Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_June_25 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 June	26 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Image Production House

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google News pulls up nothing. A general Google search result pulls up WP:USERG sites. Ian.thomson ( talk) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete Looking through the article's history, there was never a point where it had any acceptable sources. Unsourced content needs to be removed, regardless of notability, and the entire page is unsourced. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - My first searches found nothing in the least good to suggest considerable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Zulu (musician)

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

Does not meet guidelines for notability under WP:NMUSIC 217IP ( talk) 22:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The subject of the article has claimed that he is notable under item #1 of WP:NMUSIC due to a local radio station having a 2.5 minute long segment that covered him and another musician, but I believe this publicity fails to be notable due to it being trivial, and more importantly, it being coverage due to their new album (release information). Release information does not count as notability. There are a couple other cited mentions of him, but they are all trivial. The article itself is also very lacking in neutrality and seems to be a platform for self promotion. For instance, until I removed it recently, it included a reference to a travel pillow he is attempting to manufacture and sell. It also includes multiple paragraphs discussing the history of reggae that seems to have nothing to do with the musician. 217IP ( talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hey Hello everyone :) MC Zulu here just speaking up for myself again.

Because of the fact that I myself did not post the article I am not going to take responsibility for what's there. I can answer claims of non-notability with several more examples of press coverage which are not listed. There are certain tour dates like headlining Sydney Fest in 2010 and being 'the face' on all the promotionals and city buses. My tracks have been used in national (USA) commercial campaigns and even a television series in Israel (called New York). My album releases have charted on CMJ repeatedly and one of them (Electro Track Therapy) even made it to the provisional rounds of 2012-13 Grammy nominations... Not bad for a guy who has self released the majority of his material. I still have not mentioned my collaborations with several high profile, "Notable" artists from all over the world.

Now I did come off the road to make sure my youth were raised right, and I don't regret it. As compared to a mainstream artist, these are not notable accomplishments. However the article infers that I was an influential figure on certain mainstream artists. It shows a timeline of events and coverage to support that. My release dates even support that. These are the points that User: 217IP deleted and contested, almost word for word, under another login (as User: 71.96.93.217). Said user focused solely on the Zulu Musician page during that time, and was even cited for engaging in an edit war. User then performed a revision to hide the citation from the 71.96.93.217 talk page. If you look that IP was even considered for a permanent block due to vandalism. This all happened in the past week.

I do not disagree that the MC Zulu article needs to be fleshed out, but as I received a great deal of scrutiny for simply adding my own picture last week, I am unwilling to make the changes. I have fans who follow me on social media and maybe they can help, I suppose. So I won't touch the article, but I will be here to answer any defamation against my character.... namely that I have attempted to use this site as a vehicle for self promotion. That is an incorrect assumption coming from one user who has been vigorously pursuing deletion as a first course of action.

Love and Blessings to you all...! Mczulu ( talk) 04:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete and draft/userfy if wished - The article has some notable sources but I'm not seeing much for solid independent notability and my searches found nothing good aside from a passing mention (thebanginbeats.com) at News. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

This will be my last entry on the matter because I have wasted 9 days on it, and curiously enough my website was hacked during the same time. According to your guidelines, notability does not expire, nor should an article be an indicator of such. I made (the right) decision not to tour perpetually a few years ago, so you should not be checking "News". Check "The Web" and go 20-30 pages out if you wish. Those results are definitely not related to JUST ONE event (again, part of your guidelines). In the end though, you are going to do whatever you want to do. It may not be what I'd hoped, but there's always a silver lining :) There's also perspective. Acknowledgement here is great, but a 10th day is far too big a price.

All The Best...!!! Mczulu ( talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Sorry, but NMUSIC's even soggier than PORNBIO used to be, and it's still subordinate to the GNG. I'm seeing a lot of blog posts about the guy, but a serious lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Joseph2302 ( talk) 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD ( talk) 18:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Brian Hall (mixed martial artist)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. All of the article's references are just links to his fight record and he has only two top tier fights. Jakejr ( talk) 20:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr ( talk) 20:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - With the two fights he does have with Bellator, both were preliminary fights so it seems less likely that coverage was generated and he meets WP:GNG. In addition, for his second fight it lists him as being on an unaired fight for the event when 11 of the 13 fights were aired in some capacity on that event. Makes me think even the promotion didn't find him very notable - otherwise they would have featured him higher. Therefore, I say delete. RonSigPi ( talk) 03:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete He lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG and the top tier pro fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa ( talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Conflicting Guidelines I believe this biography both meets WP:MMABIO which reads "Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations" while at the same time fails WP:NMMA which reads "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC". I have brought this to the attention of talk:MMABIO. Kevlar ( talk) 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Good catch on the guidelines they should merge a bit better. WP:NMMA trumps WP:MMABIO Peter Rehse ( talk) 08:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\
talk / 11:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Discrimination in education in Norway

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

This article (and the other parts of its walled garden: Discrimination in education and Hamideh Kaffash), seem to be part of a campaign that Sedai2014 ( talk · contribs) is involved in. See this version of the user page, and also this Facebook page.

The core case is an ongoing trial between Norwegian Police Security Service and the student/researcher Kaffash. NPSS fears that Kaffash and other Iranian students might acquire "knowledge potentially usable in development of mass destruction weapons". One might discuss whether this is a good case, but it is an ongoing trial. It is therefore highly inappropriate to present the case in Wikipedia as a matter of "discrimination in education", since this is the position of one of the parties in the trial.

The article Discrimination in education should also be considered for deletion. This is a relevant subject for an article, but the current content is highly biased with its overweight on iranian students. Orland ( talk) 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Orland:This is not accurate. The discrimination in education in Norway is not limited to the trial between Kaffash and NPSS. It is a bigger picture including university admission denial, visa issuance and resident permit renewal refusal over the fear of sensitive technology transfer. Are you aware that the Norwegian Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud CONFIRMED one of the cases of admission refusal as unlawful discrimination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sedai2014 ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 June 2015‎

Being part or not being part of the campaign is not a good reason for deleting an article in my view. As I discussed in talk one concrete example of education discrimination in Norway is referenced in the article where one student is not permitted to HBV due to her nationality according to the Norwegian Anti-discriminatory Ombud. At this stage I suggest modifying the title rather than deleting the whole article. Hkhaledi ( talk) 19:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Orland:Being a Norwegian I would understand that you do not like to see this article in Wikipedia. But deleting this article will not remove the dirt. It is not only the view of Iranian students but many Norwegian organization also protested the practice and spoke out against that. WorldPeaceLove ( talk) 20:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

There are some very predictable responses to this deletion proposal. The first one is that WorldPeaceLove ( talk · contribs), Educationinpeace ( talk · contribs) and Hkhaledi ( talk · contribs) supports the article. These three, together with Sedai2014 ( talk · contribs) are all new accounts, that seem to have been established to work with this/these articles. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014.
The second one is the allegation that is a case of pronorwegian patriotism from my side. It is not. As i said in my opening, one might discuss whether or not NPSS has a good case, but this article (and the structure of the other articles) is based on the viewpoints of one side in a trial, that is as far from Neutral point of view as it is possible to get. -- Orland ( talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I strongly support the article. It should be kept. Few improvements can enrich the existing content. WorldPeaceLove ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Norwegian organizations protesting the discriminatory practice

Student Parliament at University of Oslo in their resolution
International Students' Union of Norway
Student Parliament at University of Bergen
Industri Energi . They also publicly donated to help hire a lawyer for the Iranians.
The Interest Organization of Doctoral Candidates at NTNU (DION)
Association of Doctoral Organizations of Norway (SiN) Educationinpeace ( talk) 21:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Discrimination or not

Academic environment in Norway generally believes that the way Iranian students are treated is discriminatory. Here are few examples:

Norwegian University of Science and Technology appealed the resident permit rejection decision.

Prof. Jostein Mårdalen and also May-Britt Moser explicitly disagreed with the practice. Educationinpeace ( talk) 20:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is possible that Kaffash's case has got support. It is good for her, and interesting for the public debate on this question. But the support is still supporting one side in an ongoing trial. Bw -- Orland ( talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I support keeping the article as it can simply be reworked to be NPOV. Weegeerunner ^{chat it up} 21:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I also support keeping the article, although it needs substantial revision. A key problem is that the opposing viewpoint isn't public, the case rests entirely on secret evidence, as none of the publically discussable facts of the matter point to anything other than it being a discrimination case. The mere fact that the case rests on secret evidence makes the existence of the article warranted. Those are just facts, whether we like them or not. Also note that the Iranians side of the case is verifiable, PST's side of the case is not. Now, the weak part of the present article is that it emphasizes the ongoing trail, which makes the article less encyclopedic. However, Wikipedia has always had unfinished content, and sometimes, one side the case must be brought forward so that opposing viewpoints are tickled into improving NPOV. This happens all over Wikipedia every day. I say, let the edit wars erupt, but deletion is inappropriate! ;-) BTW, I'm Norwegian, and I've been editing a bit on Wikipedia since it was founded, and I was an editor of the predecessor Nupedia too. Kjetil Kjernsmo ( talk) 07:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Kjetil Kjernsmo ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

I also support keeping the article. Orland ( talk · contribs)'s biased approach to this article is very clear due to her/his nationality. The biased approach resulted in deleting Norwegian version of the article without discussion. As can be seen, Orland ( talk · contribs)'s reasoning has nothing to do with the content of the article and references mentioned here. As said before deleting the article is inappropriate and it should be improved by editing. Educationinpeace ( talk) 08:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

As Educationinpeace says, I havn't discussed the content, because this time it's the scope and concept of the article that is the problem. Anyone can contest my deletion on no:wp; so far noone has done it. -- Orland ( talk) 11:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

:@
Orland: I just noticed that you have reported some accounts active in this discussion to be closed. Your reason is that these accounts are quite new and have only shown interest in this debate. I can understand your frustration on pushing your personal opinion  and all your endeavors deleting this article from Wikipedia, but the accounts reported by you have not violated any Wikipedia rules. Please respect the rules and regulations as it is expected from an old user like you. More than that, please be aware that there are at least three old users who have supported  keeping the article with major or minor revision. Having known that the Norwegian translation of this article was immediately deleted by you without any further discussion or TALK shows a lot about your attitude and pushing your personal opinion on this topic. 
Hkhaledi (
talk) 13:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
reply

@ Hkhaledi:. I don't think that I have suggested any accounts to be closed. Are you confusing me with Nicky mathew? But I am not impressed by new accounts advocating their own article and campaign. Bw -- Orland ( talk) 19:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I cannot see that the majority of this article has anything to do with discrimination, and therefor it should be drastically cut down or simply deleted. There is a section about the attempt to introduce tuition fees for foreign students. Higher education in Norway is paid for by the taxpayers of Norway. Most universities of the world require some kind of tuition fee, why should introduction of such a feed in Norway be considered discrimination? There are a lot of grants which a worthy student can apply to for help with the tuition, or take up a loan - which many have to do - to cover tuition and other expenses related to his/her education. No person have a right to be educated in Norway. If Norway consider the person a security risk because of country of origin, then that is a security issue, not discrimination. Norway as a sovereign nation has the right to allow and refuse people access to the Kingdom of Norway. -- J. P. Fagerback ( talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

For a sudden introduction of a tuition fee for foreign students in a society that "free education" is a principle I agree that it is debatable if it is discriminatory or not.

