte_Vista_High_School&oldid=662211677#Notable_alumni. I will remove that link as the author has not been determined to be notable. LaMona ( talk) 01:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I wish the author well, but I can't find where there has been coverage that would show that this book series passes notability guidelines for books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Bhupendra Chaubey

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

This article was previously deleted via AfD in 2014 (I was the deleting admin). It has been re-created now and was tagged by another editor as G4, but it is a different article without the blatantly promotional aspect of the one that was deleted. Since notability is still unproven, however, I have declined the G4 and brought it back to AfD. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The article reads like a promo piece for one person. BTW, I'm a math major can I have an article about myself? ThurstonHowell3rd ( talk) 14:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep--The article is about a senior editor in the second most populous country in the world. Chaubey is a very prominent Indian journalist. Several Indian journalists less prominent than Chaubey have their own wikipedia page, so it seems unreasonable to deny him a wikipedia biographical page. Incidentally, i have now added a new section on Chaubey's coverage of the Saharanpur riots. Soham321 ( talk) 18:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)For the purpose of comparison, i am giving the wikipedia biographical articles of a few other Indian journalists: Naghma Sahar, Nidhi Kulpati, and Ashok Malik. I would suggest that these three articles are comparatively more worthy candidates for deletion rather than the Chaubey article. Soham321 ( talk) 21:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)I looked for other wikipedia biographies of Indian journalists and i am giving links to them just so that we can compare them to the Chaubey article. Here are two examples: Shaili Chopra, and Deepak Chaurasia. I think a mass culling of wikipedia biographical articles of Indian journalists will have to be done in the event that you decide to kill the Chaubey article. Soham321 ( talk) 05:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)Here are a few more wikipedia profiles of Indian journalists for the purpose of comparison with the Chaubey profile: Shivnath Thukral, and Vidya Shankar Aiyar. Soham321 ( talk) 07:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:OSE. - Sitush ( talk) 08:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. Clearly promotional. Subject still fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Source coverage almost entirely references a singe event (see WP:BLP1E). I don't see any improvement re the issues raised in the previous AfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Andy Hickson

Andy Hickson (  | 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 filmmaker as multiple searches found no good coverage. I would've PRODded this but I like to leave it open for comments. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - doesn't appear to meet GNG. I noticed he's a PhD but only a few hundred citations and low h-index. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 06:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Protiddhoni Cinema

Protiddhoni Cinema (  | 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 self youtube promotion that was repeatedly deleted under another article name by COI/Sockpuppet user. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrmasum1 ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, Promotional. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 05:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Unable to find any sources, under either the English or Bengali name, that would satisfy WP:NCORP. Worldbruce ( talk) 15:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Big_Nate#Book_series. Michig ( talk) 06:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Big Nate Flips Out

Big Nate Flips Out (  | 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 finding sources/reviews from reliable sources to qualify an article per WP:BKCRIT or WP:GNG. I found this page from USA Today, but it consists almost exclusively of content copied from Goodreads user reviews. This article from the Houston Chronicle provides some content, but it's mostly about the book series. Additional available sources are only providing passing mentions. North America 1000 05:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 05:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Big_Nate#Book_series. I found two reviews, but not really enough to where I would strongly say that this would merit its own page at this point in time. I usually like to have at least three reviews or two reviews and one good general source before I'd start arguing for notability, so if anyone can find anything else I'm open to persuasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect-as said above. Wgolf ( talk) 23:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect I agree with the redirect on this one. HullIntegrity\  talk / 11:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as I have found another review here [19] and incorporated it into article. Also, I have noticed with some afds that deletionists use the lack of library holdings as a reason to delete so here it is the other way - Worldcat shows it is held in a substantial number, at least 1540, of libraries [20] Coolabahapple ( talk) 18:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Usually don't close on one !vote but it's been up 2 weeks and not much discussion has taken place so not point in dragging it on, ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

1369 Ostanina

1369 Ostanina (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn ( talk) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: You gotta love that literally 84.6% of the history are bot edits, and that the article was created, and edited, by a bot. :p
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Included in four studies of small groups of asteroids [21] [22] [23] [24]. Despite the lack of individual attention (both in the literature and in our article's edit history) I think that may be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Usually don't close on one !vote but it's been up 2 weeks and not much discussion has taken place so not point in dragging it on, ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

