Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_June_6 References

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 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. The consensus is that she does not meet the criteria for inclusion - the one claim (that she was the first person born in the Falkland Islands) is claimed to be false, and there are no other claims to notability mentioned or established; the commentators also mention the lack of reliable, independent sources. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Matilde Vernet y Sáez

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

None notable person. Regularly claimed to be the first person born in the Falkland Islands, this claim is untrue as children are recorded in the French settlement, and a British child was born on the islands in 1811. Only really known at all because of her father. Previously deletion discussion here. This new version is lifted directly from the Spanish wikipedia and is padded out with a lot of unrelated material, a lot of it fails WP:NPOV. Please note also the use of Kelpers, this is usually considered a racist pejorative by the islanders when used in this context. W C M_email 21:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per previous discussion. To be clear, this is a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD.

As noted last time around, the principle claim of notability - that she was the first person born on the islands - is false. Other than her parentage there is nothing about the subject that would make her notable over any other woman of the era who lived to 94 years. She lived, she married, she had children. If people hadn't done that in the nineteenth century, none of us would be here. There are a lot of sources, but few if any are accessible and the reliability seems debatable at best. Seriously, we have factual claims that appear to be sourced to poetry.

The real aim of the article - the whole point in having an article - is to promote the Argentine POV in the sovereignty dispute. It was last time and it is this time. And - let's be clear - that's also the purpose it serves on the Spanish Wikipedia, which has always taken a radically pro-Argentine editorial line on Falklands issues. Kahastok talk 22:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

If it helps, I went through a long list of claimed sources in the last AfD. Basically, either it was impossible to judge the level of coverage (because the sources were unavailable or only available in Google snippet view) or it was clear that the coverage was not significant. By the looks of things, the sources claimed here are the same ones, and so those points still apply. Kahastok talk 23:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete, as pointed out, the basis on which notability is claimed here is demonstrably false. The sources by the look of it are almost exclusively Argentine propaganda and couldn't be considered reliable by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 09:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC). reply

Keep Hi, I had some problems with references, but I could fix it. The reason why I decided to translate this article and some others in the future is because I was looking for information of Matilde in English but I saw It's virtually nonexistent, (that's why I copied the references of the original article too). So I thought: If an Spanish article does exist, ¿why it does't in English? I regrettably did't find many English sources about her, and my thinking is that it is unfair that only Spanish speakers can access to that information. So, I think that delete the article is maybe a bit extreme. It would be better to look more sources, or try translating more information from books or any source.

Sorry if my English is bad, I'm still learning, I tried to be as clear as I could. Regards Javier Ignacio Caballero ( talk) 19:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

By any standard on wikipedia, that article was appalling. In the lede alone I have removed a dozen WP:SPS and the article violates WP:NPOV in numerous places - eg by repeating the expulsion myth. The simple fact is this person doesn't meet WP:NOTABLE standards, which is why the first time it was added it was deleted. We can't do anything about the standard on es.wiki but we can maintain them here. W C M_email 20:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I understand your points. I think these problems can be solved on future editions ( WP:SPS & WP:NPOV). I can change the conflictive parts. Always being objective (Consider I just made an exact copy of the spanish article)

About WP:NOTABLE I think it's debatable, many books and online sources that mention her or her family can be found. As I said, it's better to fix than to eliminate.

I've been reading related articles and curiously there isn't any reference about her or about people who were born and lived on the islands before 1833. To skip information isn't very neutral. Javier Ignacio Caballero ( talk) 23:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Really? You can't have looked very hard, I've written five myself. Did I hear a quack? W C M_email 00:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

There are several articles about people who lived on the islands pre-1833 - actually a relatively large proportion of the population, which was never more than a few dozen in this period - but these are people who meet our standard of notability. But we shouldn't have articles on everyone who lived on the islands at that time, and I don't see that the colony leader's daughter should get an article solely by virtue of being the colony leader's daughter. Yes, she will get mentions in texts, but the standard is higher than that. We need significant coverage. There's no evidence that that exists.

That the article may be poorly written is beside the point (it can be improved). That it is biased is beside the point (it can be made neutral). That this lady does not meet our standards for inclusion in her own right, and that the article in English (just as in Spanish) is and always will be a WP:COATRACK for Argentine sovereignty claims - because there's nothing else to put in it - is the key point, and why this article should be deleted. Kahastok talk 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notalbe person and a lack of strong RS to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as there's still nothing noticeably convincing, examining the article found nothing particularly convincing and I'm not confident there are any actual ample improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable and my searches found nowhere near enough reliable coverage to meet GNG. Omni Flames ( talk) 08:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable, not enough good-quality third party coverage. She's mentioned a lot, but as a footnote in a far bigger story; she doesn't appear to have actually done anything to merit inclusion in her own right, and once the spurious claim to fame is discounted, the article makes no attempt to even suggest why she might be notable. Fosse 8► 15:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was draftify. (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Narrative game

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

After some deliberation and much searching, this appears to be a non-notable neologism. I haven't found a source that gives a definition like the one currently included in the lede, and the scope of the term is so broad as to be unhelpful. Thus, the article becomes an essay that lumps together all the ways in which narrative concepts are applied in games (how narrative is used within games, how players create their own narratives, how narrative helps learning, game awards for best narrative). In the case of the latter, I couldn't even find a definition for the "best narrative" awards, so those awards appear to acknowledge excellence in a quality of a game (narrative/sound/graphics) rather than the best of a genre called the "narrative game". Also note that the article was originally titled " Games as narrative" and written by User:Games as Naratives—it looks like it was written for a college class. Anything that needs to be said on this topic would fit into the articles on Narrative or our Glossary of video game terms, but I don't see any content worth merging. czar 17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 17:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The general concept is notable -- see Writing video games: can narrative be as important as gameplay? -- and there are games where the mechanics are pure narrative such as Consequences. Andrew D. ( talk) 21:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Narrative can be emphasized in any time-based medium—the question is whether games with narratives have significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources ( ?) so as to warrant a separate article. Such an article would require a whole lot of original research (e.g., see the current structure of the article). czar 22:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Such sources clearly exist. For another example, see the Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

That source proves my point—it's about the applied use of narrative in games, not "narrative games". Let's see what other editors think. czar 01:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

I do see the term "narrative game" used (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]), though it's by no means as concrete a term as, say, puzzle game. The usage is enough that I might not go for outright deletion and instead redirect it somewhere, but I don't know how much actual significant coverage there is of the topic. I think a broad strokes article about narrative in games would almost certainly have the coverage to be worth making, though. – The Millionth One ( talk) ( contribs) 08:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep - The term appears to be EXTENSIVELY used in academic journals, referring to this topic. I don't mean a few mentions, here or there, but vast numbers of articles pop up in google scholar. In addition to the coverage by academic sources, current contemporary critics and "reviewers" discuss an analyze the topic. The term is widespread and well used, countering nom's "non-notable neologism" claim, and regardless of the term, the subject of the topic itself is very clearly notable. If the term itself was considered a nn neologism (and I contend it is not), the most I would accept would be a move to a more notable title... but this title seems perfectly notable, descriptive, and utilized by plenty of sources. Fieari ( talk) 02:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Care to cite some? czar 18:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Move to DRAFT space. I'm convinced of the notability of the topic (Andrew's cite to the Routledge Encyclopedia pretty much did it for me). And although the nominator correctly responds that there is a distinction between a "narrative game" and "the applied use of narrative in games", that distinction strikes me as more semantic than substantive. Despite this, I think the "keep" discussants are overlooking something important -- the extremely poor state of the article. Yes, I know that "deletion is not clean-up", but what we have here is largely "uncleanable". Seriously folks, an Olympics marathon is a narrative game? So too is a Civil-War battlefield re-enactment? Trivia games are "narrative"? And if I understood the second paragraph of the first section correctly, a narrative game need not contain any narrative at all, so long as a player might imagine "what ifs" when playing it? I see no evidence that this article went through the Article for Creation process, and I see no plausible possibility of it passing through that process in its current state. Right now, the article is an embarrassment to the project. Let's move it to Draft space, where someone knowledgeable about the topic can work on it. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 15:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC) reply
- Ugh, I really hate the idea behind WP:TNT. Look, I understand that deleting and starting over is useful when it comes to things like copyvio and clear slander for biographies, but this is just a matter for cleanup. Maybe severe cleanup, but there's no reason to nuke the history, and while a lot of this stuff is no good, I think at least some is salvagable. Perhaps a series of ugly cleanup tags at the beginning will help. (Incidentally, I think I remember a college class I had that suggested the olympics WERE a narrative game, relating to the gods and whatnot, but I do think trivial pursuit is probably too far.) Fieari ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment While I wouldn't object to moving the page to a draft, and an article on "narrative game" may be appropriate, the content as-is is inappropriate. The Game Awards section should probably be removed, and the education section seems irrelevant to the article's actual subject. The history section, while interesting, isn't sourced and is likely inappropriate for Wikipedia. I am also unsure whether when talking about "gaming" here we should divorce video games and tabletop games as separate things: if so, the D&D section is inappropriate; if not, the article needs some severe reworking not to briefly touch upon one single tabletop game. I also think an article on general narrative as it applies to gaming could be worthwhile, with the proper sources backing it up, but much of my current criticisms still apply. (If we decide on that direction, I would suggest moving to Narrative in gaming or Narrative in video gaming as alternate titles.)
As it stands, while I would be interested (and maybe even willing to work on if I get the time) an article on either subject, that article is not this one -- and I can't help but wonder if a redirect might be appropriate until such an article is made. Even if it's just to something as broad as game for now. – The Millionth One ( talk) ( contribs) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Obvious consensus to keep, although whether or not to draft has not been decided. — Music1201 ^talk 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Move to draft space per NewYorkActuary. The scope of the article is unnecessarily large. AdrianGamer ( talk) 12:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Draftify. It's a genre of game but it needs a drastic cleanup, not complete deletion. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
"Draft' for now at best as there is enough to suggest an article could be acceptable but any necessary improvements would certainly be welcomed and they should be added thus Draft. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Userfy At first glance it appears to be a non-notable, uncommonly used term, but perhaps it can be improved and moved back to mainspace eventually. Omni Flames ( talk) 08:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by TomStar81 ( non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 02:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Democratic Century Fund