But for the case of Iranian students (and few other nationals) there is no doubt that some students are discriminated, it is just a question if the discrimination is "legal" or "illegal". It is not only about visa, for the case of Mahtab Emami who already migrated to Norway, she was refused to an admission from HBV university college due to her national origin. Equality and Anti-discrimination Ombud (LDO) announced it as "illegal ethnic discrimination":

Sunniva Ørstavik from the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman believes that the rejection case is an ethnic discrimination, and thus unlawful

So as you see it is not only for those who want to enter Norway, it is also for those who have already been to Norway. Hamideh Kaffash and many other students were also working in Norway for a year or so, so it is not a question of sovereignty of Norway to accept/deny visa application, it is about the responsibility to have a justification for a country while depriving people from education and-or expelling them from the country. Sedai2014 ( talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Tuition fee for foreign students is obligatory in many countries (Sweden and Denmark also recently did the same, and usually Scandinavian countries follow the similar rules). This is not a discrimination but only a tax policy in different countries. On the other hand, there are many Iranian students in Norway who study in different fields, then there is no systematic discrimination against Iranian in Norway. This article and Hamideh Kaffash should be deleted. Arne-Barack ( talk) 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The way the Norwegian government wanted to introduce tuition fee was severely criticized and disliked by many in Norway and you know that the plan was withdrawn by the government under the public pressure at the end. This is the difference between US or UK and Norway where free education is considered statutory. But as I said earlier, it is debatable if skolepenger stuff is discriminatory or not.

For the case of Iranians students, it is true that not all the Iranian students are yet expelled from Norway and deprived from education. But those who underwent these conditions, were treated differently due to their nationality. I refer you to this article again where LDO clearly stated unlawful ethnic discrimination. Sedai2014 ( talk) 18:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I have been watching the systematic education discrimination, not only against Iranians but also against Chinese and Syrians, in Norway in the couple of past months. The right hand government of Norway, in an attempt to reduce the number of foreigners in Norway, has used security police to stop getting students from abroad. And perhaps Iran with its long list of sanctions is the easiest target. The attempt by the Norwegian government to put tuition fee for foreign students in 2014 does bring no doubt that the discrimination has happened in Norway at least in the past 2 years. Perhaps it is worthy to mention that the Samii minorities in Norway has also been suffering from discrimination since long time. After Iranian and Chinese, it seems like it is Russian's turn. Discrimination shall be condemned and I support keeping this article in Wikipedia as there is no doubt about the credibility of this article. Mikhail.bulgakov ( talk) 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

— Mikhail.bulgakov ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

delete the article is a hopeless POV WP:COATRACK. WP:TNT. Can be re-created by non-activitsts. Jytdog ( talk) 00:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The article is an indiscriminate mix of grievances which the author tries to promote. Kraxler ( talk) 18:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: Per SOAPBOX, COATRACK, TNT and IAR. We don't need any more manufactured battlegrounds on Wikipedia. Nha Trang ^Allons! 12:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sockpuppet potentials

Arne-Barack ( talk · contribs) is new account seeming to have been established to request deletion on Hamideh Kaffash and also challenge the current article in debate. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Jonh-Los. Sedai2014 ( talk) 11:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sedai2014 Jytdog ( talk) 01:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Look at the content instead of "a major contributor"

I know that you didn't like campaigning type of edit here, but the article itself is purely truth and very well-referenced. amiri don't delete the whole thing, just improve the tone as you wish. PenLover ( talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

PenLover the article fails almost every content policy we have. People who talk about The Truth^TM are generally not here to build an encyclopedia and generally don't give a rat's ass about Wikipedia and its policies - it is the completely wrong "head". Please read everything I wrote on your Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Esquivalience (alt) ( talk) 21:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Michael Blum (musician)

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

Fails Wikipedia:MUSIC, specifically they have not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. Additionally, they have only produced two albums neither of which have received significant national coverage, been certified gold, or been released by a major record label. Tiptoety ^talk 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Thank you for your input, but the albums released by this artist have received coverage by many significant national sources such as DownBeat Magazine, which is considered "The Bible of American Jazz." Other sources listed are All About Jazz and Vintage Guitar Magazine, both of which are national publications. Also, this artist has received coverage by New Hampshire Public Radio, a station with over 200,000 listeners. yallamanoozadazactoosh

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The reviews from Downbeat, All About Jazz, and Icon all look to be reliable sources from experienced journalists. A college newspaper, even one as august as The Dartmouth, doesn't carry the same weight, but there's still enough to meet WP:NMUSIC Colapeninsula ( talk) 10:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per the reliable sources identified. DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 02:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (NAC). Thine Antique Pen ( talk) 18:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Frizzy franklin

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

No references. Does not meet WP:GNG. IMO, speedy A7, but anonymous user reverted. ubiquity ( talk) 18:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 19:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete per A7. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete-Surprise this was not blp prod-anyway non notable, no refs. Wgolf ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete likely promotional page plus no refs. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 23:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Is notable and a self trout for me. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 ( Talk) 15:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Reza Shariffi

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

Possible WP:COI. Fails WP:GNG as of now. Article is also available in Draft:Reza Shariffi which maybe accepted later if notability could be established. JAaron95 ( Talk) 17:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ( Talk) 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 ( Talk) 17:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep The article requires cleanup, yes, because it is not written in encyclopedic tone, contains some unsourced statements, and has some other general issues; but that is not a valid reason for deletion. The nominator's main concern seems to be notability, but notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject. As nominated (prior to any cleanup) this article cites two such sources:
- Mohantha, Nibedita (April 27, 2015). "I Won't Deliver a Costume Unless I Love It Myself, Says Designer Reza Shariffi". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 25 June 2015.
- Iyer, Sanyukta (April 22, 2015). "BACKSTAGE PASS - FILM: TANU WEDS MANU RETURNS". Mumbai Mirror. Retrieved 25 June 2015.

I have taken the liberty of providing full citations rather than the bare urls which the article uses. Moreover, the subject of the article has won several major awards for his costume design work, including an IIFAA, which appears to be roughly equivalent to the Oscars in the U.S.

The nominator also mentions that it is a possible conflict of interest, but (1) that's not a reason to delete the article if the person is notable and (2) I'm not sure what gives the nominator that impression. The article reads like it was written by a fan, but not the subject himself or an employee. In short; no reason to delete, keep and cleanup. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 18:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:INDAFD: Reza Shariffi Reza Shariffi award

Keep per meeting inclusion criteria through awards and nominations notable to his industry. Also a bit of WP:BEFORE appears to show meeting WP:GNG as well. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Pardon me Jaaron95, but did you look at WP:ANYBIO before declaring a lack of notability? Costume designers can and have been found notable, and we have no need to delete what can be further expanded and sourced. Kudos to ONUnicorn for his efforts serving Wikipedia and its readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Skanking nhasitafara international

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

Doesn't meet general notability guideline, doesn't meet WP:COMPANY requirements. No hits at Google Books, no hits at Google News. No significant coverage by anybody, really. Looks like a startup, so it's far too early for an article. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - non-notable startup label. No notable signed artists (all links point to irrelevant articles). No length of operation, or release of culturally significant material. No reliable, independent sources found, so additionally fails GNG. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 13:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Using WP as PR tool for year-old business venture of zero note whatsoever. WP:NOTPROMO. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 16:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Not notable.-- DThomsen8 ( talk) 02:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Vlad Dragomir

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete – Not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL as player has not played in any WP:FPL and also fails WP:GNG. If the player should play for Arsenal in the Premier League or Champions League he will be notable, but that will probably not happen and he will play with the youths and at the moment this article should not exist. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete With regret, I have to agree with Qed here. While he has been included in Lega I matchday squads, he didn't come off the bench in any of the matches according to Soccerway. We'll have to wait until he plays for Arsenal before this article (and the regular Skyrim related vandalism) can be recreated. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The move to Arsenal is not notable in itself, he has merely joined the academy along with a host of other non-notable prospects. Fenix down ( talk) 07:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Kalie Wright

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

Does not appear to be a notable beauty pageant winner. Fails WP:GNG. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 17:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep as newly overhauled version of article (updated with addition of many reliable sources and improved prose from the version that existed at time of nomination) easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Subject has already won a national title, National Sweetheart, in addition to the Miss Idaho 2015 state title. - Dravecky ( talk) 12:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Dravecky's sources and improvements to the article. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 01:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep per WP:BASIC. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Stronger Community Party

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

Non-notable political party, fails WP:ORG. ukexpat ( talk) 16:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as A7. In my opinion, the article makes no claim of notability whatsoever. I initially nominated this for speedy deletion under A7, but someone disagreed with me. Gparyani ( talk) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep The user has shown notability by the evidence described in the newspaper article. A new political party also is notable due to changes in the UK main political parties, where some of the major ones have lost much support. Sherald01 Sherald01 ( talk) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment The above comment was added by the creator of the article. Gparyani ( talk) 20:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Just being a party isn't enough to be notable enough, and 1 source doesn't show significant, independent coverage, as required by WP:GNG. A party founded a few weeks ago isn't going to satisfy this, I can't find anything about them. Joseph2302 ( talk) 19:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete It's too soon, and Wikipedia is not the news. ~ ONUnicorn^{(
Talk|
Contribs)} problem solving 20:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Barry Saul

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

Non-notable local politician. Saul holds a position as a county councillor, with no evidence of ever having held any more significant office. He is the current chairperson (Irish: Cathaoirleach) of the council, but this is a year long ceremonial office with no extra powers. Saul is a standard county councillor doing standard county councillor things, and has not received any national coverage relating to him, which would make him notable. Snappy ( talk) 17:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy ( talk) 17:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy ( talk) 17:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Saul is the elected political head of a county council with a population of 206,261, the office has statutory powers which are dealt with in | Section 31, of the Local Government Act, 2001. He presides over an organisation with a budget of over €100m and employs over 500 staff. The authority holds tax raising powers over 80,000 households. His office is not insignificant. Quirinus X ( talk) 11:50, 12 June 2015

You are incorrect, its the Chief executive (or county manager) Owen Keegan who presides over the administration of the DLR county council. The chairperson of the council chairs the monthly council meetings, attends various openings and events, and wears the ceremonial chain of office for a year. He/she has no extra powers than an ordinary councillor, and certainly has no statutory powers. It has been established on wikipedia that city or county councillors are not inherently notable by virtue of their office and that includes chairs, they must meet additional criteria, which is not evident here. Snappy ( talk) 18:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Owen Keegan is actually chief executive of Dublin City Council and the position of county manager has been abolished Snappy. DLR actually has a budget of upwards of €160m Quirinus X. Recent changes to local government empower the Chairperson (Irish: Cathaoirleach) to preside over all meetings during their term of office and have enhanced their agenda setting powers, I'm not sure Snappy is fully up to speed on latest arrangements. However size does matter, I would argue the chair of smaller councils might not warrant an article, but Dun Laoghaire is one of the largest in Ireland by population and revenue on that basis Keep Reggiegal ( talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm quite up to speed on recent developments in local government. I mentioned "county manager" as this was what the head of the council administration was known as until last year. The chairperson always presided over meetings so that's not a new power, and as far the "agenda setting powers", that's mere political window dressing. Saul is just taking "Buggins turn" as chair until some one else takes over next year, and so on. Snappy ( talk) 18:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Local politician lacking the amount of sources needed to demonstate notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. County councillor is not an office that gives a person an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because they exist — and the sourcing here is entirely of the primary variety, with none of the reliable and independent kind to get him over WP:GNG instead. Bearcat ( talk) 18:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Saul isn't just a county councillor, he is Chairperson of Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County County Council the office is notable, just like Mayor of Dublin City Council Reggiegal ( talk) 02:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Nope. Chairperson of a county council counts for nothing more than any other county council seat does — the only possible path to getting him an article on Wikipedia is to source it well enough to get him past WP:GNG on the basis of the volume of media coverage present in the article as written, because the office itself cannot pass any NPOL criterion except #3 (which is entirely conditional on the quality of sourcing, and never gives anybody a "just because they exist" freebie.) But this article, as written, contains no valid reliable sourcing — it's entirely primary — and thus it's sitting exactly nowhere on the GNG scale. Bearcat ( talk) 03:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 16:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - For some unknown reason I actually thought this was related to Better Call Saul but obviously not , Well unlike that Saul this Saul has no evidence of notability at all so will have to say Delete. – Davey2010^Talk 17:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Sydney Theatre School