1473 Ounas

1473 Ounas (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn ( talk) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: not sure about this one. It has a dedicated paper showing this object has an unusually long rotation period. [25] Praemonitus ( talk) 15:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. One group lightcurve study which failed to fit a curve for this one [26] and another single-object study showing a long rotation period [27]. Despite the low number of sources that might be enough for it to stand out as not just a run-of-the-mill asteroid. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

1396 Outeniqua

1396 Outeniqua (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn ( talk) 06:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient source material available to establish notability. Does not satisfy WP:GNG guidelines. Praemonitus ( talk) 22:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Toa Payoh. Don't usually close those I've !voted in but outcome is amazingly obvious so no point dragging it on. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 22:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Pei Chun Public School

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

Don't see how it's notable. HYH.124 ( talk) 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig ( talk) 06:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Multimodal Learning with Deep Boltzmann Machines

Multimodal Learning with Deep Boltzmann Machines (  | 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 for essasy. I dream of horses ( T) @ 04:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) (Changed wording at 04:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)) reply

  • Delete: Looks like someone experimenting with Wikipedia. Yes, the article really will save. Looks like part of OR or a textbook. Could this be a speedy for no claims to notability? Hithladaeus ( talk) 18:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as original research. The source appears to be a paper on the subject: Multimodal Learning with Deep Boltzmann Machines. There don't seem to be any secondary sources yet that are independent of the authors. The editor has also created Multimodal Learning which does cover this subject. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Glen 05:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

D0n'j. (rapper)

D0n'j. (rapper) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I searched Google and couldn't find any reliable sources on the first page. I dream of horses ( T) @ 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 16:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Anthropoid Operation Memorial

The Anthropoid Operation Memorial (  | 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 think that this may be so badly put together that it may not be worth trying to recover. Being new, I want to get others opinions first. -- AM ( Talk to me!) 21:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Userfy - From my quick search, I think this is a good article subject for Wikipedia. My suggestions: 1) I would suggest you move it back to your userspace (out of the main space) so you can improve it and get some help with creating it. Everyone started somewhere! 2) One issue, however, is that you reference "our design" - you are not generally supposed to write about subjects with which you are personally connected. 3) Finally, is there a Czech-language version of this article already? —Мандичка YO 😜 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There is, at cs:Památník Operace Anthropoid. I too think this topic is notable, though off to a messy start. Formatting has been cleaned up. I want to make sure that text of the article is not pulled from another document (perhaps the source of "our design"), as some of the text has a promotional tone to it. Several sources offer in-depth coverage of this monument, among the hundreds that merely show it exists. Crow Caw 22:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I tidied it up a bit, adding a lede and fixing some terms which appeared oddly-translated, but I couldn't find English-language sources providing much detail on the statue itself (lots on the operation). I suspect reference to Czech-language sources will be needed. In theory this could be merged to Operation Anthropoid (there is obviously overlap) but if the information here can be properly sourced, there's enough for a stand-alone article. I'd say keep, but without knowledge of the Czech sources it's hard to be definitive. Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Certainly needs a good copyedit, but memorials such as this are usually considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 09:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Userfy or Weak keep Certainly seems notable, however this is a poor translation to English. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge a summary to Operation Anthropoid#Memorials. We do not have an article on every war memorial in UK (of which there are 1000s). I do not see why there should be one on this memorial. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge & Redirect as suggested by Peterkingiron. Subject does not appear to have received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, therefore failing WP:GNG; however it falls within the scope of the section Operation Anthropoid#Memorials. Thus as suggested above, a summary of the monument can be included in that section.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've done some major surgery to the article because there was a vast amount of 'padding' (and there still is). It helps to be able to 'see the wood for the trees'. One would expect some news coverage of a large, relatively recent public memorial, but with my very limited/non-existent knowledge of Czech news outlets (and using Google) I can't see any. However, this is not just a 'war memorial' but a large public sculpture so I'd be surprised if it was not notable. If no-one can find any reliable sources I wouldn't lose sleep if the memorial was merged and profiled at Operation Anthropoid#Memorials, as already suggested above. Sionk ( talk) 03:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, a notable and important topic, there's enough room to create a stand alone article backed up by reliable sources such as [29] ( Lidové noviny), [30] ( Czech Television), [31] ( Deník), [32] ( novinky.cz) etc. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per the lengthy news coverage uncovered by Vejvančický. Sionk ( talk) 17:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - in case my above comment was vague. This is huge in Prague, commemorating a significant event. Crow Caw 22:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 13:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Nonato Luiz