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

Only one source - the reliability of which I cannot judge. No evidence of notability Rathfelder ( talk) 22:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that there is no evidence that this person meets the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Nana Afua Antwi

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

this article does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines ,,,, there is NO evidence of Notability on this Article , Secondly the references on this article like the BBC NEWS link has no Content about the person on topic , the orthers references i found are not reliable Samat lib ( talk) 19:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 6. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. There is this, but the article was written by the subject's friend and in itself it is a bit slight. But the source seems to be editorially sound, a Ghanaian web newspaper/online magazine under editorial contrrol. There is quite a flurry of coverage about her being signed as a face for Revlon. But at the end of the day, and this really gives me no pleasure at all, I have to say that after a search for sources, I don't see a convincing case for notability at this point, so delete. :( Mabalu ( talk) 13:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as I have found only a few links, nothing at all actually convincing and there's nothing else better here also. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. My searches found very little reliable coverage out there; not enough for a solid, independent article. Omni Flames ( talk) 06:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm not seeing the notability here. The mentions of various appearances on magazine covers do not come close to meeting the requirement of significant coverage. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 07:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 08:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedied by nominator as an unambiguous copyright infringement. ( non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Amjad Siddiqi

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

BLP. No refs really. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Was copied from here http://geoamjad.com/aboutme-eng.html so deleted. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, with no !votes to delete (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Mirror Universe

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

Article has existed for about 13 years as filled with intricate non-encyclopedic details, and mainly written from an in-universe perspective. Notices of these issues have been standing for years (original research and lack of citations - 9 years; in-universe - 6 years; personal essay - 5 years; unencyclopedic intricate details - 3 years). Meanwhile its main contributors have only added more and more intricate details and likely original-research material. The encyclopedic value of this article is questionable for these reasons. Limited coverage in parallel universe (fiction) should be enough — parallel universe (fiction) suffers from similar issues but at least it's encyclopedic as a concept. Mirror Universe is not encyclopedic and does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 19:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator - new references make the article arguably notable. See below. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep recurring feature of the Star Trek universe that's sufficiently distinct from more general parallel universes to deserve its own article. Artw ( talk) 20:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The references say the characters refer to the mirror universe as a "parallel universe", the Star Trek Encyclopedia refers to it as a "parallel continuum", "another dimensional plane", "parallel existence". The references don't point to anything inherently distinct from a parallel universe, and the general lack of references supports this absence of significance or distinction. Star Trek has a tendency to create its own terms to existing sci-fi concepts, but that doesn't automatically make it a distinct concept, or notable, or encyclopedic. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The references seem sufficient to establish it as notable as a setting. Artw ( talk) 01:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

One fan-encyclopedia, four primary sources, one promotional page, and three fan-wiki articles? Not really. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 02:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 22:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep The Wired (magazine), Boing Boing, Newsweek, and Science Fiction Studies refs all demonstrate that there are sufficient independent, non-trivial reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG, which means the rest of the nominator's objections can be improved by regular editing. Jclemens ( talk) 06:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Five of these sources which were added today—Newsweek, Wired (two articles), Tor.com, and AV Club—are episode guides or episode reviews and do not meet the WP:GNG, in particular "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Mentioning the plot device in a "best of" list, an episode guide, or an episode review is a trivial mention; otherwise you might create articles for every single plot device mentioned in these articles. The two other sources, Science Fiction Studies and Boing Boing, do actually discuss the Mirror Universe significantly. While I personally don't think they meet the WP:GNG, it could be argued that they do. Withdrawn by nominator. BrightRoundCircle ( talk) 13:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Alon Bor

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP to meet GNG nor do I believe he meets any of the criteria for MUSICBIO or PROF. J04n( talk page) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. J04n( talk page) 19:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. The article claims that the subject is principal of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, but I can find no mention of him at the orchestra's web site. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete and I would've also nominated it myself had I found it randomly as my searches simply found nothing better and there's then nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete A search found very little coverage about him, and the article is completely unreferenced. Fails GNG. Omni Flames ( talk) 01:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Electoral history of Imelda Marcos

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

Content forks of various Phillippine election pages created by a SPA. Pincrete ( talk) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Essentially all of this information is already included in Imelda Marcos's article, and as far as I'm aware it is not normal to create Electoral History articles for members of the Filipino House of Representatives. Alsee ( talk) 09:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: This content will only clutter the main article and should not be returned there. Imeldific ( talk) 10:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

nb Imeldific is the article creator Pincrete ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: I !voted delete on a previous content fork about Imelda Marcos, but while I agree with Pincrete (not Necrothesp) to the extent that content would clutter the article if merged, my take is that is why this is not a content fork. It clearly outlines her status as a perpetual candidate and is handy for those who care. In this case, she is not merely a politician running for office, she is a powerful figure regardless of any office she seeks. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
- Not me! I haven't commented. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  - Whoops! Old eyes! Copied the wrong signature, sorry! Montanabw ^(talk) 08:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

My position actually is that this kind of detail is already on the various 'election' pages and the summary on, or includable on the individual page. Pincrete ( talk) 08:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete No more detail is required than is already given on the main article. Deleting the article would be best... User:Spacecowboy420
Delete as there's nothing to suggest its own convincing article and is best simply deleted as the current information exists. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. Separate "electoral history of..." articles are not created for every individual person who ever held any political office; they're permitted only in extremely rarefied circumstances on the order of presidents, prime ministers and the very, very occasional exception for a legislator who's been in office so long that the election results templates would overwhelm the article's body text. Imelda Marcos's article, however, is not so long as to require spinouts like this, and six elections are not enough to make something like this necessary for an assembly member. The main article can handle this. Bearcat ( talk) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Dr. Khader

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

I started cleaning up fringe viewpoints on this article, but then I realized that there is almost nothing when fringe stuff is removed. Not notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, as I understand it, the more fringe viewpoints you remove, the stronger they become, because homeopathy. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - There isn't really anything substantive about this individual contained within this article in its present form (and the recent removal of content seems appropriate). There is not anything here that suggests notability, nor sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 20:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - Not seeing enough in the article or via a search to satisfy WP:BIO. Will eat some millet and try searching again later -- perhaps with better results. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. The notability of a crank is established by coverage of his crankery in reliable independent sources, establishing its significance. That is absent here. Guy ( Help!) 21:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Per lack of reliable sources. HealthyGirl ( talk) 03:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep The person is notable in Mysore, Bangalore and other surrounding areas with a population of above 2 crore. (apx). On line sources are less, which I will try to add today. But one off- line source is removed by the nominator along with the information!! Is this permitted? The nominator for deletion has removed sourced content and then proposed for deletion! Is this permitted as per Wikipedia policy? - Rayabhari ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