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

Non-notable school. Sammy1339 ( talk) 18:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

delete fails WP:ORG. Only awards diplomas, we only grant inherent notability to degree awarding institutions. LibStar ( talk) 16:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 16:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 22:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Jonny Bowden

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

This person is a blogger for the Huffington Post, and the only thing written about him is the short bio that all bloggers for that site get. Everything else is written by him. Other sources give his recommendations, but all result from interviews and just repeat his advice uncritically, so are also primary. Sammy1339 ( talk) 23:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square ( talk) 23:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now (maybe draft to userspace) with no possible target for moving elsewhere. My searches found several results but nothing significant here (fades by page 5), here and here. These call him "nationally known" and such but there doesn't seem to much in-depth coverage about him also. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete just another nutritionist trying to sell another miraculous diet, no coverage, just the ordinary struggle to reach an audience. Self-published books, blog posts, social media, nothing else... Kraxler ( talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep (nomination retracted, non-admin closure) Pichpich ( talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Fitrak News

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

There are rumours that this Pakistani news network will soon be launched but until it is, it's just a website consisting of a single page [6] and suspect Facebook announcements (see [7]). Pichpich ( talk) 13:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC) It appears I was wrong and this news network has now launched (though the website has changed names). I'm therefore retracting my nomination. Pichpich ( talk) 17:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Fitrak News is a pakistan's leading news network. It have more than 1200 employes and going to launch soon. In Pakistan it has already become a brand. On June 4 an international recognized senior journalist and analyst Hamid Mir conform his launching in Live Tv show Capital Talk on Geo News.(see [8]) HaXanraZaa ( talk) 6:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is increasingly looking like a complete hoax. Now even the official website is gone... Pichpich ( talk) 14:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Fitrak News is prominent from other media houses of Pakistan due to several reasons. It build largest media infrastructure in short time and select most experienced news team accourding to Dunya News. (see coverage of Axact, Fitrak and Bol [9]) EDU756b ( talk) 5:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please show me a credible report that this network will exist. How do you reconcile your claim that it will be "the largest media infrastructure" in Pakistan yet is unable to keep its home page open? Pichpich ( talk) 19:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Here is website of Fitrak News. Now it is under construction and going to launch soon. (see website [10]) EDU756b ( talk) 5:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 16:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Monica Elman

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

non notable dermatologist, with multiple unverified claims. The only verified material here that might indicate notability is joint authorship of a single textbook. DGG ( talk ) 14:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Lacks indicia of notability. Epeefleche ( talk) 11:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 16:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per above - no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. – Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. The Jerusalem Post cites her here, her book only has 1 customer review here (not an official test but an indication of a lack of notability for me). Overall, thinking the sources and references are not there, although it is possible there are more sources in (1) Israeli media or (2) dermatology journals. These I have not checked so I could change my view here.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unless somebody very quickly finds sources in Hebrew or Romanian that we can add here, this appears to be little more than a resume.

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

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

The result was merge to Female infanticide in China. Although "Femicide" does not conform to the article title policy as either a misnomer or POV fork, there is consensus to keep any uniquely referenced content. To facilitate that, for now the appropriate merge target and redirect would appear to be Female infanticide in China, without prejudice to further discussion regarding the creation of a new and appropriately titled article. Philg88 ^♦
talk 15:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Femicide in China

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

WP:POVFORK of Female infanticide in China. Sex-selective abortions cannot be considered femicide as these are not performed on legal persons, same way as in the relation of abortion to foeticide. 92slim ( talk) 23:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete as A7 —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: The neologism is barbarous as well. "Femicide" would not mean killing of females. "Gynocide" would be closer, but then it would include killing all the females of a place. Sex-selective abortion is a serious problem, and it raises all sorts of concerns, but it's not "femicide." Per nomination: POV. Hithladaeus ( talk) 01:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually Hithladaeus this is the term. Gendercide is the general term: femicide is for women and androcide for men. But I agree it sounds odd. See my suggestion below. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

There are notable cases of mixing Latin and Greek (or arguably doing so), but it seems, now that I see the debate behind the debate, that this one is drawing in sources from all sorts of places, including American legislators who have never met a Classical root. This word's value is aggravated by the debate over gender/sex, where "female" is biological, but "feminine" is gendered. Because that's also linguistically hot.... Oh, well. It doesn't seem like the article shows sufficient RS for the usage, either. Hithladaeus ( talk) 14:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - I see an admin declined speedy and I took another look. Maybe could use a different name but I see how this should not be deleted. :-) —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

So who is POV pushing now? -- 92slim ( talk) 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete (WP:NEO) and merge any contents to Sex-selective abortion or Infanticide. -- Aronzak ( talk) 05:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment - is there any reason the China articles should not follow the same format as the India articles ( Female foeticide in India and Female infanticide in India)? There's enough data in Sex-selective abortion#China and this article to make Female feticide in China, alongside Female infanticide in China. —Мандичка^YO 😜 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Nice POV pushing, "pro-lifer". Link to this user's "pro-life" arguments. -- 92slim ( talk) 09:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 11:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge/Rename - Most of the article is about infanticide and sex-selective abortion. Since we already have Female infanticide in China, it seems like it makes the most sense to reframe/trim this to be Sex-selective abortion in China, also using the material from sex-selective abortion#China. I think the question of "foeticide" vs. "sex-selective abortion" does need to be visited, but that can happen outside of AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC) reply
- I think it should go to Female feticide in China (since it's only females), and abortion (implying a medical procedure) is only one method of feticide; ie women who are beaten to force miscarriages is also feticide [11] —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Honest question Wikimandia: Would that be forced miscarriage or forced abortion? If you think this isn't the best place to answer in order to keep the delete discussion uncluttered, we can move to our talk pages. Pax Verbum 03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge to Female infanticide in China and Sex-selective abortion#China any content from the relevant subsections that is not in the target articles and delete the rest.

Though the lead is a typical POV ("Femicide is considered..." - weasel; ""gendericide" is inaccurate..." - POV) the subsections look ok or cleanable. However, this article is still a patchwork of three different issues (sex-selective abortion, sex-selective infanticide and discrimination), and there ought to be RS to (1) discuss those issues together and (2) give it the term "femicide".

On a side note, I have an unpleasant feeling of stepping in the midst of an ongoing feud between Wikimandia and 92slim. Methinks both ought to stay away from issues related to abortion of their own will, before they end topic-banned. Tigraan ( talk) 10:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Huh? Please review the related ANI regarding 92slim's behavior. Not a single person suggested I be topic banned (especially considering I have only a few edits in this area) or that I've done anything wrong. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think Tigraan was suggesting you be topic banned, or that someone else had said you be topic banned. I think Tigraan was just looking out for you and trying to provide a helpful comment based on what has been seen, nothing more or nothing less. Pax Verbum 02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

FYI, User:Wikimandia is banned for a week. So much for his behaviour. -- 92slim ( talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

My comment was more in line of "calm down everybody" and "I commented on this AfD but I do not want to be dragged in the feud it takes part in". I am not saying the wrongs are coming from both sides, either. Tigraan ( talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This could be touched on in Female infanticide in China, but the article itself should stand. While there definitely seems to be POV issues, the two subjects are separate and notable; I think that the content of the article is salvageable. Pax Verbum 02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Per above, I agree that content is salvageable, but there are two big issues (related to each other).

"Femicide" may be an unnotable neologism (not likely) or have unclear meaning (likely), see comment by Hithladaeus above. Having an unclear title is awkward.
The scope of "femicide" could be quite different from the article's "systematic killing of females" which includes abortion (saying it is "killing" is POV), infanticide, and higher death rates due to discrimination (not really "killing", either). The scope of the article is not clear.

While I could see an article "Women discrimination in China" (not a good title but you get the idea) that deals with all of this, the current title is incorrect. If, on the other hand, the scope is "crimes aimed specifically at women in China" we are looking at a different article. Tigraan ( talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete and merge its contents to a newly created Sex-selective abortion in China article just like it is stated above, because the word "femicide" is indeed a neologism. -- 31.4.238.181 ( talk) 12:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
- Comment - There are many well-documented and reliable sources employing the use of the word femicide, indluding Time and the BBC. Also, this article is not just about the word, but about femicide in China, so it's scope is much more encyclopedic. I would also like to point out that this !vote by an IP is the only edit made thus far from from that address... Pax Verbum 01:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. This is a well-referenced article on an extremely important topic. Anyone who doubts that sex-selection in China, whether accomplished by abortion, infanticide, or other means, is significant, need only look at this and note the large excess of Chinese males under 20. Given the far-reaching political and social impacts of this phenomenon, breaking the article up into abortion, infanticide, and whatever else just makes no sense. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 22:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I do not think anyone disputes the importance of sex discrimination in China. I do not dispute the relevance of an article on such a topic, though others might. But I disagree with the current title and (unclear) scope, see above; in particular, I would very much like to know what is covered by the "whatever else" you mentioned. Tigraan ( talk) 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - it's a POVFORK, sourced or not. The info is already in Female infanticide in China and Sex-selective abortion#China. Kraxler ( talk) 20:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

"The info is already out there" is not an argument, since redundancy can be accepted if it leads to better content organization ( Felidae exists along with Felinae and Pantherinae, even though all the info could be gathered in one or two articles). In that case, if there is consensus that the larger topic is notable, there ought to be an article, even if there are POV issues with the current one. Tigraan ( talk) 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Felinae and Pantherinae are subfamilies of Felidae, which means that they are different encyclopedic topics, as considered in Zoology. The article here nominated for deletion and the other two articles mentioned by me are about the same thing, only this one is looking from a biased POV at it, and exists to make a WP:POINT. Hence the need to delete it. Kraxler ( talk) 14:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Just noticed this deletion page again, actually there is an article (another WP:POVFORK unfortunately) covering the topic throughly: Missing women of China. -- 92slim ( talk) 23:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, merge anything not already in Female infanticide in China. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Merge. Tigraan has this right - the article could be made to be encyclopedic, but the title ensures confusion. Femicide is a neologism, albeit a notable one, and like many neologisms it lacks consensus for its meaning. The broadest reading of the term would support an article that covers systematic killing of females for reasons relating primarily to gender whether as sex selection prior to birth or by spouse/family/domestic partners or what have you. A more restrictive reading would have it duplicate Female infanticide in China. Absent reliable sourcing that conflates the topics together, a merge is the best way to organize the content. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep - This article is not just about infanticide but includes info on the deaths of Chinese women after they are born. An interesting topic. Referenced accurately, except I wish the Chinese references were in English. I would suggest even more recent references since so many are from <2010. Notable. Needs some 'wikifying'. Is the article's author participating in this discussion? Bfpage | leave a message 22:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

While I personally advocate against keeping I do not think that the sources being "old" is a problem (I mean, the problem was pretty much the same in the 1990s; the sources are not so old). Pinging Luke100102 per your remark (I thought AfD pinged the page creator but apparently not). Tigraan ( talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I have been asked to give my opinion and this article deserves deletion per WP:POVFORK policy. There are indeed at least 3 other articles that contain the exact same content with a different wording/structure. -- Vitilsky ( talk) 10:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. ( non-admin closure) • Gene93k ( talk) 22:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Robert Maranto

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria set forth in WP:ACADEMIC. Publications alone, though perhaps extensive and interesting, do not constitute notability. KDS4444 ^Talk 15:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

He writes, and has lots of opinions, but unfortunately no-one seems to write about him. As a result, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF, so Delete. Joseph2302 ( talk) 15:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Looking at the criteria established for academics, Dr. Maranto seems to satisfy the requirements. For example, 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Dr. Maranto has been a professor at ten institutions, and he also holds the Endowed Chair of Leadership at the University of Arkansas.