Nonato Luiz (  | 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 suitable references, this page has gone pretty much untouched since 2013. No indication of notability. Primefac ( talk) 16:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

  • DELETE the article mostly contains events which are not notable ( WP:NOTDIARY). Plus, the subject's notability is not established by any reliable sources.. -- JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The article is a dog, but its subject is not. The article text looks like a port of a press packet mixed with a CV, but the artist recorded for CBS records. The profile of the artist at AllMusic is long and detailed: "With 15 albums released in Brazil and several others worldwide by the year 2000, Nonato Luiz is a respected Brazilian violonista (acoustic guitarist) who mixes classical influences in his rootsy playing" ( http://www.allmusic.com/artist/nonato-luiz-mn0000384099). It's not good that the article text doesn't help the reader distinguish its subject from the spurious stuff, but the guitarist is legitimate. Hithladaeus ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • If it isn't going to be fixed at all, and if we have an interested editor who wants to revert to the trash version, then we've got a good reason for WP:TNT. However, TNT is for cases where an article should exist. I'm not overly qualified to write the resulting article, and we need someone whose languages aren't all English and dead ones (I've got Latin, Anglo-Saxon, early Middle English, Middle English, and I can stare at ancient Greek, if it's Attic). So, I'm withdrawing the keep more than moving to delete. Hithladaeus ( talk) 15:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • TNT Even if this subject is notable, which I'm not sure they are, this isn't the article to show it, it's far too promotional. Joseph2302 ( talk) 16:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
As a point of interest, the page was deleted as CV (nominated because it was a direct translation-without-credit of this page), which is Luiz' personal page (hence the heavy promo). It was apparently undeleted because there was no "blatant copyvio." Primefac ( talk) 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: the same account that added the biography section here added the original text to the Portuguese article, resulting in a revert war. the article was kept with a mere defining sentence and a list of albums. Victão Lopes Fala! 02:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye ( talk) 18:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Kill switch. Lot of content seem to be WP:OR. Anyone is free to manually merge content which are well sourced to Kill switch. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 ( Talk) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Big red button

Big red button (  | 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 all original research. Most of the references are clearly not reliable sources; maybe the column on the BBC site, but certainly not the jargon file or debian release notes. Has been tagged for improvement for the past 6 years. It's possible some good sources exist, but I didn't locate any in my (admittedly, not very extensive) searching. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirecting to Kill switch seems like a reasonable alternative -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The BRB is famous geek slang. It may not be "TLA" level famous, but in the 90's the BRB reboot, the BRB panel, all were fun talk, but this is an essay mixed with an article on "leet"/"hacker"/"computer" humor and slang. There is no place for it at Wikipedia, nor Wiktionary that I can see. If the article were pared down to the computer term, it might be inoffensive, but it wouldn't be useful. Hithladaeus ( talk) 16:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. Non-encyclopedic content. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kill switch, which seems to describe the same thing. (There is also the nuclear term, not discussed in detail here and somewhat discussed at nuclear briefcase, Gold Codes, nuclear football, Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom#Nuclear weapons control, etc - a centralised article on nuclear launch procedure might be good.) Colapeninsula ( talk) 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Kill switches (E-stops around here) are different. One might regularly use the BRS to turn a machine on or off, but it's bad practice to use an e-stop for this. Some e-stops can easily cost a grand or two in damage if pressed, or pressed at the wrong time. They're reserved for real body-part emergencies. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
There's significant variation in usage of the phrase, but the article mentions more than once that BRBs are not routinely used for turning machines off and how their use can have strongly negative consequences. But the article also describes some big red buttons as being used as kill switches. So it's a case of overlapping rather than identical meanings, but that doesn't preclude a merge. Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Don't push that button! It seems quite easy to find more sources for this. For example, here's an interesting account of a Senate bill to create a BRB so that the US President could shut down the entire internet! Andrew D. ( talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
See Internet kill switch Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep The BRB is famous geek slang. Physical examples (mostly switches) abound. Conceptual uses of the term have made it as far as the Lieberman senate bill. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; if you want to document slang there are plenty of other websites. Colapeninsula ( talk) 08:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep Seems to fall under slang and is in common use. Made me think of the Staples easy button. Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 07:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge At first I thought it was the removal, but it turned out that there is a section Kill Switch. Shad Innet ( talk) 04:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep, cleanup, or merge if not much can be salvaged. The Jargon File is a reputable source for computer humor. The big red button is a well-known joke. -M.Altenmann >t 16:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The big red button was a common used theme for nuclear weapons in many popular entertain media over the years. Its also used for various other things. Reddit got coverage for using it in their recent April Fool's joke. [33] CNET is covering a project that will have a big red button that does whatever you tell it too. [34] Hilary Clinton gave a red button to a Russian diplomat. [35] Red buttons are everywhere. Dream Focus 03:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • keep. 173.209.211.145 ( talk) 17:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. Non-encyclopedic content, not useful, not funny, not even clear what it's about. Pincrete ( talk) 20:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. Further discourse regarding the article can continue on its talk page. North America 1000 03:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Friedrich Nietzsche and free will