In case anyone is interested, here is a link to the article before TPoD's edits/nomination. @ Rayabhari: The sources don't have to be online, but they do have to be published and reliable. It does help a lot to be online, though. There's a presumption that if a subject is current (e.g. we're not writing about some 2nd century military figure or ancient book), it's unlikely to be both notable and not online. That said, it's not technically required -- although it's a tougher sell for a biography of a living person, and tougher still when that person's notability is based on what falls under the WP:FRINGE guideline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment The user who nominated this article for deletion started editing Wikipedia after 5.4.2016 and the user has already started proposing deletion of several articles! Is it permitted as per wikipedia policy? I am asking this politely. - Rayabhari ( talk) 09:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment @ Rayabhari: There is no requirement of experience for proposing deletion. Also, I didn't remove any sources (I removed some inline citations, but they were still at the bottom of the article), but I did remove WP:FRINGE material, which shouldn't have been in the article in the first place. Also, see WP:FARAWAY. Finally, I hardly think that someone who practices homeopathy should be called an "expert", as he is obviously not one, just a fringe nut. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment Also see WP:IKNOWIT. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as the consensus is clear enough and the article with it itself, nothing at all for the applicable notability and simply nothing else actually suggestive there's anything convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Aaryan Zaveri

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

Autobiography which fails WP:NTENNIS. for (;;) (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination. A promising young player, but WP:TOOSOON for an article here. OnionRing ( talk) 18:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom and per WP:AUTO. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as clearly violates WP:AUTO. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:AUTO is not a reason to delete, however, this doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, and that is a reason to delete. -- Randykitty ( talk) 20:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS, most likely WP:TOOSOON Melcous ( talk) 05:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
do not delete: player has represented India in World team competition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryan zaveri12 ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
~~Don't Delete~~ WP:AUTO is not a reason to delete, and this does meet WP:NTENNIS, as player has participated in world team competition and that is not a reason to delete. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaryan zaveri12 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aaryan zaveri12 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. reply
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG guidelines.-- Wolbo ( talk) 10:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as there's by far nothing actually convincing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Christopher Wehkamp

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

Funimation voice actor, but only one lead role in Laughing, so WP:TOOSOON Tokyo Ghoul character is supporting / fairly low on the list. Ren in Fairy Tail is way low. That doesn't leave much to help WP:ENT No notable anime convention appearances either or searches in News. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Yes sources were added in the last AfD, but they do not establish notability for this person at this time. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable voice actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete Limited roles and no sources to show notability. Esw01407 ( talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as there's enough consensus here, nothing at all for any solid independent notability, IMDb says it all and there's nothing else convincing overall. This should've been closed as delete the first time had there been other comments or it considered as expired PROD. SwisterTwister talk 01:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete, per the preponderance of opinions registered. Anyone who wants to create an article about the controversy rather than the person is free to do so, but I wouldn't be surprised if such an article were nominated for deletion as well. Deor ( talk) 18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Lance Sanderson

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

The subject is notable due to only WP:ONEEVENT - not enough to sustain the biography. It would be better if the subject got a mention in Homosexuality and religion and this article just redirected there. - NottNott| talk Notify with {{ re}} 15:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment Given the level of personal detail in the article, not reflected in the sources, it seems likely that this violates WP:Auto or at minimum WP:BLPCOI. While this is not necessarily cause for deletion, it could be problematic if another editor doesn't significantly contribute to the article. As for NottNott's suggestion, I would oppose a mention in "Homosexuality and Religion" as that article is too general for this. If it were to be deleted or merged I would recommend it go into Christian Brothers High School (Memphis, Tennessee) which already has the relevant section. EAR47 ( talk) 16:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The current article references his high involvement in the incident with Christian Brothers High School. I would oppose adding this article and the references to the school's page, Christian Brothers High School (Memphis, Tennessee), because they would likely delete the majority of the information. There is no reference to the incident on their Facebook page. WP:ONEEVENT also states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Lance's social media pages, specifically his Instagram page "lancesanderson" show that he is becoming a public figure outside of just this incident. He was notably at an event with Sean O'Donnell in Los Angeles as shown on the page. On his twitter page, he has a number of interactions with talent/influencer managers including Oliver Luckett, the founder of theAudience. He has a number of twitter conversations with Cole Ledford and Austin Wallis, who went through a similar situation, both of whom are now prominent LGBT figures. Given the information listed, I would support Lance having a standalone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The fact that the school do not refer to the incident on their facebook page is entirely unrelated to whether their wikipedia page (which is only "theirs" in the sense that it is about them; the school themselves do not own the page or control what is mentioned on it) mentions it; in fact, the wikipedia page for the school does mention it, though the section could do with a lot of work.

As for whether the event was highly significant, and Sanderson's role within it a large one: clearly the second part is true, but I'm not sure that a case has really been made effectively that the event really was that significant. It's certainly not as significant as the examples in WP:ONEEVENT: the assassinations of JFK and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the Tiannamen Square protests, even the Steve Bartman Incident. (And if it were that significant, it should be moved to Lance Sanderson controversy per WP:ONEEVENT anyway).

Finally, Sanderson's associations with O'Donnell, Luckett, Ledford, and Wallis doesn't count towards Sanderson's notability: WP:NOTINHERITED is the relevant guideline here. (And Cole Ledford and Austin Wallis don't even have wikipedia articles, which while not conclusive is certainly evidence that they aren't all that notable either...) Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

While yes, the event is not as notable as the listed events, it is ongoing and continues to evolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete minor businessman of no note. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
It is worth noting that the above user likely disagrees with this article because of his opposition to LGBT individuals as stated in his profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Given that his deletion rationale is perfectly valid, we should probably assume good faith here. Especially since you are over-characterising the position that Johnpacklambert expresses on his user-page: being a Mormon and opposing same-sex marriage are not quite the same thing as opposing LGBT individuals. 09:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Just because one has not heard of a business does not make it minor. Also, by copying his username into a quick Facebook search and using the information supplied on his wikipedia page, you can easily find his profile and views on LGBT issues of which he has many. It is no stretch to say that he is against LGBT causes and the notability of LGBT public figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftsource97 ( talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Move to Lance Sanderson controversy or similar. I agree that the subject is notable only for a single event, and that WP:BIO1E applies. However, I think that the event may have enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gay-teen-catholic-homecoming_us_5604c66fe4b0768126fd09d3, http://www.teenvogue.com/story/catholic-school-refuses-lance-sanderson-same-sex-date-homecoming, http://www.mtv.com/news/2282218/christian-high-school-tennessee-gay-student-male-date-denied/, https://mic.com/articles/125991/catholic-school-suspends-gay-student-after-being-barred-from-bringing-homecoming-date#.424gWSBlX, http://wreg.com/2015/09/28/lance-sanderson-suspended-from-christian-brothers/, http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/30104559/cbhs-denies-homecoming-date-for-gay-student are all in the current article). There are already similar articles about other incidents, such as 2010 Itawamba County School District prom controversy. The article at the moment is just advertising for his photography business, which is as far as I can tell not notable in the slightest. The reason that he is at all notable is the prom controversy, and our article on wikipedia should reflect that. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 17:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Move to Lance Sanderson controversy. I agree with Caeciliusinhorto's statements; the event does appear to meet notability gudelines, but a biographical article seems inappropriate per WP:ONEEVENT. The current article does bring up strong concerns about WP:PROMOTION, and a move would instead keep it on track to be about the notable event. EAR47 ( talk) 19:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete or move per above. The article is mainly advertising for his business. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as regardless of how unnecessarily political this AfD is starting to become, there's still nothing at all for any actual independent notability and chances are that there will be nothing better at all in the future. I would've also considered PROD regardless of the amount of apparent links. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I haven't done enough investigation to say whether this should be kept or deleted, but I'm sure that the nominator's idea of including him in the Homosexuality and religion article would fall foul of WP:UNDUE. This should be kept or deleted, not redirected somewhere where the subject doesn't belong. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: @ Swiftsource97: Are you able to improve this article a bit? In its current state, evidence of notability is lacking, and there are no inline citations, apart from LinkedIn, which is not considered a reliable source. This article is much more likely to be kept if editors can at least see why it should be kept. --- Another Believer _(
Talk) 22:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I can find no reliable sources for the subject other than a couple of news stories, in L'Express and El País, about one incident. At a stretch it might be considered that the tabloid Daily Mail and Daily Mirror are reliable in this case, but they are also just news stories about this one incident. A wrong was done to this person that probably deserves publicity, but an encyclopedia is not the place for such publicity. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 16:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete This is a mess. Previously I'd have said delete for WP:BLP1E per 86.17.222.157 above, but the article has seemingly now been edited to remove this person's one arguable claim to notability (although all the references are still about the incident). As things stand, subject now clearly fails the GNG. Fosse 8► 16:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - clearly a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Tom29739 ^[
talk 21:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete If you think this one event is worth it then combine all instances where some kid is denied a prom-date, a certain attire, or access to the local dance because LGBT; there're plenty. Lance is not special. 75.172.181.80 ( talk) 03:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this individual fails to meet the criteria for inclusion, with a lack of reliable, independent sources. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