Additionally, another criterion mentioned is 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Dr. Maranto served in the Clinton administration. He has also published 11 books and two are awaiting publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hspainter ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep As the holder of a named, endowed chair at a major university, I believe he passes WP:ACADEMIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Request withdrawn. KDS4444 ^Talk 01:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Compilation album. postdlf ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Various Artists

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

Article has no sources and some unsourced statements. Does not meet notability, in my opinion. StewdioMACK ( talk) 15:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete not really seeing anything that raises it above a [[WP:DICDEF] - possibly could be reused at Wikitionary? Artw ( talk) 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong keep: A very commonly used term in tens of thousands of items and almost in all languages particularly in music albums. There was an earlier deletion request on this and the consensus was to keep it. werldwayd ( talk) 17:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various artists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

"A very commonly used term" no matter its usage is not a justification of WP:Notability for a Wikipedia article. And the actual result of the previous AfD was soft redirect to Wikt:various artists, which might have happened, but the Wiktionary page has since been deleted. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete It's a commonly used term to credit albums (primarily compilations and soundtracks) with contributions by different artists, yet the contributors are the artist's themselves. The concept itself is not discussed in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Compilation album. This does not need to be kept as an article, as there are no sources and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. However, I don't think outright deletion is the answer, and this is a likely search term. – Chase ( talk / contribs) 21:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Compilation album per Chasewc91 - Albums like Now that's what I call music have various artists so it's a plausible search term so it makes sense to redirect than delete. – Davey2010^Talk 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

I've done some digging - Various artists ended up at RFD and was deleted and retargeted to Compilation Album because the Wiktionary article was deleted so it's probably not a wise idea to redirect back to Wiktionary... Just thought I should point that out... – Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment Red links could be unlinked with Twinkle: Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc#Unlink. A hatnote should be put on Various Artists – Archives Vol. 4 once this AfD is closed. The same situation applies to Various Authors. I've started a thread on the notability of concepts at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of concepts. I think the issue deserves an essay or section of an essay. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 ( Talk) 15:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Scrapy

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

Completing nomination for 149.68.7.120, rationale is as follows: Article does not meet notability guidelines. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:57, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Leaning towards delete - All my searches found nothing significant and notable aside from the following results here and here. Unless other sources are found, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 19:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC) reply

You don't explain why we should ignore the results that you did find. Obviously, if you're going to put search results aside, you're not going to be successful in establishing notability. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Because the results didn't seem significant enough. SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 20:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep The nominator states that he has no opinion and so clearly has not done due diligence on this while the opinion of a passing IP does not seem reliable when it only takes a moment to find a source for the topic such as Software Quality. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. ( talk) 07:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not the nominator, 149.68.7.120 is. The reason the nomination process has to be completed by a registered user is purely technical. I would in fact have refused to complete the nomination if it was obviously flawed, but it isn't - the article does not contain any indication that the subject is notable. Hut 8.5 20:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 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. (soft) slakr^\
talk / 11:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Salem - Karur Passenger

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

Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a timetable. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Fails WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: per WP:NOT The Dissident Aggressor 21:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep: I've cleaned it up, removed the timetable, linked the locations, and we should wait for someone to find sources. If it's a distinct railway line (as opposed to just a timetabled service), then it should have an article. Pam D 07:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Looking further: as Clarityfiend points out it's a train service not a railway line, but it appears that in coverage of Indian railways it's the services, not the lines, which get articles - see Tiruchirappalli_Junction_railway_station#Services etc, compared to the UK coverage of lines (eg Category:Railway lines in North West England ). I've added Clarity's two refs to the article. Pam D 08:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. According to these The Hindu articles, [12] [13] it appears to be just a train service on the Karur-Namakkal-Salem line. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

A couple of sources about the train, yes, but probably not enough to meet WP:GNG here. However there's a lot more coverage of the line it runs on (examples: [14], [15]) - surely it would be more useful to refocus the article on that and make the passenger train a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.190.197 ( talk) 19:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Canelo (publisher)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Antigng ( talk) 10:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep I was the creator of the page and for full disclosure am also a director in the company. We would argue the company is notable, as evidenced by the following articles: in the Guardian, in BA magazine, in The Memo, in TeleRead, on writing.ie, in Publishers Weekly, and many more.

Each of the three founders, myself included, have been featured as 'Rising Stars' of the publishing industry by The Bookseller, the prominent trade magazine (link to this year's list). The company's Publishing Director was invited to give the keynote address at this year's International Digital Publishing Forum at BookExpo America, the largest book fair in the US, and in the Publishers Forum, Berlin demonstrating international interest (link). The company is notable as it is a digital-only publisher put together by prominent figures from the traditional publishing industry, for its ambition to become Europe's best digital publisher, and for the higher royalty rates it offers its authors. Our first books are released over the summer of 2015 and will include titles from notable authors, such as Martin Davies. Hope this helps. Happy to discuss further, as only want to enhance the site, and am not an experienced wikipedia editor. iainmillar18 ( talk) 08:01, 16 June 2015

~~Delete~~ Some new publishing ventures excite the industry and get news coverage. ~~This one hasn't.~~ E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete for now with no possible target for moving elsewhere - The non-notability is obvious considering the 2015 foundation but I searched and the best I found were various links (nothing significant though). SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Changing my !Vote because I was wrong. Canelo has exactly the sort of news coverage and buzz that a promising new publisher hopes for. That was some of the worst source-hunting I have ever done. As pointed out above, sources are there to support a page (which needs expansion) on a new company generating coverage because the 3 principals are established professionals and the industry is taking them seriously. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Let's let this promising publishing house prove itself before we add it to WP. If it survives and makes an impact, then an article makes sense. Unfortunately (and I hope this isn't their fate) many new businesses with great ideas fizzle early in their days. A WP article should be reserved for a company that has already made a difference, not one that might in the future. LaMona ( talk) 06:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep This article^WebCite from The Memo provides substantial coverage of the subject. The Memo has editorial oversight (see http://www.thememo.com/our-team/^WebCite). For example:
Alex Wood
Editor in Chief of The Memo. Alex is also a regular contributor to The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, CNN, CNBC and is a visiting lecturer at City University London.
This article^WebCite from Writing.ie also provides substantial coverage of the subject. Writing.ie has editorial oversight (see http://www.writing.ie/about/^WebCite).
This article^WebCite from TeleRead discusses Canelo's formation. TeleRead has editorial oversight (see http://www.teleread.com/faqs/^WebCite.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Canelo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 06:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Softqube Technology

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are either directory entries (1,2), corporate website (2,4) or do not mention subject at all (4-8,10). I could not access ref # 9, but the title doesn't suggest that it provides deep coverage of Softqube. I tagged this for speedy but creator removed it, and then I decided that the sheer number of references, though irrelevant, would deter a speedy, so I am here. ubiquity ( talk) 14:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki ( talk) 17:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Bazj ( talk) 19:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete and comment: Gartner Magic Quadrants are very reliable (they are the most trusted of the IT analyst firms) and they typically include a substantitve amount of detail. However, given that the firm only has 54 employees, no other quality sources are provided, and we have no way of verifying the source includes them (the mis-use of other sources suggests it cannot be trusted), I vote delete. CorporateM ( Talk) 19:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The Triangle Pest Control Scholarship Fund

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:GNG. Sole reference is a press release. ubiquity ( talk) 17:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: I hate to break it to her, but that $1,000 won't buy her more than a couple of t-shirts at the Duke book store. Triangle Pest Control is a regional exterminator serving the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area. It advertises during basketball and football games for all three universities (UNC, NC State, and the other one). This article is a press release for a small scholarship. Hithladaeus ( talk) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete, nonnotable small scholarship. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. This could have been nominated for speedy deletion as a non-notable event. Nick-D ( talk) 10:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Janis Menken

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

BLP for wife of Alan Menken. Was the subject of a documentary when she was an 18 year old ballet student, but I didn't find any significant coverage of her independent of her husband. Article author also wrote her IMDb bio. -- Finngall ^talk 18:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: Checking out the citations. The cites provided do not back up the claim that she won a Tony award (though her husband Alan was nominated in 1994).

NY Times 1984: brief mention (as Janis Roswick)
The Invisible Art of Film Music: A Comprehensive History: Brief mention of her marriage, page 369
NY Times 1994: not mentioned in this article at all (2-page article)
NY Times 1986: Brief mention that she's married to Alan, the subject of the article
People: Brief mention that she's married to Alan, the subject of the article.

There's nothing further to be found via Google search under either last name (Roswick or Menken). To sum up, there's not the in-depth coverage we need to establish notability for this person. -- Diannaa ( talk) 00:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per above and as the product of long-time-banned and New Rochelle-obsessed User:Jvolkblum. Wknight94 ^talk 16:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Reply @ Wknight94: I opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emma 1984 based on this article and others surrounding the Menken family. Article author was blocked for sockpuppetry, but the group of socks was determined to be unrelated to Jvolkblum. -- Finngall ^talk 15:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

FYI, the stub A Dancer's Life appears to be a WP:COATRACK article to bolster the notability of Ms Menken. The film is notable in its own right, imo. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - I think there's a stub in there somewhere, but the sources found lack significant coverage of her, not her husband. My biggest problem is that this is so badly written and edited, that it needs to be deleted and started from scratch. For example, there are So Many Oddly Capitalized Words and has such poor sourcing that normal editing processes won't fix this mess. Bearian ( talk) 11:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The Coding Institute LLC

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

Fails WP:CORP, Notability claims are a stretch and only two sources are basically directories. Major contributor seems biased and closely related to the subject. Sulfurboy ( talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. I've previously deleted a number of spammy pages by the creator of this article. While I assumed good faith and declined the speedy deletion request on this article in light of this request from the page creator, I agree that unless there's radical improvement this shouldn't be on Wikipedia and the sources don't appear to exist to allow said improvement. – iridescent 18:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, the given references don't come close to proving notability; the Bloomberg link is just a profile, I'm sure they have profiles on everything. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(
talk) 15:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete and transwiki to WikiSource. (I take it it's been moved to WikiSource, but I'm happy to provide a copy of the deleted article on request if that hasn't been done.) j⚛e decker ^talk 14:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

MVEL Language Guide

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

Contested PROD; allegedly "valuable information" in the form of a guide or manual but does not belong in Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikisource. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Moved To WikiSource Jamesont ( talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Reformatted and indented. APerson ( talk!) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete. Belongs on Wikisource - maybe. Certainly doesn't belong here. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE. APerson ( talk!) 18:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: belongs at Wikisource; adopt @APerson rationale. Quis separabit? 13:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Met the Heymann Standard. ( non-admin closure) Mr. Guye ( talk) 21:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Laurie Patton