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

Identical to other recently deleted articles on Free Will, a synthesis of barely connected quotations Peter Damian ( talk) 06:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. The quotes are indeed on the topics of freedom of will and determinism. You have many pages on much less important subjects in Nietzsche's works and not only Nietzsche's. Piotrniz ( talk) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Strong keep - notable concept within the Nietzsche universe. Search shows extensive academic study of the subject: [36], [37], [38] —Мандичка YO 😜 07:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete: Wikiquote has Nietzsche on free will. Furthermore, a discussion of the philosophy as a break out is virtually unsearchable except as a fork. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will cover this topic pretty well without Wikipedia editors, and there are literally dozens of amateurs with opinions on the subject. A true synthesis isn't going to be particularly helpful, in other words, and this one isn't an impartial synthesis. I'm sorry, but stating that Nietzsche's praise of Schoppanauer hasn't been properly understood is NPOV? It's the predication of what follows, after all. Stating that all of Nietzsche on free will is to be understood in the context of the moral philosophy is an impartial point of view? None of this is the writer's opinion? (Oh, and I pretty much loathe that crazed Darwinist Nietzsche, but I've read his books.) Who is helped by this article? Who is served by it? Hithladaeus ( talk) 14:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Amateur sources should obviously not be cited. Wikipedia is an all-encompassing encyclopedia. If a subject is suitable for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it's a good bet it meets GNG. Who is helped and who is served is not relevant to AfD. —Мандичка YO 😜 16:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Cui bono is always relevant. If I must be blunt, I will: it serves the pleasure of the author, and not the curiosity of any reader, to have an article like this. Therefore, if you believe that Wikipedia is here for people to write on, you'll feel one way; if you believe Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia -- designed to serve readers and answer questions -- you'll feel another way, about these essays. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
FYI, I added secondary sources not from "dozens of amateurs with opinions on the subject" but from professors (e.g. Robert C. Solomon, B. Leiter). It would be nice to think about improving the article instead of hiding rather uncontroversial truth on its topic. 77.252.107.58 ( talk) 15:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Personal comment: Perhaps, but I'm very pointed in not helping. I despise Nietzsche and believe that he should never have been rehabilitated. When I was first going to college, my professors wouldn't even mention his work, as they had gone to war to fight against one group inspired by his views. The 1970's doctoral generation and the Randians may have gotten enthusiastic about metaphysical nihilism, but that doesn't mean that Nietzsche actually presents a line of influence in European and American anti-rationalism. Should we have "Kierkegaard and Clericalism?" Should we have "Heidegger and Beauty?" Should we have "Marx and Culture?" They could be discussed, and they're more integral to their philosophers than Nietzsche and free will. (As I said, I regard the article as existing for its authors rather than its readers.) I completely sympathize with anyone who laments the lack of vehicle for academic collaboration on topics in the humanities, but Wikipedia was never designed to fill that need. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Reads like an essay of original research. The topic may be encyclopedic, but this article isn't. Nearly all of the references are to Nietzsche's own works. The few that aren't appear to be on the topic of free will, not analyses of Nietzsche's view of free will. The other option is WP:TNT, removing all of the first-party content. LaMona ( talk) 22:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I added references to scholarly secondary sources, so that the article is no longer based just on Nietzsche's own quotes. Could you please rethink your decision, because it is about lack of topic, not just about the quality of this article (this can always be improved). I can try to bring still more secondary sources. 77.252.107.58 ( talk) 15:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply
