From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 February 24 February >
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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Bruce A. Hedman

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

No evidence of notability per WP:PROF/ WP:BIO. Very little, if any, coverage in independent RSs, h-index is low (6 according to his Google Scholar page), the IAJS membership doesn't seem to contribute to notability because it looks like anyone can buy one. I couldn't find any evidence he is a member of ARAS. Hence: delete. Everymorning (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no indication that he passes the notability guidelines for academics. His role as a local Presbyterian pastor is also not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Neither being pastor of a small church nor his scholarly contributions [1] are enough for notability. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete seems like a nice enough guy. Too bad he doesn't meet GNG or any of the other notability guidelines. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep. A bit of notability here and there. GS h-index of 6 nearly enough for WP:Prof#C1 in pure mathematics, a Templeton Award, and religious activism for WP:GNG . Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC). reply
    • I don't think it's the Templeton Prize, merely a research grant from the John Templeton Foundation (which also gives the prize). I can find no documentation of it other than in a course syllabus by Hedman himself. The archive link used as a reference doesn't mention Hedman. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Also, the very low typical citation counts in pure math do not mean that we should start taking very low h-indexes as an indicator of notability. It means that we should consider other indicators instead. His work on clique graphs is very much a niche topic. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
What is wrong with a niche topic? One would expect fewer citations for such. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC). reply

Ping User:StAnselm Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC). reply

  • Delete per David Eppstein - I don't see any area as leading to notability, and I don't think we can argue for it on the basis of the sum total of several non-notable contributions. St Anselm ( talk) 05:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, career seems to have stalled. Abductive ( reasoning) 04:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no WP:RS. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Irish American Baseball Hall of Fame

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

Article on non-notable "hall of fame" that functions primarily to promote a Midtown Manhattan sports bar(and duly spammed by a now-dormant paid editor). Fails GNG, lacks significant independent secondary sourcing. It's so inconsequential that a 2015 article on the bar in The New York Times didn't even mention it. [2] Coretheapple ( talk) 23:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Completely non-notable topic, the fact it is housed in a NY bar of which doesn't even have inherent notability is another giveaway. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. MLB.com has briefly noted the induction ceremonies several times, but there is really little else. The New York Daily News wrote about it once that I can see, but that probably says more about the randomness of Bill Murray having been inducted. The cited NYT source talks about Red Foley but says nothing about Foley's IABHOF selection. The Fleitz book, listed as further reading, discusses some Irish Americans in the Baseball Hall of Fame, but I don't see anything about the IABHOF. EricEnfermero ( Talk) 08:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G5. Created by a sock. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply

A Good Evening With

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and has no assertion of notability. The external links are littered with potential advertisement only websites and there are no sources / references to draw any notability on. The lead says “A Good Evening With is a British online chat show produced by Wizo Productions” which does not in any way indicate the importance of the subject. Furthermore, I would have avoided AfD if it had been produced with a studio with established notability on Wikipedia, which it has not. A detailed check of the potential sources news ·  newspapers ·  books ·  scholar ·  HighBeam ·  JSTOR ·  free images ·  free news sources ·  The Wikipedia Library · NYT ·  WP reference doesn't seem to render any results which would make this article notable either. Wiki-Coffee Talk 23:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wiki-Coffee Talk 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wiki-Coffee Talk 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wiki-Coffee Talk 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NWEB, article offers no secondary sources and I can't find any online. (Or speedy as WP:G5 if the sockpuppetry is confirmed.) -- McGeddon ( talk) 09:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I can find no mention of the show in reliable sources, nor could I find anything on Wizo Productions who are stated to have produced the show. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Dragoș Dima

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails WP:TENNIS and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 ( talk) 22:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - from what I could see, no ATP appearances, not even a minor league title. Only minor-minor league level player that is non-notable. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:TENNIS requirements with no ATP Tour appearances or ATP Challenger titles. All sources I can find regarding his career are auto-generated statistical resources with no news articles, and he seems to have had no notable Juniors performances either. Sellyme Talk 10:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speey delete ( ( A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject) by 78.26

Ashley Chantal Bello

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

Simply an advert, doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Autobiography. Boleyn ( talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Psychopathy in the workplace