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

no independent notability, see WP:Notability and lots of linkedin and WP:Primary verification Govindaharihari ( talk) 07:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails notability. Article created by an associate of the subject, and was completely unreferenced until April of this year. The majority of edits to it have been made by an account identified as the organization, associates, and the subject of the article. See diff [16] The references provided are primary, including Linked In and Facebook. Neither the subject nor the organization are notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Scr★pIron^IV 17:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 01:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I am at a loss to understand why you would delete my entry after ten years. Yes, it was submitted by a (now deceased) business associate and yes I have updated it and added references when it was brought to my attention that the original entry was deficient. I have also asked a number of times for advice on how to provide appropriate information to substantiate the contents. Apart from the activities outlined that I have undertaken over the past 20 years or so I am now the CEO of the not-for-profit peak Australian organization representing everyone who uses the Internet and the Australian chapter of the global Internet Society. I was brought in to increase the organization's profile and effectiveness. I have rebranded the Internet Society of Australia as Internet Australia, appeared before parliamentary inquiries and have had numerous references in newspapers outlining the work of the organization under my leadership. Please let me know if there I anything more that I can do. Respectfully, thanks InternetAU ( talk) 05:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Since you probably have access to Australian sources that would support this article, please provide third-party, neutral sources that can be used to support notability. Use of the sources like linkedin and the organization's own web site are not suitable because they are created by and closely related to the subject of the article. There are specific policies on what sources can be used. You can start with WP:BIO, but there are others that you can follow up on. LaMona ( talk) 23:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hello. Please don't take it personally. Wikipedia has notability guidelines and requires independent reliable verifications also - see WP:Policies and guidelines. Please ask yourself, are you really notable or is the company you work for notable? Have a lot of independent reliable sources written about your life details? If the answer is no then please understand, you warrant a mention in your company article but you don't warrant a wikipedia biography about your life. Regards - Govindaharihari (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Govindaharihari| Nothing personal taken, but to answer your questions. Yes, there is ample material on the world wide web about me stretching back twenty years. I don't currently represent a company I run an not-for-profit organization that represents everyone in Australia who uses the Internet. I have appeared before parliamentary reviews and been written about in that context. I was brought in to head up the Internet Society of Australia on the basis of my notoriety; specifically for having undertaken a major review of Indigenous broadcasting for the Australian Government and brokering a significant deal that avoided the certain demise for the National Indigenous Television channel (NITV). I also created and headed up the Australian Community Television Alliance and on behalf of all the community TV stations in Australia I lobbied the Australian Government and against many people's expectation secured access to a digital channel without which community TV would have ceased to exist. At one point someone unknown to me added me to the list of notable Australian television executives. When I look at some of the others on that list and more generally at some of the other people who have entries on Wikipedia I respectfully and as humbly as possible suggest that I am not out of place on Wikipedia in comparison. I hope this helps avoid my being deleted after ten years and would be happy to help substantiate what is on my site. If necessary I can certainly get others to do so too. Thanks InternetAU (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.211.86.20 ( talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

strong delete many of the sources are pure padding and even the use of LinkedIn. The swarming here of single purpose editors with long winded text is a dead giveaway of conflict of interest and in my own experience in years of AfDs a clear indicator of lack of notability. LibStar ( talk) 16:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as clearly promotional, The cites are beyond ridiculous - Since when has LinkedIN became a source? .... There's plenty of sites to advertise but WP isn't one of 'em!. – Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per Tomwsulcer's rewrite & others improvements - The article's much much better than it was when nominated. – Davey2010^Talk 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Agree article is in sad shape but there are many references here in Australian media indicating he easily meets the WP:GNG. Contributors, reading this, who wish to keep the article, suggest strongly that all the poorly referenced stuff is trimmed out, and only referenced content included.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Those are about his company position, not about a notable life in regards to notability for a wp:BLP , a redirect and a mention at the company article Internet Society of Australia is sufficient to report those details. Govindaharihari ( talk) 02:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

For me, the sources suggest he is not simply a "company position" but a major player in Australian business and Internet governance, his views are quoted widely, what he says affects what happens. He's at the confluence of important industries (Internet, business) in a nation of growing international importance.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 09:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

He is not the subject most of the coverage, it's like a company or police spokesman being notable because he gets quoted a lot in the media. LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Here is in-depth coverage and here too showing Patton easily meets the WP:GNG. He is clearly a major player in Australian Internet media and politics, with numerous references; he is not simply quoted a lot, but he impacts what happens to a considerable extent.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:HEY - all the spurious and self-creates sources have been removed. Upon reading it now, she easily passes WP:GNG. Bearian ( talk) 11:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator Philg88 ^♦
talk 04:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

John Dunning (journalist)

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. There is another notable writer called John Dunning, which made results difficult to obtain. Boleyn ( talk) 18:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. According to the Wikipedia article, his books sold more than 15 million copies and he became "by far, Luxembourg's most prolific author", so there is assertion of importance. He was an author primarily, so the parenthetical disambiguation in the article title should not be "journalist"; article should be moved to "John Dunning (True Crime author)" (or perhaps "(Luxembourg author)" or "(law and order writer)" or "(true crime writer)").

His stories were lead ones in True Detective (magazine) and other true crime mags...according to a Yahoo question (not a reliable source but) "Dunning wrote true crime stories for True Detective and other true crime magazines in the 70's and 80's. His story was usually the opening one in each magazine and almost as a rule, it dealt with some titillating Euro crime of passion". Supported by his being first author listed for a 1972 issue of True Detective per this Amazon used book for sale item.
He appears in Dictionnaire des Autours Luxembourgeois: see his bio in Dictionnaire des Autours Luxembourgeois. (source not yet used in article; I notice it lists at least one more work by him: "Truly Murderous. Horrific modern European murders reconstructed").
There is what appears to be a feature article about him. It was published March 22, 1990 while the author died November 1990. "Un éminent sinologue et citoyen du monde. À la mémoire de John Dunning, écrivain luxembourgeois de langue anglaise". In: Die Warte-Perspectives 22.03.1990, by Fernand Hoffmann. It is categorized in genre: "Divers > Compte-rendu, portrait d'auteur, interview". Google translates title as "An eminent sinologist and global citizen. In memory of John Dunning, Luxembourg writer of English. In: Die - Warte Outlook 22.03.1990".
Per this, Dunning is apparently also covered in Hoffman's "Geschichte der Luxemburger Mundartdichtung" which Google translates to "History of Luxembourg dialect poetry" or maybe that is "History of Luxembourg writing" or something more general than "poetry". Dunning is one of the 123 authors mentioned. Hoffman's work includes "First volume : From the beginnings to Michel Rodange . Second volume : From Aendréi Duchscher to the present. With a bibliography of Carlo Hury and a preface by Prof. Dr Hugo Moser" (also translated by Google)
Interestingly, in a critique of true crime: "Sometimes bad things happen but it isn’t the writer’s fault. The late John Dunning, for example, used to legitimately buy the basis of his crime stories from an agency. One day he received a letter from another crime writer pointing out that his dates were often wrong. John checked with the agency– and they admitted that they’d thought modern crime stories sold better than older ones, so were adding twenty years to each date!" That is in "Shots", an e-zine: "True Crime: The Good, the Bad & The Ugly" by Carol Anne Davis.
Wikipedia coverage of True crime genre is not great...impossible to tell if Dunning was an important leader, but possible. More sources likely, say in books about the genre.
Article was tagged by the deletion nominator in March for COI, for the wikipedia article creator appearing to be a SPA. But that was harsh, seems unfounded, looking at Johnnychips' contributions, a beginning wikipedia writer not showing specific knowledge (unsure if British is right or wrong nation) back in 2008. Everyone is an SPA in their first edits! I am removing that tag about COI now.
It seems to me to be a good service to distinguish between this John Dunning vs. the one who wrote detective novels. Amazon and other places mix them up together. It's not required but it is nice when Wikipedia provides definitive clarification on something not understood properly in the world.

-- do ncr am 20:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. ".. results difficult to obtain." Oh dear, very sorry. But that's hardly a good reason to delete. A dozen books? All quite popular, I would imagine. And all in a Random House imprint? Hardly self-published, is he? Martinevans123 ( talk) 21:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. 15 million??? reply
Comment Martinevans123, there is never any need to be rude and sarcastic to other editors here. I mentioned that there was another writer of the same name so others would be warned that there would be some false positives; not as a reason that this article should be deleted. You could have made the same points in a neutral or collegiate manner. Withdrawing nom per Doncram. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn ( talk) 06:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The context of your comment made your intentions rather unclear. That seemed (and still seems) to be a reason for your nomination. You think this is "rude" by typical Wikipedia standards? I'm sorry if you really find a little sarcasm so hurtful. But my comment was directed at only one editor, not editors in general. Martinevans123 ( talk) 09:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC) p.s. 15 million??? reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Mirella Simoncini

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I was somewhat hampered by only being able to read English, so didn't consider a prod. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn ( talk) 19:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I couldn't find any sources besides listings of her teaching assignments in various schools. She's obviously an active dancer to gets hired to teach, but all of the information in the article is unsourced. Unless someone has access to Dutch sources, this one doens't meet the criteria. LaMona ( talk) 23:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete My sweeps of international and Dutch media did not reveal anything substantial. Plus the article does not address the issue of what this person is notable for (usually a sign to me that the article doesn't belong here).-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 00:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Gennaro A. Jerry Marino

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

Very minor politician. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix ( talk) 19:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep Similar level of politicians such as Teresa Tomlinson, have articles on Wikipedia.-- Nudgeboaty ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Hardly the same, Teresa Tomlinson is the mayor of a major city (pop. 202,000+). Marino was a mayor of a city of only 5,000. Regardless, this article needs to stand on its own merits. Just because Tomlinson exists does not mean this article is notable. reddogsix ( talk) 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:GNG a small town, and just very little information Shad in Net 01:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet ( talk • contribs)
Delete: Mayor of a very small place, and the article makes no claims for notability. It says that he "worked on" some projects and that he accused "the chief" (of police?) of "verbal harassment." Is that a BLP issue? So, the article makes no claims as a biographical subject or as an office holder. Hithladaeus ( talk) 02:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Wikipedia does not extend an automatic notability freebie to all mayors just because they were mayors — mayors of major cities who can be sourced to major market media are certainly deemed to pass WP:NPOL, but mayors of small towns must pass WP:GNG on their own steam and do not get an automatic right to have a Wikipedia article just because they exist(ed). But this doesn't even approach the volume necessary to claim GNG — the sourcing pretty much just WP:REFBOMBs one single fact about his life with practically every single text hit that can be found on his name at all, including Blogspot blogs, primary sources, directory listings, news blurbs and smalltown newspapers which aren't distributed widely enough to demonstrate that he merits coverage in an international encyclopedia. That's not the type of sourcing that gets a person over the Wikipedia inclusion bar — nothing here constitutes or sources any reason why he should be considered more notable than any other smalltown mayor. Bearcat ( talk) 22:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: fails WP:BASIC, the only coverage I could find is [17]. Esquivalience ^t 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete. Mayor of a very small town. No other apparent notability. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

DGM Services

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete #1 - a newspaper sponsored award where employees vote for their employer (not an RS) #2 dead link #3 dead link #4 individual articles based on #1. A news search gets some routine biz news, all from the Houston area, none that could confer notability. LaMona ( talk) 23:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Unfortunately, there are no good sources to suggest this is notable with my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) only finding this (News). SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete as no evidence of notability - I haven't found anything that's even worth adding so will have to say Delete. – Davey2010^Talk 22:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