      • It's not just a question of the sources -- the article is an essay on Nietzsche's philosophy, not an encyclopedic presentation. What it would need would be counter arguments, pros and cons, and to be about the reception of his ideas. However, that is amply covered in the article on Nietzsche. The entire section on Schopenhauer is evidence of a kind of writing that is not appropriate for WP. Look for example in the category Philosophy of mind and note that none of the other articles are about an individual philosopher. That should be a clue as to the kind of writing that is expected. LaMona ( talk) 17:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it strung together quotes, an under graduate essay not an encyclopedia entry ---- Snowded TALK 06:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The vote was apparently modified by the voter so please do not count here as one more for deletion. Zaratustra ( talk) 18:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rewrite? Peter Damian ( talk) 07:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively to Will (philosophy) which has a section on Nietzsche ripe for expansion. Some content could also be added to free will, which is already kind of bulging at the seams, but nonetheless seems like a reasonable fit. There's no doubt people talk about Nietzsche and "free will", but people talk about Nietzsche and all sorts of things -- "will" being prominent among them. That makes me think Will (philosophy) isn't just an appropriate target, but something desperate for more Nietzsche (something I don't get to say enough). In other words, the key problem is that "free will", unlike, say, will to power, isn't as fundamental of a Nietzschean concept, so makes for a hard sell as a stand-alone article. Will (philosophy) on the other hand, makes sense for some of this work. (As an aside, the title of this article is part of what makes it seem like an essay; more appropriate, I think, would have been Free will (Nietzsche).) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Invalidity of the "free will" slogan is one of his fundamental concepts, though a "negative" one and not fully original. More positive concepts are e.g. will to power, overman, eternal return, but when you say that you don't need to understand fatalism in order to read Nietzsche then this is misleading. In nearly all Nietzsche's works you will find argumentation for fatalism or against free will. Even the title of his first book ("Birth of tragedy") is somehow linked to fatalism (just the title, leave alone the Dionysian/Apollinian; compare: tragic conflict). He even wrote a separate article or book on that topic ("Free will and fate"), a very early sample of his thought; and also his last book "Der Fall Wagner" is a word-play on Schopenhauer's admission of inborn character (der Fall = "case" but also "chance"). In light of so many written references I'd suggest it was very important, Fundamental, there are also many articles in the Internet, from scholars too, explaining his attitude. But see: if the debate is between "important" and "very important, fundamental" ("non-important" would be a lie, as explained above) then why take the whole article away from Wikipedia?! It is like hiding knowledge. Later not fully "enlightened" people (e.g. Chesterton, perhaps some scholars) propagate before the mob simplistic views that he was a determinist and this "arbitrary" belief is for him a proof against religion. 31.61.128.244 ( talk) 11:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Article contents should be in the Wikiquote project. -- 92slim ( talk) 07:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or Merge selectively Modifying my original site a little. I'd agree that some of the material could be salvaged into another article. Rewriting this one is questionable per comments from Rhododendrites---- Snowded TALK 07:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep This is an article on Nietzsche's views such as the other ones which exist, e.g. Master/slave morality, Overman, Tschandala. In spite of what LaMona said such article can be encyclopedical, so Keep and Rewrite is the sharpest verdict which could be justified; quite another problem is how to write it, but in my opinion the article is very well written. It does not need "counterarguments," pros or cons, because it is just knowledge about an aspect of philosophy which is – as a standalone subject – so abstract and can be followed by so different philosophies (e.g. Thomism, Schopenhauer's, Nietzsche's) that demonstrating great distance and pretending there is a substantive or axiological discussion is superfluous (I don't know any such discussion, you can always extend the article). Zaratustra ( talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
An account created solely to vote here? Please confirm if you have edited under another ID or as an IP. ---- Snowded TALK 10:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
No. See older traces here: http://pl.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedysta:Zaratustra&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaratustra ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
By the way, you also have such articles concerning Nietzsche as: Anarchism and Nietzsche, Works about Nietzsche, Nietzsche's relationship with Max Stirner, Nietzsche's views on women. It seems like a systemic approach of creating descriptive articles (about certain aspects) which would not normally appear in a printed encyclopedia book. This article should rather be linked exactly there, in Related articles, than in Concepts, within the Friedrich Nietzsche box on the main article. Do you perhaps want to discuss and challenge this whole approach? Zaratustra ( talk) 11:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
If a section developed in the primary article then its fine to spin off one on that aspect. Creating articles like these end up with multiple coat racks ---- Snowded TALK 14:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close. without prejudice to listing at Redirects for Discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 14:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Non-muslims