David Revoy

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

Fails WP:BASIC, all sources are WP:NEWSPRIMARY interviews. A prod on these grounds was unprodded by the creator arguing that Revoy meets #3 of WP:CREATIVE, but Revoy's webcomic Pepper&Carrot does not appear to have had "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". McGeddon ( talk) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Agryson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Strong Delete single purpose editor creating article demonstrates clear conflict of interest. LibStar ( talk) 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The creator has declared their COI: "Full Disclosure, I created the page but am also the English translator for the Pepper & Carrot project." This in itself isn't a reason to delete the article. -- McGeddon ( talk) 16:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I admit this is my first edit in a long while, I have tried to be transparent in any conflicts of interest though Agryson ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

the depth of coverage fails WP:GNG. also WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar ( talk) 16:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The work I cite as most notable is actually his work on Sintel as Concept Artist / Artistic Director, which is a high-budget, widely acclaimed work, which has had 'multiple independent periodical articles or reviews' Agryson ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I've reviewed the cited guidelines and agree that more citations or references are probably needed (I can build out these references over the coming days), if I understand the guidelines correctly, I would need to provide more independent citations vis a vis David's work on promotion of Open source in the arts ("significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded") and his work on widely spread works ("multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). Would these elements be sufficient? Agryson ( talk) 16:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
As a summary while waiting for feedback:

Failing WP:AUTOBIO : This is not autobiographical, I am a translator on one of the subject's projects but have no direct creative input, was not asked (directly or indirectly) to create this page and have specifically avoided referencing myself or other translators as I understand that we are far from notable. The 3 problems of Autobiographical articles supplied in the guidelines are bias, verifiability and original research. None of these 3 problems apply (bias may be pertinent if my tone is not neutral, but I am open to any and all suggestions on that point)
Not meeting Notability guidelines WP:GNG : I have already provided two or three citations that I believe to be significant, reliable and independent of the subject (krita.org, creativecommons.org, blender.org), of course I will endeavour to provide more but argue that there is enough to at least avoid deletion and instead at most have a notability tag so that other editors may help flesh out the existing citations (I purposefully created this page as a stub, being fully cognisant that a full article would require more work - See my note above at 16:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC) ). Also, to clarify my claim of notability under #3 of WP:CREATIVE], as mentioned at 16:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC), his most notable work was on Sintel, I will update article to illustrate this
"Single Purpose Editor" : I find that this on its own is a little of a catch 22, I admit I have only corrected a typo here and there outside of this topic but everyone must start somewhere when it comes to serious contribution so every editor will have been a 'single purpose editor' at some point... As long as I demonstrably make a best effort, in good faith to write articles and improve Wikipedia, I don't think one can hold it against me that I'm a newbie... ? While of course I understand that this is a 'red flag' for quality, I argue that it is not enough to disqualify an editor or their edits from publication.

Agryson ( talk) 08:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

long winded arguments for keep by single purpose editors are a tell tale sign of lack of notability in my many years on Wikipedia. LibStar ( talk) 09:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sorry for my long windedness I suppose ? I'll try to avoid it for the rest of the discussion, I was trying to deal with the raised points in order. Agryson ( talk) 10:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing else better, there's simply nothing else to suggest the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Edemities bobo

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

Self-created article, was previously speedily deleted, but speedy was removed this time around by a brand new editor. I get 404 and error messages for all of the links provided as references, no evidence that subject meets WP:NMG or WP:GNG. Melcous ( talk) 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - The subject fails GNG miserably, the links provided are broken, and the article creator has been socking to avert speedy deletion. GAB^gab 14:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. All of the references are dead links, and searches for information about him bring up Facebook, YouTube, and other sources which are unreliable and/or not independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as I'm simply not finding anything better, absolutely nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete: The subject doesn't pass any notability criteria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Translations of A Song of Ice and Fire

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

Merely a list of unremarkable translated titles and non-notable foreign language translations of the works in the series. Any notable translations or foreign language publications can be mentioned in prose the individual articles. I think WP:FANCRUFT applies. Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Entirely agree with the above; this is fancruft. TheLongTone ( talk) 13:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as nothing at all to suggest its own actual article and why this can't simply stay at being mentioned at the series article itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Gulista Aalija

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

CSD tag was removed. Taking to AfD instead. This article does not prove why the subject is notable. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete & author given a level 3 for removing speedy. for (;;) (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete for failing WP:BASIC and no evidence of meeting WP:ENT. Wow, this editor gets nothing but bad news. Shame on him for thinking a sourced stub article about a person simply being an actor could ever possibly be seen as being an assertion of notability. Perhaps he can be encouraged to build his articles as drafts in a userspace sandbox rather that hoping or expecting the others might improve his works. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi MQS (and other reviewing admins), I have a reasonable, well-founded suspicion the article's creator is only here to promote friends/colleagues/proteges, many of whom are likely not notable. See also Shamim Azad ANM. This article's creator is definitely engaging in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I have more details, I just haven't gotten around to slapping them into an SPI yet. Check out this article's logs for some of the details. That article had to be salted because this guy and his friends kept trying to make Hira Thind an article despite community consensus. The fact that he's recreated the Gulista Aalija article after I speedied it, just underscores that he's only here to do his own thing. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 21:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as still by far nothing for any notability at all, quite vague regarding information and simply overall not acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

World Miss University 2015

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 09:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines. User:Richie Campbell
Delete as there's simply nothing else to suggest its own actual independent notability, a large amount of these are started but never actually improved or never actually improved beyond the basic information, thus there's nothing to suggest this one is different at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

World Miss University 2013

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

No real content The Banner talk 09:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Did not meet notability guidelines.-- Richie Campbell ( talk) 02:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as there's nothing to suggest it can't simply be mentioned at the main article where it would be listed altogether with other events, instead of having a separate article simply having outdated information and no other attempts at convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Synthelabobabe21) in violation of ban or block. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fissan

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske ( talk) 09:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. I doubt the value/authenticity of the contributions made by this user and feel this fails WP:V and WP:GNG. It may well exist and have some notabilty, but the WP:BURDEN is with the article creator to show it meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Yeah there's something definitely amiss about this new editor, who is creating a lot of odd stuff. Anyway, no notability here, based on what I've found. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Most of this was translated from de:Fissan. Peter James ( talk) 21:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete unnotable company. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominated for G5 - creator is a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Synthelabobabe21. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 22:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

AVI Systems

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

references are local business journals, which are a merely a place to reprint press releases, and downright press releases. And a few directory listings. None of this is evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as I am actually familiar with this but my searches have found nothing better and there's simply nothing minimally better. SwisterTwister talk 16:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete I do not even see a credible claim of significance here and this article would never have passed AfC. There are many "audio visual" companies in the world and I do not see why this one is notable. Is it responsible for inventing multiple notable products? Was it involved in some notable events? In addition it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All the references in the article are either passing mentions or local business journals whose independence and reliability I doubt. For notable company, I would expect some coverage in a mainstream national newspaper at least. Till such sources are found, delete this. Wikipedia is not a business listing. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 10:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Amy Warner

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

fails WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai ( talk) 05:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as by far nothing at all for any applicable notability such as the soccer and especially any basic independent notability, article not at all convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 08:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Geography of the State of Palestine. The consensus is to delete or redirect. The consensus is clear that as there are no rivers in Palestine, the article as stands is not required, however others have argued that the search term is a valid one, and a rediret to the Geography article for the region would be a valid result to the search PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