BMG Labtech

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find any coverage in RS, only a multitude of press releases. SmartSE ( talk) 12:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete: They may have a novel assay, and it could be that searches would show that the particular assay will be notable at some point, but the company has not generated enough discussion to pass GNG yet. Hithladaeus ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Claremont McKenna College#Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum. I don't usually close on one !vote but what's on this article is now on CK College and seeing as redirect is prefferred over deletion seems pointless to drag it on. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010^Talk 22:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum

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

Article about a college club with very weak references Inwind ( talk) 22:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Claremont_McKenna_College#Marian_Miner_Cook_Athenaeum if the article can't be improved with my searches finding nothing outstandingly good here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) slakr^\
talk / 12:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Telsonic Ultrasonics

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I think the importance should be, so that the author should quickly find the arguments in favor of retaining article. Shad in Net 01:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet ( talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe delete - Shad Innet's comments are vague about clarifying its notability so my extensive searches found results and I'm not sure if it is enough for notability; here, here, here and here. I'm voting more delete unless other people think this is in fact notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Sam Walton ( talk) 13:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Salmat

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

Basically just a company advert for a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:PROMO. Joseph2302 ( talk) 22:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete by WP:GNG Shad in Net 01:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet ( talk • contribs)
Delete for now and draft to a willing user's userspace as my searches found several results but nothing that appears solid here (News, results fade page 3), here, here ("leading multi-channel communications and customer services company") and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - this is nothing more than an advert for a privately-held, non-publicly-traded corporation. We are not a free webhost. Bearian ( talk) 14:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

- Comment actually Bearian, that's not correct, the company is public traded on the ASX. [18] Adpete ( talk) 07:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep, poor article content is not a valid deletion reason. This company clearly meets WP:GNG as is evidenced by numerous articles in the Fairfax Media publications. There are over 8,000 mentions of the company in Factiva over 30 years. A search of EBSCOhost's Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre yields over 400 results. Obviously not all of these results are significant coverage but there are many many examples. Hack ( talk) 12:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Mitchell, Jake (2014-01-15). "Salmat boss ready for transition to digital operations". The Australian Financial Review. Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
2. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-07-24). "Junk mail company Salmat upbeat on plan to add digital to 'old media'". The Sydney Morning Herald. Australian Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
3. "Salmat annual profit up 42.5%". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2010-08-27. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
4. Rochfort, Scott (2003-09-02). "Salmat tops prospectus, shares hit record $2.51". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
  The article notes:
  
  Australia's largest direct mailer and call centre operator, Salmat, capped-off its first nine months as a listed company yesterday by beating its prospectus targets in all departments.
5. Phillips, Scott (2012-05-11). "A company poised to deliver". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
6. Lee, Julian (2011-02-15). "Salmat switch to digital cushions profit slide". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
7. Rochfort, Scott (2002-10-19). "Salmat seeking $76m for listing". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
8. Tan, Su-Lin (2014-08-26). "Salmat to pay dividend despite dive in profit". The Australian Financial Review. Fairfax Media. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
9. Broekhuyse, Paul (2013-05-07). "Salmat beefs up customer division". The Australian. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
10. Gedda, Rodney (2010-04-09). "Taming the Knowledge Towers: Salmat CIO David Hackshall says building knowledge clusters is critical to the company's success". CIO Australia. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
11. Barwick, Hamish (2011-02-04). "Salmat to embark on massive data centre consolidation". Computerworld. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
12. Barwick, Hamish (2011-12-01). "Salmat restructures to focus on digital services division: Chief executive expects digital will make up half of the company's revenues by 2013". Computerworld. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
13. Barwick, Hamish (2011-11-29). "Salmat to implement Avaya call centre technology". Computerworld. International Data Group. Archived from the original on 2015-06-27. Retrieved 2015-06-27.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Salmat to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard ( talk) 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH, per a review of the sources provided above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - I support what northamerican1000 writes Alec Station ( talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Per the sources Cunard has found, good job. GuzzyG ( talk) 18:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. I see no reason why this should have been relisted. The discussion shows very clearly that the consensus was to delete. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Turtle Mountain (company)

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

Non-notable company, basically the page is just a product list. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 ( talk) 23:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly
HMSSolent)}| lambast 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It seems that delete by GNG Shad in Net 01:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet ( talk • contribs)
Delete for now and draft - I'm very familiar with this company as I'm a yogurt eater and this is a well-known soy manufacturer but unfortunately it has not received considerable coverage with my searches finding the best here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete – The notable topic is more likely to be the So Delicious brand, but even that doesn't have significant coverage. Ibadibam ( talk) 23:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 17:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Soft deletion equivalent to an uncontested PROD. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Brutal Gamer

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

Non-notable video game blog. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The1337gamer ( talk) 23:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. ( G· N· B· S· RS· Talk) The1337gamer ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer ( talk) 00:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ( Talk) 14:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Praise the Lord (TV program). ( non-admin closure) JAaron95 ( Talk) 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Praise The Lord (TV program)

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

No reliable sources, no independent significant coverage found (looking for "Praise the Lord" and "Crouch"). The title is misspelled - "Praise the Lord" and "Praise the Lord (TV program)" with the correct spelling already redirect to the network article. GermanJoe ( talk) 13:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - it says it's an award-winning program (what award?) that's been on for 41 years, but there's no sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

Keep if the programme has been running continuously for 41 years, I would have thought that was notable in itself. Rename to Praise the Lord (TV program) with correct capitalisation. A previous article (now redirected) was moved to Praise the Lord (also redirected) as having an unnecessary disanmbguator, but the plain phrase ought to redirect to an article on Christian praise. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep. Many sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6-- Samuel J. Howard ( talk) 18:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep or maybe simply redirect to Trinity Broadcasting Network if the article can't be improved - I'm very familiar with both TBN and this program (very well-known in the Christian TV community) and a few searches finds results here and here. Unfortunately, I can't find much to clarify the awards and IMDb has nothing either but surely these sources along with TBN being notable are acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Change to Weak keep (as nom) - no idea, why my first Google search for "Crouch" didn't work (searches on google.com work just fine for me usually), but the additional sources show some notability and possible additional content for an article. The current article is underdeveloped and doesn't really present a complete picture of the program and its background, and could use the attention from a neutral topic expert. GermanJoe ( talk) 07:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Danish Sheikh

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

I came across this as an A7, but the article does have two sources- enough to where there is enough of an assertion of notability for speedy deletion criteria. I wasn't able to find much else via a search on Google or on the Indian English Newspapers Search, so I'm bringing this to AfD. Even if his claims of being the first charisma coach are correct (a dubious claim considering that this sort of coach has existed in various formats throughout the years) that isn't automatically something that would make him notable and the coverage just doesn't seem to be there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Reply to Tokyogirl79 Hi, charisma coach is a relatively new profession similar to a life coach. Going by your comment, Life coaching has existed in various formats for centuries too but we still have noted life coaches like Tony Robbins today. Similarly, Charisma Coach is legitimate new profession. A coach who teaches people how to become more charismatic on the basis of various psychological and scientific studies done by behavioural scientists and research institutions across the world. For example: Olivia Fox Cabane is considered the most famous coach in USA. You may google her. Olivia has also written a book called "Charisma Myth". ^[1] Similarly, Eric Feng is another popular charisma coach based out of Singapore. In India, Danish Sheikh has been attributed to start the trend of charisma coaching. No other coach in India has offered anything like this to date. If his work wouldn't have been noteworthy, why would two reputed media publications Yahoo! and Outlook magazine chose to do a dedicated feature and interview with him? Hence I feel Danish fulfils the notability criteria. I will add more notable references from rediff.com soon. -- Sharafat143 ( talk) 19:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.194.102.248 ( talk) 19:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

The issue here is whether or not there has been a depth of coverage. Making a claim of being the only one or one of the few to do something can make it more likely that someone will be notable but this is not a guarantee and it does not mean that someone will be automatically notable. So far there are only two sources which at this point is not going to be enough to show notability since they were published fairly recently and at about the same time- in other words, there's not a true depth of coverage which is what is going to be necessary to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I see your point. So what do you suggest? Do you think we can wait for a few days to find and add more reputed sources or shall I go ahead and delete it myself?
By the way in the Yahoo! interview the claim is made by the Yahoo! editor Khristina Jacob, that he is the only man in India who teaches charisma. he didnt claim it explicitly himself. I am sure Yahoo! News must have done their own research on him before featuring him on their home page with such a tall claim. Your thoughts?

Sharafat143 ( talk) 07:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

There's no harm in letting the AfD run its course. If he does end up getting more coverage before the week is up to where it'd show a good depth of coverage (fair warning, it'd have to be a lot) then I'm willing to withdraw the nomination. However something to take into consideration with the Yahoo source is that in many instances these articles will pull off of claims that the person themselves state and/or put in their press kit. Lifestyle and human interest pieces are under less scrutiny than an article on say, a politician or more critical event, so they don't really do a huge amount of research. This doesn't mean that these articles couldn't be reliable sources but it does mean that claims of being the first to do something should be taken with a huge grain of salt. A great example is that many people will frequently try to claim that someone is the youngest director ever. Some will have newspaper coverage that cites this claim, only for others to quickly disprove this with other newspaper articles or other people who have claimed the same thing. Basically the whole point is that these claims are rarely ever directly challenged by the newspapers unless it's something incredibly obvious and/or something that could come back to haunt them if it posed a huge legal issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete I do not think the Yahoo interview counts as a true source about him. Also I don't feel he really meets the underlying definition of notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Spaceman Spiff 13:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete for now - Even my first basic searches found nothing and there's simply not much in the slightest for improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment: I do want to say that I'm not opposed to this being userfied, if anyone's interested. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

^ "Forbes: How to master the art and science of charisma".

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Tom Donegan

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

Contested PROD. Donegan made his first-team debut for Fulham in the Europa League 2nd round qualifying against a semi-pro team and made no other appearances. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo ( talk) 11:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo ( talk) 11:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. His Europa League cap does not confer notability either as it was in qualifying. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 17:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep - Donegan played for the Fulham first team in a "Tier 1 International Match" in the UEFA Europa League, even if it was as as an 86th minute substitute, therefore he passes WP:NFOOTY unless I have misunderstood the definition of it. Isn't the Europa League a Tier 1 league according to FIFA? It is the international competition for European football clubs after the Champions League, so I think his appearance would cause Donegan to qualify for a Wikipedia article under WP:NFOOTY Zbase4 ( talk) 23:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Believe the Tier 1 match refers to international games and not club games. The qualifying games in Europe, especially against semi-pro teams, are just not enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTY. The fact he went on to make no further games for Fulham reinforces his lack of notability.-- Egghead06 ( talk) 07:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. The one appearance in a qualifying round of the Europa League against a team not from a FPL is not sufficient to pass NFOOTY, particularly since his career has been on a downward trend in terms of the quality of league he is playing in. Fenix down ( talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Note: there is currently an article Tom Donegan, about the Scottish footballer Thomas Edward Donegan born in 1930, who played for Dumbarton and Arbroath. The deletion discussion was about the English footballer Thomas Donegan born 15 September 1992. His profile from the Welsh Premier League website is here.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Neyaz Ahmad Khiri

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

Unclear claims of notability, no references to assert. Awards do not seem significant, being a school principal is not usually notable CutOffTies ( talk) 10:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete, not notable. Bazj ( talk) 08:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - Even the most basic searches at News, Books and browser finds nothing and therefore this can't be improved or even changed for the better (at least, not at this time). SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete, going direction WP:SNOW-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Olamuyiwa Eleyele Abdulazeez