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

Redundant page. 92slim ( talk) 03:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Please feel free to move it there. -- 92slim ( talk) 09:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
You support the Jihad against kafir unbelievers now? -- 92slim ( talk) 09:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Reading 'Kafir', seems different sects of Islam used to refer to the other as Kafir. Monotheism adds to complexity. This redirect is too simplistic. Kigelim ( talk) 18:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - this should be procedurely closed or moved to RFD —Мандичка YO 😜 09:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep - AfD is not for redirects. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The sense of the discussion is that there is scant notability here. Neither the GNG or WP:N(Music) appear to be satisfied. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

P·A·L

P·A·L (  | 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 can't find any sources that would make this project/band/musicbio? notable. The name makes it hard to find sources, but I was still unsuccessful. Nominating this as well as all of the albums in Category:P·A·L albums. Tavix |  Talk  18:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
A few notes:

Plugged/Live
Initiation (P·A·L album)
Sacred Women
Reel (album)
Remote (P·A·L album)
Play at 2:00 A.M.
Modus (P·A·L album)
  • The remaining albums are still articles, which is what I am nominating, and they are:
Concrete Rage (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Signum (album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deutsch NeP·A·L (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
M@rix (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
M@rmx (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Untitled P·A·L and Ah-Cama Sotz album (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Release (P·A·L album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Special Edition (P·A·L album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live at 2:00 A.M. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Retro (P·A·L album) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  18:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tavix |  Talk  18:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect all the albums to the main band page, but keep that page. I believe they pass WP:BAND#5 by having multiple releases on a notable independent record label. Due to the difficulty of searching for the name, I think that would be a fair compromise to give time to find sources, and maybe revisit this a few months later. — Torchiest talk edits 15:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • At any rate, it would still need to meet WP:GNG, so there needs to be some sourcing added before we talk about keeping the band. "Give time to find sources" seems odd to me, because this article has been around unsourced for ten years. I don't think "a few months" would make much difference. I also disagree on it meeting criteria #5 as I don't think Ant-Zen is one of the more prominent indie labels. That label has questionable notability and the article doesn't cite any sources... We could be looking at a WP:Walled garden here, so it might be a good idea to check out the other bands on this label. Tavix |  Talk  17:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Ant-Zen is a real label, but pretty small. Most notable artist is Black Lung, aka Snog (band). Certainly not notable enough to confer notability on all artists, however - David Gerard ( talk) 13:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I have to agree with Kraxler. I went to the label website, and my first thought was, "Oh, cool!" Then I went to AllMusic and listened to samples of the few bands that actually had track listings, and this is non-commercial music -- often experimental -- very interesting, but very, very indie. Not quite Temporary Residence. Consequently, none of the albums are going to pass, and the band is not going to pass. (I love the weird, but the standards only favor the hits.) Hithladaeus ( talk) 14:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per above - David Gerard ( talk) 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Songs like «Gelöbnis» [39] with Samples of GDR history are extremely well-known club hits in german Dark culture and Industrial music scene. Yes, they are not as big as The Rolling Stones and they are Indie and - this is a big problem - they have a difficult name (Pal, PAL, P.A.L., P·A·L, P•A•L etc), but they have appearences at the biggest Dark Wave Festivals, like Wave Gotik Treffen. I think, you have to think about your music band criteria interpretation...-- 176.0.105.114 ( talk) 16:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • If you have reasonable-quality sources for an article, please add them and I'll happily change to "keep". Don't even have to be in English - David Gerard ( talk) 16:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I took a look at the interwiki links. The article in the German Wikipedia cites 3 sources, which seem to be the same 3 sources as the English version - these simply establish that this band performed at various concerts and festivals. The French version cites no sources, but links to the band's website via an external link. The Italian version likewise cites no sources, but has external links to the band's webpage, myspace page, and Discogs page. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 20:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Michig ( talk) 06:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Vector Software