List of rivers of Palestine

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

I'm sure someone is going to have a fit about this being a political thing, but the issue with this article is entirely one of terminology. The article claims "inland Palestine has no permanent rivers"; which is correct. The two wadis and one river on this list are all borders. It's also accepted that a wadi is a stream or tributary, not a river. Of the three entries on this list, Wadi al-Far'a and HaBesor Stream ("Wadi Gaza" in Arabic, which makes it clearer in parallel in this particular context) aren't rivers. There's is no encyclopedic reason to have an unexpandable list article with one entry on it. As a matter of comparison, the lists of rivers for Jordan and Israel do list wadis as tributaries of the larger rivers they feed into, but there are simply more rivers and tributaries in and around those countries. MSJapan ( talk) 04:58, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep, plausible search term. Rename it to list of rivers and wadis of Palestine if necessary. Siuenti ( talk) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 05:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 05:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep #FreePalestine!-- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Geography of the State of Palestine. I don't feel three articles (none of which are rivers) justifies an article. If it is indeed a valid search term, the redirect would make sense. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect, per Lugnuts. There is even a short section on rivers at the suggested redirect target, which already mentions the border rivers and the wadis. There is no content in the article besides the names of 2 wadis and a stream, which are already named or should be named in the Geography article. See Geography of the State of Palestine#Rivers and lakes. The redirect can go specifically to that section. The redirect would serve a purpose in allowing the navigation template of rivers by country to link to it. -- do ncr am 20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as it is now, there is no rivers, as per nom the list is a list that doesn't exist, and to me just doesn't seem like we need an article on it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete The article first thing admits that there are no rivers in Palestine. :) At most it could be "List of wadis of Palestine". Debresser ( talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Geography of the State of Palestine. A separate article is unnecessary but if this title is standard for other nations then it should be used to link to the main article. Sepsis II ( talk) 00:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 09:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Lugnuts. Plausible search term given most people are not going to know the difference between rivers and wadis. Proposed target has all this information and more about the region's geography. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete and then Redirect as at best this could still be a likely search attempt regarding English, nothing at all however suggests keeping entirely. SwisterTwister talk 23:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep in some form as it's a reasonable search term and so that the link in the Lists of Rivers template doesn't go dead, but could be renamed or retargeted. Kmusser ( talk) 13:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - To quote the lead to the (very small) list, "Inland Palestine does not have any permanent rivers, ...". this list fails the notability test and the usefulness test as well. If not deleted, the page should become a REDIRECT, as others have suggested. Drdpw ( talk) 21:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete a list of one, that's shared with other places, is of no encyclopedic value. a redirect would serve to fill the need to catch the search term. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Lugnuts and especially Doncram above - there is no way this should be an article (the fact that the lede contradicts the title is farcical enough, the "list" being 3 items is the cherry on top), but as a plausible search term, and given a highly appropriate target like Geography of the State of Palestine#Rivers and lakes and the appropriate template, a redirect seems by far the best option here. Fosse 8► 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Tamika Huston

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

Obviously fails BLP1E and BLPCRIME. Doubtful even the crime is notable; the victim certainly not. John from Idegon ( talk) 04:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 05:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia ( talk) 05:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 22:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete the city of Detroit alone has over 300 murders a year, the US has thousands, worldwide no one has a good grasp on how to even estimate it. There is nothing here to make this article more than routine news coverage of a murder. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as there's simply nothing convincing here, had there been anything else to suggest there was substantial coverage and other media, I would've reconsidered, but everything suggests there's nothing better at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Eric Stetson

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

Subject of the article is non-notable. All but one sources on the page are self-published sources from organizations that the subject has created. A google search also links to those same self-created organizations. Jeff3000 ( talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Subject of the article is the co-founder of a religious denomination with a presence in 16 states. He has also authored two books. A35821361 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

That doesn't make him notable in the context of Wikipedia. Anyone can author any number of books. Notability is based on the number of non-self-published reliable sources. -- 01:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as nothing particularly convincing for any solid independent notability, nothing else to therefore suggest salvageability and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete I don't see convincing evidence of action beyond a single church community and the "recent comments" on their meetings are 2013 and "recent posts" are from 2015 even for that one. One page lists two churches as members of the association. The books don't count.-- Smkolins ( talk) 01:29, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete. No evidence of notability. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 07:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The concensus is that the company does not meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

CoinCorner

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

Promotional article on non-notable company.. The only RS is a general one of the line of business, not the company. The rest are press releases in trade magazines or blogs. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as not all convincing of any applicable notability, nothing here from the article suggests anything better at all and I would not Ave accepted like Joseph2302 had last April. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi SwisterTwister I have amended the article to include up-to-date information and reliable sources. I ask you kindly to reconsider the proposed deletion or let me know how I can further improve this article, thank you. Brollymook ( talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as clearly not notable from searches.

ThePlatypusofDoom - May I ask what makes this company any less notable than any of the other bitcoin exchanges listed on Wikipedia? Thanks. Brollymook ( talk) 16:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Brollymook: That argument is invalid, see WP:WAX. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 16:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ ThePlatypusofDoom: Thanks for the link and I apologise for the poor quality argument, however, I do believe that this article meets the criteria set out under WP:GNG. CoinCorner has a number of notable achievements and has received significant coverage from reliable sources that are verifiable, including global mainstream media such as Bloomberg, The Independent and the BBC, as well as working with the Isle of Man Government. The co-founders of CoinCorner have been interviewed by 2 international TV shows (Russia Today and Arte.tv). All sources are referenced in the article, supporting evidence that CoinCorner has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.

May I ask what searches are you referring to? I appreciate that CoinCorner may not appear notable in US searches, however, CoinCorner is a UK company and appears in a number of UK-related searches. Thanks Brollymook ( talk) 15:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Michael C. O’Laughlin

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

WP:BLP, based entirely on primary sources with the closest thing anywhere in the entire article to a reliable source being the purely WP:ROUTINE death notice of his father, of a writer and musician whose claims to passing WP:CREATIVE have a decidedly advertorial, rather than encyclopedic, skew to them. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody is entitled to an article just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which reliable source coverage, supporting a credible notability claim, must be present for an article to become earned. Delete. Bearcat ( talk) 17:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete being the most published in any field is not notable, especially one as narrow as the geneology of a particular country, especially when some of it is republishing works. Being prolific is not the same things as being impactful, especially in the era of the blog. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as WorldCat showed nothing and my searches found only one actual link, a November 2015 news article, and there's by far nothing to suggest minimally better regarding article improvements thus delete as there's no hope. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete.. Michig ( talk) 07:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Richard Johnstone-Scott

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

Not a notable person Amisom ( talk) 15:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete Total lack of sources to demonstrate anything that is claimed is accurate let alone noted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete and I wish I had caught his one before the relist, nothing at all for any basic minimal notability, certainly nothing new to suggest better information regarding any notability of course. Nothing else to suggest there's anything else beyond the apparent event. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

delete he is notable for being a zookeeper at a zoo where a freak accident occurred. I do get hits on a news archive search, but every one of tehm, different years , different reports, consisted of essentially the same as this form the Globe & Mail: "his keeper, Richard Johnstone- Scott, said by telephone." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. It seems the sources were there but I was looking in the wrong area. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 11:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ex Girlfriend (band)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep. Passes WP:NMUSIC on three counts. Two albums on Reprise/Warners ( [5]), hit album and singles ( [6], [7]), significant coverage ( [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]). -- Michig ( talk) 07:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep links provided by Michig are evidence of notability. Peter James ( talk) 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Thelitcham Monthly

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

~~Notability - Arts Rescuer • Talk me 07:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)~~ — ArtsRescuer ( talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Shafinusri ( talk • contribs). reply

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Uanfala ( talk) 12:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as nothing at all convincing for any applicable notability, magazines are not inheritly notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Robert Hunt (illustrator)

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

My searches have found nothing better at all for any applicable notability and the exhibitions were not apparently permanent collections. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep: There's lots of coverage of his design of the Dreamworks logo, for instance, and this BusinessInsider story indicates additional critical acclaim. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 08:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

...and meets WP:ANYBIO with this award ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~
(Talk)~ 09:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that sources were added to the article after the nomination for deletion, so it's no longer an unreferenced article. After two relistings, no consensus for a particular action has arisen herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Rick O'Shea

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

Entirely un-referenced article about a living person of questionable notability. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 21:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 21:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Added sources that indicate ongoing coverage in national media and indeed notability. I will of course admit that there is a lot of cruft that needs to be weeded from the article. FlowerpotmaN·( t) 22:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Remove from mainspace and Draft instead at best, and I noticed News has several pages of links, which could be consulted and see if there's enough minimally better but the current article is certainly acceptable and is thus best removed from mainspace if anyone is willing to improve it.... instead of keeping it here and simply hoping for improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this person does not meet the notability criteria PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Leo Dijkgraaf

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

My searches have found nothing better at all including for applicable notability and this could, if needed and wanted, could then be redirected to the TV series Sesamstraat (Sesame Street), there's simply nothing including at the Dutch Wiki to suggest this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notalbe TV producer. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep Well-known person in the Netherlands. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(
Talk) 11:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

How is this showing the article is capable of being notable and improved? SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Might be notable to the Netherlands, if they watched Sesamstraat, but not known globally enough to warrant an article here. — Wylie pedia 18:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fisheries Science of Ukraine