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

Not played in a fully professional league, fails WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG. Also possible autobiography, previous identical version was deleted as a G11, but the speedy got declined on this. Joseph2302 ( talk) 10:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Strong delete fails WP:NFOOTY. In fact, it should be speedy per A7 Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 12:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree with an A7, however footballers very infrequently get deleted under this. They have played in a Tier 2 or 3 league match, which means an A7 might not succeed (as that's a sort of claim of notability). Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete salt and block author. Blatant vanity. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 12:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(
talk)/_(
contrib) 13:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(
talk)/_(
contrib) 13:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(
talk)/_(
contrib) 13:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - non-notable, fails WP:NFOOTY. Ref #2 is a circular self-reference, posted on the same day, without any evidence for independent or reliable. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Obvious vanity bio, subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down ( talk) 07:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan ( talk) 00:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Hofstra University honorary degree recipients

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

Almost all of the names listed on List of Hofstra University faculty don't have Wikipedia articles. List of Hofstra University alumni is not very large, and unlike all other colleges, Hofstra has "List of Hofstra University honorary degree recipients" article. Totally overcoverage. Notable Sweety ( talk) 05:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete/merge Only 8 universities ( other colleges with such lists) have this kind of list among all the tens of thousands of universites on Wikipedia. Almost all of the names listed on List of Hofstra University faculty don't have Wikipedia articles, sources, contains honorifics and puffery such as Dr. Ruth Prigozy, eminent Fitzgerald scholar and founder of the Fitzgerald Society. List of Hofstra University alumni is not very large, and unlike all other colleges, Hofstra has "List of Hofstra University honorary degree recipients" article. Totally overcoverage. Notable Sweety ( talk) 06:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep, no argument for deletion of this list advanced; the rationale is instead copied and pasted from the nominator's AFD of the faculty list. There also are, in fact, other colleges with such lists (though it's by no means widespread). I'm always suspicious when someone with only a handful of edits decides to go on a deletion spree right off the bat. postdlf ( talk) 00:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
- Most large colleges, such as state universities, have 1000s of alumni, yet they have in most cases, only one article usually titled "List of notable people" where they cover notable alumni, faculty and sometimes honorary degree recipients. Hofstra doesn't have many alumni with Wikipedia articles yet, and it has very few notable faculty. I don't think there's any justification for three articles. And no, my rationale for deletion is not copied and pasted from AFD of the faculty list, which also I think be deleted/merged for same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notable Sweety ( talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  - Your rationale was identical when you started this AFD, and still is largely so even now that you've expanded it. Your new reason that's applicable to this list (not the others, which you discuss together even though you did not make a group nomination) appears to be "most universities don't have this list", but WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid deletion rationale (nor is "overcoverage" btw, whatever that even means). It may be that every university with enough notable recipients should have such a list and they just haven't been made yet, or it may be that most universities have their lists incorporated into a larger list. Which brings us to the merger issue. Per WP:ATD and WP:SK, that's not a proper issue for AFD, except maybe after normal editing has already been attempted but failed to achieve what should be a clear cut case for merger. We certainly don't have that here, as you've made no attempt to combine these lists or even to propose it before starting these AFDs. And this list and the others are clearly of sufficient size to make keeping them separate a reasonable decision and thus not one that AFD should forcibly resolve. postdlf ( talk) 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep As postdlf already stated nominator just copied and pasted from another deletion post. The honoary doctorate list adds information that's interesting and other colleges/universities have it too. AlaskanNativeRU ( talk) 01:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. The nominator fails to put forth a rationale for deletion that is based on established policies or guidelines. -- Kinu ^t/_c 05:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply

List of Hofstra University faculty

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

Almost all of the names listed here don't have Wikipedia articles. List of Hofstra University alumni is not very large, and unlike all other colleges, Hofstra has List of Hofstra University honorary degree recipients article. Totally overcoverage. Notable Sweety ( talk) 05:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete/merge All of the entries are unsourced and contains puffery such as Dr. Ruth Prigozy, eminent Fitzgerald scholar and founder of the Fitzgerald Society. This list can easily be merged to either the main article or the "list of alumni article". Similar universities such as Category:Syracuse University faculty have 159 articles, Category:Fordham University faculty has 105 articles etc yet those universities have only one article "list of people" where they list all alumni, faculty and honorary degree recipients. Notable Sweety ( talk) 05:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep, "almost all" ≠ "all", and there are obviously enough notable entries to justify a list as Category:Hofstra University faculty has 38 articles apart from this list. postdlf ( talk) 00:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
- Note nominator (who has 33 edits as of this post) has also started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hofstra University honorary degree recipients, with a nomination copied and pasted from this one. postdlf ( talk) 00:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  - There's only six faculty listed here that have Wikipedia articles, and 32 more in the Category:Hofstra University faculty. This list can easily be merged to either the main article or the "list of alumni article". Category:Syracuse University faculty have 159 articles, Category:Fordham University faculty has 105 articles etc yet those universities have only one article "list of people" where they list all alumni, faculty and honorary degree recipients. And no, the nomination is not copied and pasted, but the rationale for deletion/merged is the same.-- Notable Sweety ( talk) 05:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
    - You posted identical rationales and only expanded them later (and expanded them with largely the same content). Whether you copied and pasted or manually retyped the same words is uninteresting. At any rate, merging ≠ deletion, and it's up to editor discretion as to whether it makes more sense to keep one master list of all notable people associated with this university or separate lists for faculty and alumni. "Puffery" and present unsourcing are completely irrelevant to either the question of deletion or merger, because AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf ( talk) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep Agree with postdlf. Seems valuable. There's a lot of entries and just because it's not notable to you doesn't mean it's not actually notable. AlaskanNativeRU ( talk) 01:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep. The nominator fails to put forth a rationale for deletion that is based on established policies or guidelines. -- Kinu ^t/_c 05:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Reliable sources are king. They're missing here, so fails notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Ken Pugh (computer programmer)

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

Lack of reliable, independent sources. This article was nominated for deletion over a year ago and the close stated a lack of consensus. No productive edits have occurred since that time so I am renominating it. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 00:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe delete - This would seem like it could be notable but I'm not finding many sources good aside from here, here and here (and I searched, News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary). Most of the results are self-authored and not much third-party or overall good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. It is always hard to find independent sources for people who work on the commercial side of computing rather than the academic side. While he is not as well known as Steve McConnell or Steve Maguire (there's an article that needs work), Pugh was a columnist in the 1990s for C User's Journal and C++ Journal. More recently his 2006 book Interface Oriented Design was reviewed in IEEE Micro. His other 2006 book, Prefactoring, won the Jolt award. His 2010 book, Lean-Agile Acceptance Test-Driven-Development, reviewed in SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, is cited in articles on Google Scholar even though it's a practitioners book. StarryGrandma ( talk) 01:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

That's because commercial computing people are less notable in general. Are there any secondary RS that talk about his column or the reviews of his books? Citations are not proof of notability. Significant coverage in independent secondary RS is. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:51, 30 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) 04:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete — Fails WP:AUTHOR; at best, the allegedly award-winning book, if the award is even notable, would be the candidate for an article. Some of the reviews cited are just one-offs of a particular book. Most of the others are blogs or promoting the release of a book. It's also a borderline WP:G11 resume / CV. Otherwise, it's just a guy writing books about an otherwise-notable concept ( Agile or Test-driven development), but he doesn't otherwise appear to be a widely-recognized, widely-cited expert, nor did he apparently originate any of the concepts he writes about. -- slakr^\
talk / 07:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Keep As StarryGrandma. But Selected Reviews, Selected Conference Talks, Selected Citations and Selected Interviews should go as that what makes it borderline cv. -- Averater ( talk) 10:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - article reads like a resume Heyyouoverthere ( talk) 00:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete CV of a non-notable authour, fails WP:GNG and [{WP:NAUTHOUR]]. Joseph2302 ( talk) 21:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete From Swister Twister: "I searched, News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary). Most of the results are self-authored and not much third-party or overall good coverage." the definition of non-notable. Fails GNG and AUTHOR. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\
talk / 12:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rebel Pundit

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

This site gets passing mentions only, and likely fails WP:GNG. Sammy1339 ( talk) 05:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think that this CBS article [19] constitutes more than a passing mention, as the article's topic is a video made by this website (Rebel Pundit). This The Hill [20] article is also more than a passing mention. These two secondary sources, coupled with the others in the article, lead me to think the website meets WP:GNG. Tucsontammy ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Tucsontammy ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Kolbasz ( talk) 11:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

These two sources discuss the video posted by the website, but hardly mention the website itself. Kraxler ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild ( talk) 07:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep Logical1004 ( talk) 00:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Why? Kraxler ( talk) 18:56, 4 July 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) 04:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete - only trivial mentions after the release of a single video, no more coverage of this website anywhere else before or after. Kraxler ( talk) 18:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works". This criteria excludes trivial mention, such as the current sources. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 15:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think this article [21] squeaks it past WP:WEBCRIT. Thanks. Safehaven86 ( talk) 19:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

How can one paragraph from one article be even remotely near the threshold of WEBCRIT? Mnnlaxer ( talk) 20:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

The whole article, not just one paragraph, is about Rebel Pundit's video. Safehaven86 ( talk) 02:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Even granting that as true for the sake of argument, the Wikipedia article is about Rebel Pundit, not the video. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Then I guess I'd say the coverage that the website's video received helped establish the notability of the website itself. FWIW, I added another source to the article as well [22]. Like I said, IMO the coverage I've found squeaks this article past WP:WEBCRIT. Safehaven86 ( talk) 04:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Jon Lee (mathematician)

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

The article reads like a CV. Notability is not established. Citation sources are not notable (his university and related websites). The only links from other articles come from their Further Reading sections, all for the same book. Labalius ( talk) 02:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep. Nominator has clearly not paid any attention to WP:PROF and has provided a faulty nomination statement — Incoming links and quality of sourcing are not notability criteria. Subject passes crieteria #C1 (highly cited publications [23] in a low-citation field), #C3 (fellow of INFORMS), and #C5 (named chair at an R1 university). Any one of these would be enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep. For all of Eppstein's reasons, but C5 (named chair) is enough. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep. Holder of a named chair at a major university. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep. Yes, I think it would be good form for the nom to withdraw. This one is just wasting editors' valuable time. Agricola44 ( talk) 19:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Batman Triumphant (film)

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

Article about an unmade film that would have released in 1999. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

According to this, this article has been repeatedly recreated and deleted at AfD and if so, could be speedied. I'll ping @ Tokyogirl79:. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete and salt This article about a non-notable film project canceled 16 years ago. The article is packed full of rumors, poorly referenced and terribly written. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I'd placed a speedy deletion tag on it, then realized that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman Triumphant was way back in 2006. It may be necessary to reopen the discussion, I honestly don't know. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP:PAGEDECIDE because Batman Triumphant is more known as part of the long development history of attempted Batman films between Schumacher and Nolan. It fits better in the context of Batman in film#Proposals for fifth film than as a stand-alone article that unnecessarily mimics a film-article structure. There may be some attempted films with extensive and focused coverage that would warrant a stand-alone article, but I don't find this to be one of them. Erik II ( talk | contrib) ^{(
ping me)} 19:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete and salt. Sometimes unmade films can become notable, but it's fairly rare. The coverage for this was pretty light and remains pretty light. That's why I'd deleted and salted X-ManJoshua's first attempt to make this at Batman Triumphant. This looks like it's actually somewhat of an attempt to avoid detection since X-ManJoshua didn't contact me about this and he also chose to list this at Batman in film, rather than Batman (1989 film series). (In other words, he used the "Main article: Batman Triumphant (Film)" template" at a different page than the one he originally listed, which shows me that he likely figured I'd have seen it and deleted it, so he went with another page.) X-ManJoshua, this is not the right way to go about creating this and I gave you a fairly good explanation of why I deleted this at Talk:Batman_Triumphant. To sum it up here, ultimately it's that this unmade film lacks the coverage necessary to show that it merits its own article. Even Superman Lives! doesn't have its own article and that has received far more coverage than this one did. (Although with the creation of the recent documentary, I think that SL might warrant its own page now.) Even the upcoming comic adaptation isn't really enough to warrant a page since the comic based upon Schumacher's vision for the entire series - it's not going to be a comic based on the unmade film per se. From the impression I've gotten it looks like it's going to be an entirely different beast entirely. When/if the comic comes out, that can have its own article (assuming it gains enough coverage) or at the very least, at the main page for the 1989 film series. This unmade film? This just doesn't have the coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\
talk / 12:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Water Side Evaporative Heat Recovery