Vector Software (  | 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 meet WP:CORPDEPTH, confirmed after several source searches. Available sources are mostly press releases, which do not establish notability. North America 1000 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 14:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete After wading through a mountain of press releases, I found one brief mention in a reliable source. Not enough. Nwlaw63 ( talk) 14:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - passes GNG. A few years back I did an eval of Vector Software's VectorCAST based on a reference in o book about Software Engineering (I think it was OBJECT-ORIENTED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING). I doubt that searching an entry "Vector Software" in books is a good idea, because the are too many false results, results referring to Vector Graphic rather to the company. On the other hand I found around 50+ books with a reference to Vector Software when used this string: "VectorCAST" and/or "Vector CAST".
    Book examples: Complex Systems and Dependability ( ISBN  9783642306624); Guide to Advanced Software Testing ( ISBN  9781596932869); Avionics Certification: A Complete Guide to DO-178 (software), DO-254 (hardware) ( ISBN  9781885544254); Verification, Validation and Testing in Software Engineering ( ISBN  9781591408512).
    Cheers Japco
  • Rename and Refocus: I've put a few results from searches on the article's talk page. My conclusion is that there is insufficient documentation to support an article about Vector Software the company, but there is sufficient documentation to support an article on their flagship product, VectorCAST. I would therefore suggest that the article be renamed to VectorCAST and the focus of the article revised toward the software, with a section therein related to the company. This could be inverted later if, indeed, sufficient published material emerges to support a company article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Bud Hub

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

The only links I found on a google search were primary sources. I dream of horses ( T) @ 02:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - With the list of strains table, it reads more like a promotional piece than anything else. The only assertion of notability is that they were ranked number one in a magazine, something that is not well sourced. I searched Google news and found nothing. There appears to be more notability regarding the founder than the actual company. Tiptoety talk 03:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — doesn't appear to be sufficiently notable. A Google search reveals few pages related to the business that could be used as sources, apart from things like the business's own site and its entry on Yelp. dalahäst ( let's talk!) 05:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The references stated in the article are secondary sources. See references on the bottom of article page. ( Giodamotta ( talk))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - My first searches at News and Books immediately found nothing which isn't surprising as this was recently founded and isn't something that would attract a lot of good attention. SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Goodwerp

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

Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NSOFT. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software (project management tool) article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent WP:RS references. The article includes a number of refs, but most are incidental mentions in larger lists of companies or products. The longer reviews are from poor-quality sources - Digjitale has no clear editorial policy and mentions sponsored posts as an option in its advertising section. The AisleOne review is marked as promotional. A search turned up incidental mentions but no further significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 13:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Of note is that the user who provided the "weak delete or redirect" !vote stated in a later comment that they would consider a page move of the article to "Murder of Joe Cole" to be acceptable. Discussion regarding a page move can continue on the article's talk page, if desired. North America 1000 03:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Joe Cole (roadie)