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

I agree with the numerous complaints on the talk page about violations of WP:NPOV. This article appears to be an advertisement for the book Snakes in Suits. I agree with this comment on the talk page: "This article reads like a corporate presentation, and it's a tad prejudiced towards people with schizotypal personality disorders. Maybe it should be reviewed for bias." I also agree with this comment from the talk page: "Agreed. How do we motion to delete? This article has numerous problems and promotes a pseudoscience." I also agree with this comment from the talk page: "The sources are very poor, mostly from news articles and popular writers instead of psychology journals. Dutton especially has been criticized for a loose definition of the diagnosis." Bottom line: The article appears to be created to promote and advertise a theory, and is an unencyclopedic form of spam promotion of pseudoscience. Sagecandor ( talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The topic is notable because entire books are written about it. Not just Snakes in Suits but also:
  1. Working with Monsters: How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the Workplace Psychopath
  2. Stalking, Harassment, and Murder in the Workplace: Guidelines for Protection and Prevention
  3. Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets
  4. Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job
  5. The No Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't
  6. The Good Psychopath's Guide to Success
  7. The Psychopath Factory: How Capitalism Organizes Empathy
  8. The Narcissist and Psychopath in the Workplace
That's just a sample as there are many, many more books covering this topic. If our article isn't perfect yet then, per our editing policy, that's a reason to improve it; not a reason to delete it. AfD is not cleanup. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The OPs assertions are just not credible. Only a relatively small amount of weight was placed on "Snakes In Suits" - 37 other cites were used including from luminaries such as Manfred F.R. Kets de Vries. Disregarding academic books, around 13 cites are specifically from psychology academic journals (plus some psychology related) - although some additonal cites are media articles about specific new academic articles rather than a cite to the academic article itself. I have no idea what relevance "schizotypal personality disorders" has which the OP mentions - it is not mentioned in the article. Incidentally, "Snakes In Suits" was co-authored by Robert D. Hare who is considered by most to be the world's leading guru on psychopathy. Also as per Andrew D..-- Penbat ( talk) 09:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It is a notable topic. Sources online include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. It appears to be a genuine phenomenon, and a notable one. The delete rationale seems more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT than founded in policy. TheMagikCow ( talk) 16:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - yes, it's pop psychology crap, but it's sourceable. Bearian ( talk) 04:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With WP:NPASR. While there are indeed problems with SPA accounts drawn to this discussion due to the way the subject was treated by Trump, there are some claims that he might indeed be notable regardless of this incident. As such, this discussion might be best postponed for a few weeks until Trump has found someone else to shout down and the notability can be assessed properly. Even discounting the SPAs and other non-policy based arguments there is - at this time - no clear consensus to delete. So Why 15:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Jake Turx