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Original research, paraphrased close to [24], and containing lots of original research. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR. Joseph2302 ( talk) 00:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete Mostly Original Research, a COI between the author and some sources cited, close paraphrase of the source. I would support the A11 tag that's been applied as well, as it sure seems to be discovered by the author and little RS to back it up. The sources that are there support things like how evap cooling works, architectural considerations, and the like. Crow ^Caw 00:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete For reasons given above. Also, author also seems to be here to advocate for this technology, instead of merely describing it ( [25] [26]). Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

And they don't seem to be reading anything anyone else is writing. Ian.thomson ( talk) 01:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I agree, I'd support a delete and salt. I'd also support an A11, my AfD nomination edit-conflicted with the A11 nomination. They're clearly just here to promote their technology/industry, because it helps them as a leader in that industry. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

User talk:RHaworth is telling too, where he gets indignant and confirms that he wrote 80% of the Air2O paper which is then used as a source here. Crow ^Caw 01:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

So they are here with just their own research then? Seems like an A11 to me then. Also, watch for socks- they are suspected of using socks to hinder the deletion of a previous version of this article. Joseph2302 ( talk) 01:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep it I did not source the other article those 3 guys that i am sure they know each other said i copy it .. i didn't invent this technology I am expert on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) 02:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

i would like you to See some expert on the subject matter not those 3 guys , 1st they try to say its copy righted , and when this didn't work they claim i invented , they are just doing whatever they can to delete me .. regardless if its right or wrong .. they just don't want any one but them i am speaking about a well known technology that has been in the books since 1962 i have posted 2 articles about it ONE in USA 2004 and one in Hong kong 2014 ,

1- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214027520 2- http://investiveprojects.com/documents/whitepapers/EvaporativeCooling.pdf

the article don't mention no company and yet they are trying COI , if the supject matter expert dont talk about what they know , who will some people has no idea about what they are saying Wikipedia is Free Encyclopedia it should have information about every thing that was the main reason for all this ... but i believe now it is being hijacked with some group of people that they are bias and they only want thier own stuff and no one else .... MoeSalem ( talk) 04:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment This is the article creator, and on User talk:RHaworth they said "80% of the paper of air2o was my work". Clearly they're lying somewhere, either here or there. Joseph2302 ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment the article is my work yes i wrote the article but its not my technology i didn't invented you just mad because some of admin remove your tag that you but at my page for speedy deletion and they clearly understand that its not my invention — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

No, if you'd read the first comment I made, it's a non-notable technology, and this article is an essay containing original research, which is true since you've admitted lots of the sources are your research (regardless of whether or not you created the technology). Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment are you an engineer , I mean how do you know it non notable , i can tell you how many project in the world using this , how it is original research this technology in the ASHRAE hand book since 1962 , before i was born and who said what Wikipedia only talking about popular things, this technology is valid vetted documented , so what is the problem for writing about it .. you are no expert in the subject and that's is very clear why you even tal;king about .. of course you are mad because they remove your crazy claim that I invented this technology or some one I know... did because i brought prove you guys don't like me that's all you and the other 2 guys .. MoeSalem ( talk) 12:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Delete per nom. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment may i ask why you want it to be delted it , give your self chance to read , am iItalking about something doesn't exist? MoeSalem ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep it I am an engineer we use this Technology a lot in Singapore I thought the article was very good it explain the technology in simple terms Karkz14 ( talk) 12:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— Karkz14 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Karkz14 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Comment thank you some one actuality understand MoeSalem ( talk) 12:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— MoeSalem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Seems like obvious sockpuppetry to me, I've opened an SPI. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply
wow that's just speak of who you are you just bias person and ..you just hate people can do any thing but i am sure there will be sensible admin who can really understand the value of this .. MoeSalem ( talk) 13:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Nope, it's pretty common for people to create an article, and then when it's up for deletion to create multiple accounts to try and save it. And yes, ultimately it is an admin's decision, but no I'm not biased. Joseph2302 ( talk) 13:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I think its very easy to prove that if i create this account of not , thats why i am not worry .. i think the technology allow us know now . and yes you are bias , 1st you accuse me that i violate copyright and when this didn't work you accuse me that its original research and when this didn't work you accuse i create different account ... look at you .. you are bias you just want the article to be deleted regardless ,, you have no logic you have no reason you just bias.. and if i am wrong why are you changing your reasons, why don't you stick with one .. why don't you give your self chance and read it to be fair but you don't know how to be MoeSalem ( talk) 13:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 12:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

may i know why are you saying that , do you people have a logic what is your reason MoeSalem ( talk) 13:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Keep it Please don't delete this kind of article can help the industry in the easiest way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karkz14 ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) — Karkz14 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

*keep itReally good article, its something we actually apply out here in the GCC & becoming more of a trend due to its high enthalpy efficiency & the its cost effectiveness in this region. Good article to create better awareness towards more sustainable & environment friendly approach to recovery. AlenChrist ( talk) 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)— AlenChrist ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

How has it been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent from the topic itself? Regardless of how useful it may be, or how good the article is, That is the standard that must be met by any article to be included here. Crow ^Caw 18:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

yes it has the problem is you and the other 2 guys , you are not an engineer you have no idea what this whole article is talking about your only and single goal is to delete it .. for your info yes it has been in the ASHRAE hand book since 1962 before i was born, energy star website have a whole article about water side cooling , again the problem is you and the other 2 guys . who doesn't understand any thing about our industry and they just try to impose what they think..... clearly you are bias .. give your self chance and read and may be you will learn something MoeSalem ( talk) 20:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

I've told you what is needed to keep the article. If you do that, then it may be kept. Do you wish to discuss the policies where this article is lacking, or would you rather persist in ad hominem attacks against myself and others, whose backgrounds you know nothing of? Crow ^Caw 21:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

°1st it is not your call it will be kept or not , and try to say something that really make sense , i might listen to you.. 1st you have to admit you are not an expert on the subject matter. this technology is well documented way before i was born , i brought sources what eles i need to do . and if you think you can help.. please do rather than trying to shut me down .. tell me what is the problem MoeSalem ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Keepit— Preceding unsigned comment added by Engy ibrahim79 ( talk • contribs) — Engy ibrahim79 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Note to closing administrator. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askandrany1. As I stated there, based on a CU, my strong belief is that all of the new accounts who have voted are meat puppets and affiliated with Air20.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

For all of guys you want to delet it have you bother reading the article ..why can't you try to help rather than destroy what he did wrong .. Askandrany1 ( talk) 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC) reply

For you and your co-workers, why don't you try following any of the suggestions we've given? Such as finding independent sources about this topic -- not just sources for specific claims, but regarding the broader topic in general. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

See you mad becuse people starting to say no to you.. You didn't bother read the source it's been givin non by witch any one know any one but its all in you bais mind that's all people trying to cheat .. That's only tell one thing about you and your couple of guys .. Is it coincidence that all of you living in the same part of the world and the people you claim they know each other don't .. Wow .. Askandrany1 ( talk) 01:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Actually, you seem to be psychologically projecting because you're upset. People tell us "no" all the time, and we delete their articles anyway and block their accounts. Do you want to join their ranks, or do you want to do things the proper way? We require independent sources to prevent bias -- you and your co-workers insisting on using your own sources is biased.

As for accusations of "cheating," we've repeatedly linked to and explained the site's standards. The site's standards have existed long before you got here and will continue to exist long after you've given up. You are the one going against them, so you really are in no position to accuse anyone of cheating.

I live in South Carolina, User:RHaworth lives in London, and User:Bbb23 lives in California -- to claim that we're living in the same part of the world sounds desperate and foolish. Seriously, the distance between me, RHaworth, and Bbb23 is almost comparable to three people who live in Iran, Japan, and Alaska.

Now, do you want to do this like a grown-up professional, or do you want to be dismissed as yet another crank whose work we'll delete? Ian.thomson ( talk) 02:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Can I add myself to this? I live in Dorset, England, which is about 100 miles from London and nowhere near America. Put simply, this isn't a co-ordination of users against you. Joseph2302 ( talk) 11:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete Not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia; essentially an essay. The close paraphrasing is also worrying, as are the various single-purpose accounts here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of papers or original thought. § FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment. i brought 4 different sources talking and explaining the same technology and there is no way they could have known each other unless you accusing energy star be in this Global conspiracy you are clamming the fact of the matter that you guys know where you exactley lives it just mean you are buddies and one told other come lets try to delete that guy ...

here is energy star 1- https://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.datacenter_efficiency_economizer_waterside

and one more company 2- http://www.greenheck.com/media/pdf/manuals/461248HRE_iom_1.pdf

and Texas AM university 3- http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/94661

and USA - India joint for energy study 4- http://cberd.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CBERD_3.2PR_004Fab2014.pdf

and research gate Gate 5- http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eloy_Gomez/publication/223700025_Design_and_experimental_study_of_a_mixed_energy_recovery_system_heat_pipes_and_indirect_evaporative_equipment_for_air_conditioning/links/53cfe44f0cf2fd75bc5a044d.pdf

and independent research from hongkong 6- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610214027520

and one more company 7- http://investiveprojects.com/documents/whitepapers/EvaporativeCooling.pdf

see the proplem is not in the article or the source or the technology that I present in a very fair way the problem is your ignorance and your buddies by the subject matter but i have news flash for you . 1st its not up to you to delete it or not and i am not giving up , and i am sure like some sensible admin remove your malicious speedy deletion i am sure that some sensible admin who will read and will know that i am not bais and i am presenting a technology in very fair way listing its advantage and disadvantage and i am pining independent source to it MoeSalem ( talk) 16:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Four sources isn't enough to pass WP:GNG necessarily, as 4 sources don't show "significant, independent coverage", as required by WP:GNG. Also, this is written as an essay, not an encyclopedic article, see WP:NOTESSAY. Lastly, stop calling people biased, it's a personal attack, and is likely to get you blocked. Also, an admin, @ FreeRangeFrog: has already said it should be deleted, so I doubt you're going to find an admin wanting to keep it. Ignoring the meat/sockpuppetry, there's 1 keep vote from a single-purpose account, and lots of delete votes from established editors. Joseph2302 ( talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

 Comment Cant you count i  listed 7 and   , and you are saying that United stats environmental  protection agency e
nergy star program is not independent and 
Texas  Am university is not independent  that just tell you how ignorant you are for the subject matter  
MoeSalem (
talk) 17:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
reply

The specific words "Water Side Evaporative Heat Recovery" appear nowhere in the Energy Star source, the Tamu.edu source, the cberd.org source, nor the Research gate source -- and those are the reliable ones. Even the unreliable ones fail to include the exact phrase. As has been repeatedly explained for you, the source needs to be specifically about this topic, without interpretation or original research. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC) reply

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

[1] "Forbes: How to master the art and science of charisma".

[1]