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

Non-notable journal. Not included in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. A previous version of this article ( “Fisheries Science of Ukraine” (scientific journal)) was deleted after an uncontested PROD. Randykitty ( talk) 22:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Publications-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - no sources, does not meet notability guideline. DeVerm ( talk) 20:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better and the article insinuates nothing matchingly better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Fiona Gaunt

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

I nearly PRODed too as there's simply nothing to actually suggest the needed solid independent notability and her IMDb list basically says it all, my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes NACTOR due to her roles in Television series. I sourced the roles which include Dr. Smith in a cult sci-fi show, Moonbase 3 and Hélène Kuragina in War and Peace, a BBC miniseries. There are enough roles in significant TV series to pass NACTOR. I've added the sources I've found to the article. Megalibrarygirl ( talk) 23:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep per improvements & sources, Meets NACTOR & GNG – Davey2010^Talk 04:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 16:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Udaiyaathathu

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

This is WP:OR. No scholarly sources exist for this supposed Southeast Asian poetic form. A few self published sources (by some Singapore based poets) seem to be talking about it, but that's all. Delete, as no reliable sources exist. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 16:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: I think this calls for someone who understands Sanskrit; at least, I assume the word has its origins there. It could be that the spelling of this transliteration is incorrect, thereby making it difficult to find anything. I'll see if I can find a Sanskrit-speaking Wikipedian. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 05:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 07:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Yes, the name seems to be Sanskrit or Tamil. But from what I managed to gather, it was a group of Singaporean poets who have invented this form recently (for a poetry event). It is unclear if this is really an "ancient poetic form". For all I know, this could be an art project. I had nominated a similar article previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liwuli -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

It does look like an odd transcription of a Sanskrit term, but I'm finding it impossible to parse (I've tried quite a few combinations but the dictionary doesn't return anything meaningful. There might be a Sanskrit word underlying this, and I'm not seeing this merely because I know nothing about the way Sanskrit words get phonologically adapted into Southeast Asian languages.) Uanfala ( talk) 21:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete: I agree now; it is rather suspicious that the oldest hit on Google is a Facebook post from 21 April 2016 (same as this page's creation date). Under the current title -which is probably incorrectly spelled or even made up- the subject fails WP:GNG, so even in the unlikely case that the subject is notable, this title does not need to be kept. - HyperGaruda ( talk) 20:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete as I myself reviewed and tagged it for improvements to be made....but none have happened and searches noticeably found nothing. Usually these subjects are challenging to improve but there's certainly enough to suggest no lifelines for these at all at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to PL/SQL#Similar_languages. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

StepSqlite

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

My searches have found nothing to suggest any better applicable notability and there's nothing convincing from the current article to suggest it also satisfies the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Selective Merge to PL/SQL § Similar languages, where this topic is mentioned in a single sentence. This will improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. Source searches are not indicating that the topic meets WP:N to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Selective Merge to PL/SQL § Similar languages. I could not find multiple in depth RS to support this article, but basic facts are verifiable and this is a plausible search term. Northamerica1000 has found a good target for this topic, hence a redirect is warranted. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Barzin#Discography. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Barzin (EP)

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

No indication of notability under WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Single ref to Discogs merely establishes the existence of the album, but not notability. Couldn't find anything better. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. st170e^talk 21:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete as there's nothing at all insinuating at least the basic notability for a separate article and that's not surprising. SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Barzin#Discography, per Wikipedia's standard practise. Cavarrone 08:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Barzin § Discography. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this subject does not meet the notability criteria. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Etikoppaka Toys

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

Non-notable as far as can be ascertained. It's not clear from the article whether the subject is a company or products. I began by tidying up this article amd detailing the refs, but later came to the conclusion that there was nothing in it to suggest notability. The three refs (all from The Hindu) mention Etikoppaka Toys in passing, but it is not the main subject in any of them. Emeraude ( talk) 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge to ~~Toy~~ List of wooden toys, ~~which presently has no mention of this unique product.~~ This will improve the merge target article. Some coverage exists, but the depth of coverage does not appear enough to qualify a standalone article per WP:GNG (e.g. sources found: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]). Note to closer: I have renamed the article to Etikoppaka toys, because sources do not refer to them as a proper noun. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not sure they are "unique" - they are just lacquered wooden toys and others exist all over the world. Emeraude ( talk) 09:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Etikoppaka toys are quite unique, in part because it was reported in this source that they would be listed on the Indian Geographical Indications Registry. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

"Quite unique" is vague. Something is either unique or it isn't; there are no degrees of uniqueness. Emeraude ( talk) 10:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The Indian Geographical Indications Registry doesn't list just anything. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Maybe not, but it doesn't make lacquered wooden toys unique. Emeraude ( talk) 12:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Sure it does, because these toys are indigenous and culturally-related to a particular area per the unique styles they are created in. For starters, see this image, this image, this image and this image. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply

You clearly do not understand what "unique" means. To be unique there must be no other lacquered wooden toys at all! Clearly there are. That does not mean that these particular toys are not special; they may well be, hence the geographic indication, but it is not because they are lacquered wooden toys. Nowhere in the article is there any suggestion of uniqueness. Emeraude ( talk) 09:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

They're unique relative to their pending listing on the Indian Geographical Indications Registry, for which other wooden toys are not. I would say merge to wooden toy, but no article exists at this time. My merge !vote stands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC) reply

N.b. I have slightly modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete and mention however needed because there's nothing currently particularly convincing for its own article, we can wait for a restarted better article when the time comes. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge or delete. Don't have an opinion on which is better, but this clearly doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. – Compassionate727 ^(
T·
C) 23:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Trade unions in Pakistan

No useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 09:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete Absolutely no sources whatsoever. Jdcomix ( talk) 15:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
There obviously is an article to be written. But this isn't it. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 19:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Ironically, there clearly are sources, and editors only needed to look at the article at hand in order to see some of them, as they are hyperlinked from it. One doesn't even need to search for them, or check the article history; although both are standard good practice before nominating things for deletion and when adding an opinion to an AFD discussion. One just needs to read what's in the text as nominated. Actually performing standard good practice turns up some interesting entire books on the subject in Worldcat, and that's just for starters.
On the subject of the edit history, however: It shows that multiple sources were simply filched wholesale and splatted into the article by people, instead of writing. One of them was Bawa, Riffat; Hashmi, Waqar (2010). "Labor Unionization in Pakistan — History & Trends" ( PDF). Pakistaniaat: A Journal of Pakistan Studies. 1 (2): 71–82. for example. Another was "Islamic Republic of Pakistan". National Labour Law Profiles. International Labour Organization. which itself cites further sources to be looked at.
Given that the article was a copyright violation in its initial revision, and its creator Siddiqui ( talk · contribs) clearly substituted half-inching other people's work wholesale as a substitute for writing in many places in Wikipedia, I would like to err on the side of caution and simply delete the entire edit history in order to start again. We lose exactly one sentence of prose by actual content writers that is a generic description of trades unions which isn't even specific to Pakistan. A ten-year history of lazy non-writing and multiple copyright violation is exactly where a administrator removing an entire edit history is warranted. Delete and let the redlinks stand.
Uncle G ( talk) 11:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep This is deserving of an article. The article needs serious work, but the topic is notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete - We already have All Pakistan Trade Union Federation, which seems to be the AFL-CIO of the Pakistani union movement. Constituent union histories should be sprung off of that. Yeah, the subject of this unsourced one line stub is technically notable, but let's just call it a fork, toss in a stick of TNT, and call it good. Carrite ( talk) 05:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply

According to the article the All Pakistan Trade Union Federation is the second largest trade union federation in Pakistan, so neither it, nor an article about any other federation, can be the top-level article about trade unionism in Pakistan. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. On balance, the material supporting notability is as strong as we generally use for organizations of this sort. We often have the problem with religious journals used to support notability or groups or peoples active in that religion, and it's similar to the very frequent problem of using trade journals to support notability of people or organizations in that trade. What in practice is basically needed in each case is some recognition from outside the religion or trade, and that seems to be present here, DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Association for Jewish Outreach Programs

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AJOP

(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}}

.