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

BIO1E. IMDB entry shows no major roles or credits. MSJapan ( talk) 23:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)| lambast 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - he's a pretty well-known murder victim; it could be renamed Murder of Joe Cole —Мандичка YO 😜 03:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete or redirect: At present, the article exists because it is linked from 100% (Sonic Youth song) and others. Joe Cole is a cultural reference for the LA punk scene, and so there is a fair amount of documentation of the story. So. . . reference, documentation. . . however, is there enough there to make a biography? It seems as if a biographical article might be overkill, but the articles that refer to him should flesh out their mentions into explanations. Again, this is a very weak delete from me. Hithladaeus ( talk) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I could support a rename/redefine, but I'm not sure that's a "motion" to make in an AfD. I would move to Keep a well-sourced Murder of Joe Cole article because of how widely documented and affecting the event was. (Wikipedia is not a memorial, but there are Stagger Lees and the like.) Hithladaeus ( talk) 01:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I could see a rename, although frankly, the extent of the article would still be little more than "Joe Cole was a roadie for Black Flag whose murder became an often-referenced cultural touchstone for the LA punk movement in the 1980s." There's nothing outside that timeframe or scene that I am aware of, and there isn't really any useful detail I've found on the murder other than its occurrence. Therefore, I think that the individual expansion in all the linked articles, while more tedious, ultimately would be much better, though, honestly, a lot of it is a "pop culture" trivia-type thing in the end, as are a lot of other song references by many other acts. MSJapan ( talk) 04:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There's a lengthy account of his murder and its aftermath in James Parker's Turned on: A Biography of Henry Rollins [40] Colapeninsula although a lot of that's about how Rollins reacted. His book is discussed or mentioned in some books on alt/punk music, but doesn't seem to have got much critical attention, or any coverage in mainstream press. ( talk) 10:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 02:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - additionally Rollins has discussed it frequently on stage and in articles like this one. It was also featured on Unsolved Mysteries back in the day. [41] —Мандичка YO 😜 10:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Reply So what you're saying is that the event is notable in a very small group of people (and is in fact almost entirely Rollins-driven in its coverage), but the person is not? MSJapan ( talk) 22:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Generally I think that's right, but it's not just Rollins. If it were, then this would be a much clearer case of merge/redirect to Henry Rollins. The problem is that Sonic Youth also wrote a song obliquely about the incident, and it was on one of their better selling albums and was chosen as part of their "Hits are for Squares" package. So. . . there are probably quite a few allusions outside of Rollins (maybe "The Decline and Fall of Western Civilization 2?"), but nothing seems to make the bio pass the bar. Hithladaeus ( talk) 01:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
        • I added a posthumous video made form video interviews he recorded in life, sourced to a brief but positive review in Rolling Stone, and a long news article about the impression the murder made on Sonic Youth and the music it inspired. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
          • There's more non-Rollins material in Goodbye 20th Century: A Biography of Sonic Youth,By David Browne, and in Babes in Toyland: The Making and Selling of a Rock and Roll Band,By Neal Karlen. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename Murder of Joe Cole. This is too well-sourced to delete. I take User:Hithladaeus's point about the lack of an adequate topic to merge into. Certailny it should be renamed, since notability is entirely posthumous. But when I ran a Proquest newspaper search on Joe + Cole + "Henry Rollins" I was stunned to find scores of articles in which this death is discussed at remarkable length. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep He is notable for his own works in addition to his death. The article could use improvement and expansion, though. I would not object strenuously to a move, but do not believe it is necessary. Scr★pIron IV 14:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep Subject is more than notable with many reliable references. Neptune's Trident ( talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Man's Search for God

Man's Search for God (  | 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 religious publication (and not even the correct title of the book) based entirely on primary sources. Jeffro77 ( talk) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. North America 1000 01:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael G. Dotzler

Michael G. Dotzler (  | 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:NBASE, as he never played a major league game. The article is a little confusing on this point since it lists the major league teams that own the A and AA franchises, not the minor league teams he actually played for. See http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=dotzle001mic. VQuakr ( talk) 01:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom. But not an A7. Rlendog ( talk) 00:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Unreliable sources. Playing in the minor leagues does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 03:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Lauren Boquette

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

Biography with no citations, and no evidence in article of direct Wikipedia:Notability (music), but a lot of almost-touched-fame. WP:PRODed in 2009. Closeapple ( talk) 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Closeapple ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Closeapple ( talk) 20:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker talk 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Unsigned, apparently, with independent releases. He has been on things that were released, but there is no indication that he was the credited artist or composer. Hithladaeus ( talk) 14:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now unless someone wants to userfy it. There's no suggestion of independent notability and he seems best known for working with other bands rather being notable himself and my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing significant here and here (the best results I found, News and Books). SwisterTwister talk 18:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_June_14&oldid=1142625520"