It's a somewhat lengthy article, but there are zero reliable references on the page. It's almost entirely original research right now, and is written like a WP:PROMO page. Page doesn't really make an assertion of notability either. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 19:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep this article was the subject of a prior AFD, [ [19]]. I also fail to see the lack of sources, this article is well sourced. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The previous AfD was from over 8 years ago, and Wikipedia nota::::::::::::::bility and verifiability policies have changed considerably since then. I am unsure what you mean by the "article is well sourced." Which references are you talking about? There isn't a single reference on the page that has in depth coverage. At least 5 references are deadlinks, although based on their titles it's unlikely they ever had any in depth information about this organization. References 13 - 27, which are more than half of the references on the page, are just a mention of the name of the organization. The rest of the article is unsourced and original research. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Keep based on the more than adequate sourcing about the organization. Alansohn ( talk) 23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Which sources in specific are you referring to? FuriouslySerene ( talk) 13:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Which sources are not valid? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply

None of them is an independent reliable source with significant coverage, so none of them is valid for establishing notability. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

None of them, as I said in my nomination and my comment to you above. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 21:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. No independent reliable sources with significant ::::::::::::::coverage have been presented either in the article or here, and I can find none elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep. Sources could be better, and we should really work to resolve the templates that have been sitting there for nearly five years. But deletion is unnecessary. The organization is legitimate and quite active within its world. StevenJ81 ( talk) 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

But our notability guidelines depend on significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not legitimacy or activity. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

, just out of curiosity, what's wrong with jlaw.com? It's a reputable law and halacha site. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Thanks for identifying the best of the sources cited in the article, but it still only has three or four sentences about AJOP, so wouldn't be enough on its own to justify notability. Can you identify a few more such sources? If so it would help the case for keeping this article. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

cross-currents.com Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

That source contains the sentence, "I was a Board member of AJOP for many years in the early years of the organization", so is clearly not independent. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

And so what? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

And so sources must be independent in order to contribute to notability. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

The only point I want to comment on is the WP:PROMO claim. I:::::::::::::: agree with that claim, also in view of who was the main contributor to this article. I have no opinion on the quality of the sources or the notability criteria for organizations. Debresser ( talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 18:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
:::::::::::::: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete. Most accessible sources are trivial, the one good one that's been pointed out isn't indepdendent. It just isn't notable. Maybe in a different world... – Compassionate727 ^(
T·
C) 23:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment. This page has been listed and relisted for a month, and there is certainly not a consensus to delete. I think this should be kept for now, with a moratorium on a new AfD for, say, 6-12 months. StevenJ81 ( talk) 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree. I don't see the reason for the multiple relisting. It's not as if there were no comments on the discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

If the discussion was closed now then it would certainly be as "delete", because nobody has made a policy-compliant argument for keeping, but three people have made such arguments for deleting. The consensus that we use is that among editors making policy-compliant arguments, not a count of votes. If you want this to be kept then you need to show that the subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just offer a personal opinion of the subject. One independent reliable source has been provided that has a few sentences about the subject (jlaw.com), so if you can find a few more such sources this can be kept. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with the IP. To the two commenters, I'm sure you're familiar with the WP:GNG, but neither of you have brought a single independent reliable source which would justify keeping this article (leaving aside their reliability, neither have anything more than a passing mention of this organization). Perhaps instead of criticizing th::::::::::::::e admins, you could research and make a policy based reason for keeping the article. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

~~I'm going to change my mind and support delete. I'm thinking AJOP may have shut down.~~

Frankly, I have been concerned that this nomination was motivated in part by bias. I need to say here for the record that (a) Orthodox communications vehicles that are reliable within their own world are sometimes denigrated by editors who are not part of the world, and (b) parts of the Orthodox world try not to live on the Internet, so finding online sources is not always so easy. I also found the continual relisting of the page offensive, in that it felt like people wanting a deletion were going to keep on relisting until they got enough support to win a deletion. My apologies if I misread peoples' motivation, but that's what it looked like from my seat.

All that having been said, I am no longer finding evidence of the organization's existence at all—even its own website is no longer operational. I'm not so interested in this as to try to prove that an AJOP of the past was notable. StevenJ81 ( talk) 18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

http://ajopconvention.weebly.com/ is the site, and it seems pretty recent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Here's a scholar source: https://books.google.com/books?id=4c7UBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=association+for+jewish+outreach+programs&source=bl&ots=zpehZlyj4_&sig=O2rndb-WNq7SALc5fwPLiNRfC3k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbx8XskajNAhWI8z4KHVeaCHI4ChDoAQhNMAU and a news source: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-outreach-revolution/ one thing to keep in mind is that AJOP had originally been the acronym for one thing but it was changed later on. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Then edit the page and get the sources in the page. I'll flip back if you can find three unimpeachable sources. StevenJ81 ( talk) 18:2::::::::::::::7, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's one more: http://klalperspectives.org/rabbi-ephraim-buchwald/ Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I think there is now more than enough to save this page. We have jlaw, cross-currents, the few google books cites, the klal-perspectives and the quite a few others I missed that was already in the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, we need to get everything included. (Note: cross-currents is pretty marginal, even for me, notwithstanding point (a) above. It's still a blog.) StevenJ81 ( talk) 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

As already noted the cross-currents source was written by a former board member of AJOP, so is not independent as required. Please don't repeat arguments that have already been refuted. The Google Books cite that you provided has one sentence saying that this group exists, which falls well short of the significant coverage required. The klal-perspectives source is an Internet forum, obviously not a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Klal Perspective is not a forum, it's an online journal with editorial oversight. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ok, maybe I was wrong to characterise it in that way, but this is still an opinion piece by a rabbi about his addresses to AJOP, not an independent source writing about that organisation. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

StevenJ81, nobody in this discussion has said anything that could remotely give you cause to think that they are motivated by anything other than a desire to maintain Wikipedia's standards. I find the implication of your assumption about motivation, especially the "and still does", deeply offensive. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

86, I don't understand why the page was relisted four times. I found that suspicious. But I am willing to place my suspicions in the past tense, at least. And I will repeat my apology in the present tense. StevenJ81 ( talk) 19:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Sir Joseph: How do you want to work in the citation from Klal Perspective? StevenJ81 ( talk) 19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Not sure if there's a real good spot for it, but perhaps under Founding in NY? That is what is currently in the article. I'm sure we can somehow add a section about AJOP and kiruv responding to modern technical issues. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)I had really hoped that others with more knowledge of this than I have would undertake this work, but I guess it's going to be mostly on Sir Joseph and me. I think what needs to happen is this: (1) We need to get Klal Perspective (which is, in fact, a journal with editorial oversight), into the page. (2) We need to clean up junk and dead links in here. (3) We need to see what is left at that point. I'm thinking I need the rest of the week on this, since I have a real life, too. Are you amenable to that? StevenJ81 ( talk) 19:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

StevenJ81, I read the relisting as bending over backwards to give supporters of keeping this article time to make valid arguments, quite the opposite of your supposition that defies our practice of assuming good faith. As I said before, this could quite correctly have been closed as "delete" before any of the relisti::::::::::::::ng. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, 86, I'm the one with egg (or worse) on my face right now. If you look through my work around here, you'll see that I'm usually a pretty strong proponent of AGF. And I flat-out failed on that in this instance. I have run across some anti-Orthodox bias on a few occasions here, but you are absolutely right that there was no explicit indication that there was bias here. And I assumed bias, rather than good faith. So I am 100% in the wrong on this.

Before this page is actually deleted, however, Sir Joseph and I plan to rewrite and scale down this page to something that the sources we have can actually support. We think that there are enough reasonably good sources here to maintain a short article on the organization, limiting the article to facts and taking out puffery and promotion. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

You've had over a month to present such sources here and haven't done so. Why on Earth should you get any longer to do so? There's no need to spend time on editing the article - just show us the sources, right now. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 21:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Well, you should give me longer because I asked nicely. And because it's clear that I thought that during the month's interval, the onus was on the deleting parties. I didn't think (and really still don't) that the sources here are so inadequate as to call the outright notability of the subject into question.

I do think the sources aren't great. I do think the p::::::::::::::iece is too promotional, and that not all of it is well supported by the sources. But Sir Joseph and I both think the sources already present are sufficient to show notability, and to allow a substantially reduced article to remain in the encyclopedia. I think that is what should happen.

That said, if an administrator comes here in the next few days and is bound and determined to close this as delete, then I will request it be userfied into my user space, and I will continue to work on it. StevenJ81 ( talk) 00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with your suggestion, I think the article should be userfied to your user space until sufficient reliable sources can be identified. There's way too much unsourced content right now, the tone is way too promotional still, and I don't think the sources provided so far meet the GNG. If there are more out there that haven't been identified, the article can be recreated later. FuriouslySerene ( talk) 14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Support proposal to userfy. I just want this out of the mainspace ~~right now~~. — Compassionate727 ^(
T·
C) 17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Struck asinine addition to my statement, whose reason for adding I can't remember. — Compassionate727 ^(
T·
C) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I agree with both FuriouslySerene and Compassionate727. This has been in mainspace for nearly nine years, with editors scraping the barrel to find adequate sources, and this discussion has been going on for a month with no new such sources being identified, so the issue of this being in mainspace needs to be decided right here, right now. If StevenJ81 and Sir Joseph think they can find better sources after all this time then of course they should be given a chance to do so, but in draft or user space, not mainspace. My understanding of the process is that if sourcing is improved a WP:DRV discussion should be used to determine whether it has been improved enough. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

I still don't agree that the sources are that woefully inadequate. But I suspect we're going to lose that battle. So go ahead and call in an administrator to close this as deleted–userfied, and let's be done with it.

Before I leave, I need to make the following point. As harsh as 86 has been, s/he and FuriouslySerene have generally been polite, and 86 has correctly called me out on my lack of good faith. But Compassionate727, when you say, "I just want this out of the mainspace right now," that's just nasty. You sound like you are offended at the very existence of the article, and are failing to assume good faith on my part and that of Sir Joseph. There is nothing in the article that should offend you that much. I suggest you look to 86 and FuriouslySerene to learn how to write comments that people will listen to. StevenJ81 ( talk) 18:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Even taking out the bad sources, there are more than enough good and reliable sources to justify an article, even pared down. I am a bit surprised by the tone of those advocating delete. I've seen far worse. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sir Joseph, you have been invited several times to indicate which "good and reliable" sources you consider are adequate for establishing notablity, but have still only come up with the one source at jlaw.com that has a few dozen words about AJOP. I have already asked you to stop repeating arguments that have been refuted, but you are doing so again now. However many times you repeat an untruth it still doesn't become true. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Read up, I brought a journal, a google books source just to name a few. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

And you read my responses to those. The first that you mention is not independent and the second only has one short sentence confirming existence. As I said, but you choose to ignore, however many times you repeat an untruth it still doesn't become true. Please don't use propaganda methods that were developed by the arch-enemies of the Jewish people. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

WOW!. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

WOW! I pointed out what you were doing here. 86.17.222.157 ( talk) 20:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

OK. This is now at the point that we need an impartial administrator. (How do we get one?)

I think these sources are sufficient to show notability in a minimal kind of way. I'm also prepared to accept an impartial administrator's ruling to the contrary. But if you're going to start accusing us in that way, I'm not prepared to accept your opinion about this. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ StevenJ81 and Sir Joseph: I apologize. Looking back at my comment, I'm not sure why added "right now," as it is not something that I meant at the time, or have ever felt. Certainly, that would explain why that comment didn't 'feel right' at the time, and I can see why you are offended. I've struck it. I'm not sure that'll help anything, but I do apologize. — Compassionate727 ^(
T·
C) 14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, DGG, since you've asked to be pinged to deletion discussions and we need an administrator, would you go ahead and close this thing before anyone (myself included) says anything else stupid? — Compassionate727 ^(
T·
C) 14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hapoel Ramat Gan Givatayim B.C.

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

Does not pass the guidelines outlined at WP:Notability (organizations and companies), nor does it independently qualify for WP:GNG. References are primary only. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ - Hard to believe that a basketball team that has been in the Israeli Basketball Premier League, the top league in Israel, would not have gotten sufficient coverage (in Israel, at least, and admittedly mostly in Hebrew) to meet GNG. Rlendog ( talk) 21:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Rlendog, this team plays in a second tier league in Israel, not the top tier. Currently plays in the Liga Leumit, not the Ligat HaAl (the Israeli Basketball Premier League), ~~and only played in the Ligat HaAl for a brief time in 1960, shortly after the Ligat HaAl began.~~ Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

But they did spend time in the premier league. And over 50+ years, even a 2nd tier team would likely get significant coverage. Rlendog ( talk) 13:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Ok, after getting myself confused as hell when searching for sources due to the identically named football team, I've figured out what is going on here. The team in the current article we are talking about here has only existed since 2011, and the much older (and identically named) team that was disbanded in 1988 was Hapoel_Ramat_Gan_B.C., which has its own article and was in the premier league several times. This material is copied into the 'history' section of this article, but is not really about this team, which has only existed since 2011, has never played in the premier league, and has only played in the third tier and second tier (last season only). These two articles are essentially identical, with the Hapoel_Ramat_Gan_B.C. article noting the new team, and this article using the older team of the same name as a crutch for notability. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

For now I will strike my keep. I still think even a team in a country's 2nd tier league is very likely to generate significant coverage, but not as certain as for a team that has been in the top tier. Rlendog ( talk) 22:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC) reply

To note, there is no hebrew version of this article. There is however a Hebrew version of Hapoel Ramat Gan B.C. which from the layout seems to include the information about this new version of the team. (see this google translation). perhaps the best course of action is to merge the content of this article into that one and redirect this article to that one. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Note that I have merged some content into the other article (as it seems relevant there anyway). and would suggest that this AfD be closed as Redirect. @ Y: @ Rlendog: Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Makes sense to me. Rlendog ( talk) 16:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

well, if it's a minor league team, let's delete it. -- Y not? 11:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. J04n( talk page) 12:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Sandy Hawley Community Service Award

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

This award does not satisfy WP:GNG in that there is not significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources. The current sourcing is not independent, as it is from the organization that grants the award. The article also appears to raise Wikipedia:Conflict of interest problems. Most of the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame-related articles were created by User:Rajeevanm, an editor whose edits since 2014 relate principally to the OSHOF. Interestingly, the user name is very close to the name of the OSHOF's director of marketing and board member. See here and here. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 29. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply
A related AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Williams Media Award. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Cbl62: Hi Cbl62, I apologize for the late reply to your comment as I'm just learning how to use the "talk" section on Wikipedia. Although you may believe there is not significant coverage in multiple, reliable and independent sources to warrant the Sandy Hawley Community Service Award article, I would recommend checking these sources: Toronto Maple Leafs [20], Toronto Sun [21], Ottawa Redblacks [22] to start as the articles were written in 2013, 2015, 2016 respectively. I agree with you that there is not much coverage from independent sources but I believe there is sufficient mention of the award to meet WP:GNG standards. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Rajeevanm ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The sources you mention may constitute significant coverage of the OSHOF, but they do not constitute significant coverage of the Hawley Award. The references given merely contain passing reference to the Hawley Award. Such passing references are insufficient under GNG to support a stand-alone article. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Cbl62: With regards to your concern that there is a conflict of interest. Allow me to provide some background on the Ontario Sports Hall of Fame. The OSHOF is a volunteer, non-profit organization that is dedicated to preserving the history and feats of athletes within our province for the future generations. We don't have a charitable status nor do we receive any funding from the government at any level. All Board of Directors and committee members are volunteers. We don't receive any compensation and often times we pay out of pocket to manage small expenses. In fact, to preserve and honour what we set out to achieve, all volunteers (including me) pay for the tickets to our own events. As the director of marketing, it's my role to educate and embrace the younger people of Ontario on the achievements of our athletes - this often involves engaging audiences online (social media, wikipedia, and more). I can assure you this is a legitimate organization that has been operating since 1995 (I was born in 1990 so it's almost a lifetime lol). Rajeevanm ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

The issue is not whether or not OSHOF is a legitimate organization. The issue is your conflict as OSHOF marketing director in editing articles concerning OSHOF. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:COI and its disclosure obligations. Cbl62 ( talk) 05:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge, probably to Ontario Sports Hall of Fame (OSHOF) or to a new section in it. The award is a program of OSHOF. The current award article and the current OSHOF article are both short. If OSHOF is worth covering, and if the award is an important program of it, then it can be mentioned there. A redirect from the award to the organization can be left behind.

About COI, the Wikipedia policy/guideline at wp:COI used to be explicit in saying that a person with COI can edit, although they should be responsible, and they should defer to non-involved editors in the event of any conflict over content (e.g. they could make suggestions for article changes at the Talk page, but leave the implementation to others). In my view, COI problems are much less when the organization is nonprofit and the editor(s) are volunteers. Cbl62 and me are volunteers here, by the way. But still you have to understand that Wikipedia does have to have policy/guidelines about COI because wikipedia is otherwise over-run by COI editors, including paid editors (not the case here). -- do ncr am 20:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was Delete. AustralianRupert ( talk) 06:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

James Burmeister

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

I would've PRODed too since this is questionable for WP:CRIME, WP:GNG, WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG, my searches have found only some news from that time, so there's basically nothing actually convincing here. The fact this has also stayed quiet since July 2008, a year after that event, shows how there's nothing convincing to keep at all and there's likely nothing for the future. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete - Does not meet WP:MILNG. Very old article with it's one source a dead link. I did find this 2008 item where he was given six months in prison. But as far as I can tell, this is his only claim to fame. — Maile ( talk) 14:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN ( talk) 01:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Delete non-notable soldier. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. EricSerge ( talk) 17:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC) reply

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