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:1E. Subject came to media prominence last week after being shouted down by Donald Trump at the president's first press conference. This incident and follow-up interviews with Turx were widely covered by the top news media. Other than that, subject has no notability. The assertion that he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps is unsourced. Most of this page is cobbled together from the subject's own LinkedIn and Facebook pages, YouTube uploads, and the local Lakewood Scoop. Every other day a new policy issue is added to the "multiple issues" template. Recommend delete until subject actually acquires significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Yoninah ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Favonian ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject has already acquired significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable and verifiable sources that are unarguably about him. Amid the dozens of sources in the article are a few that may be of lower quality, though the the nominator has failed to demonstrate that *ALL* of the sources fail to meet that standard. Issues with articles are great reasons to edit and discuss, but are rather poor arguments for deletion. The claim of notability as the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps is exceedingly strong and one that has received worldwide coverage. Tthe ample systemic bias faced by individuals in the Hasidic community needs to be considered and addressed. Alansohn ( talk) 22:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Alansohn:, I added the information about him asking the question at Trump's first press conference to Ami (magazine)#Coverage, where he is listed as the magazine's political correspondent. That's where that WP:1E event belongs. If you take away from this page all the sources that cite that press conference, you are left with nothing. No sources say he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps. Yoninah ( talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Turx's writings are known far and wide; and has met the criteria of "notability" long before the episode last week gained him national and international recognition.
    He is more then just "worthy of notice"; he is a writer of "note" who many readers turn to as their first read in Ami. He and his writings are "remarkable", "significant", extremely "interesting", and quite "unusual a writer" to say the least; and surely deserves the attention to be recorded. I cannot imagine what else a writer needs to be, to have an entry in Wikipedia. This page will get thousands of hits this year, of people curious to read who their favorite writer is. What's the big deal, when you have hundreds of entries like his and many of them much less significant; so why not have his deserved page too? Is it that an uphill battle these days to get anyone entered? Wikipedia is "the" depository of knowledge to which everyone turns, and such a significant entry definitely belongs there. Mountain top habitat ( talk) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Fits the criteria of "Creative professional", especially #2: The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. He is unique in his style and technique. Mountain top habitat ( talk) 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - I am sorry, but he does not meet WP:author and certainly is not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Unless reporting at the White House is something new. reddogsix ( talk) 00:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 23:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Jake Turx has been a prominent journalist that has followed and interviewed many of the candidates throughout the entire 2016 campaign. He's worked his way up to becoming a White House Correspondent with his articles reaching a widespread audience as has he been any many shows even before his press conference inside. I strongly believe that his Wikipedia page should remain open though I'd suggest some editing to it as the deletion of the ill-written "media apprearances" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1derthere ( talk • contribs) 23:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This is a WP:1E article. The coverage everyone talks about is not about the individual, but rather about the incident. The other coverage is You-Tube coverage and self-posted articles. In-depth, significant coverage is lacking. Should this be changed to an article about the incident rather than the individual? reddogsix ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • With this said: It needs some serious tidying up to conform with WP:MOS and WP:BLP. To be honest after having looked at the article in more detail it seems disorganized and not in line with the standardized layouts of biographies on Wikipedia. While right now I am on a very weak keep I would look towards another AfD nomination in the future if the article remains in this state for some time., Wiki-Coffee Talk 00:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep The fact is that he is the first Hasidic member of White House press corps. At least the part that he is “Orthodox” must be significant enough, for almost every report about the “Trump incident” felt the importance of mentioning it. Therefore, there must be something novel about it.
He has just gotten this position, so it’s understandable that there are only a limited amount of coverage about him personally. However, the amount of coverage the “Trump incident” has garnered - For example, it was mentioned at least six times just in the NY Times alone [1] - shows the notability of the person.
It’s my believe that if we establish that the fact of being “the first Hasidic member of White House press corps” is notable enough, as long as no one disputes it, the page should not be deleted.
The fact that numerus editors, familiar with the publication and the individual, pointed out, on the talk page, his importance in the community, should also play a role in making the person “notable”. Bloger ( talk) 00:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Let's be clear, the notability the subject needs to meet is Wikipedia based notability. It differs greatly from "real-world" notability. Again, the coverage we are all seeing is about the incident, not the individual. As for "importance in the community," please demonstrate how being important in the community is a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Just realized this in one of the NYT articles: “He is a singular presence in the briefing room: a young Hasidic Jew with side curls tucked behind his ears…” [2].
So I guess the NYT “does” think this person is “notable”. Bloger ( talk) 00:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Again, Wikipedia based notability differs greatly from "real-world" notability. Unfortunately, this is not a Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. reddogsix ( talk) 00:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Being the "first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps" is a "real-world" notability and a Wikipedia based notability. Bloger ( talk) 01:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Show us where Wikipedia states being "first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps" denotes Wikipedia based notability. There is nothing in Wikipedia that states so. Simply put notability is derived from from WP:GNG. reddogsix ( talk) 01:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - So do you need those exact words?.... Common sense must be applied. If he were the “first Jew”, would you agree its “notable”? Would you need someone to “show those words” to you? Bloger ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Once again, simply put notability is a result of WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. reddogsix ( talk) 02:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - So, is him being “the first” something that needs to be “made” notable?
Like, the fact that this is a step farther into the “acceptance of Jews” and one step farther away from how things used to be just 60-70 years ago - when Jews were prosecuted - isn’t that like “notable”? Do we need “a source” - let alone a “secondary source” - that “equality for all” is “notable”?
Would the “first African American correspondent” not be “notable” according to your logic? Would we need a “source” or “secondary source” to establish its notability? Bloger ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Rather than following you down the rabbit hole you seem to want to travel, I say once again, simply put notability is a result of WP:GNG. You are putting the cart before the horse by assuming the action drives notability. People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. My best to you. reddogsix ( talk) 04:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - He was treated shabbily by Trump. If that's all it took, there'd be a lot more notable people in the world. Beyond this one incident, there isn't much more of note. Glendoremus ( talk) 07:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - Did many other incidents garner such coverage? Did those people get intervened on “Anderson Cooper”, “Anderson Cooper”, Sky News, NPR Etc. Etc.?
Did you take into account the fact of him being the first Hasidic member of White House press corps?
Did you take into account his importance to his community? Bloger ( talk) 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Again, it was the incident that garnered the coverage, not the individual. reddogsix ( talk) 19:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - It was the individual too.
As is evident by the fact that every report about the incident made a point of mentioning his religious orientation. It wasn’t even that he is Jewish itself – which would make sense since it was a question about Anti-Semitism - but that was “an orthodox Jew”. And that’s clearly because of the novelty of an orthodox Jewish reporter in the white house. Bloger ( talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Bloger: you have not yet provided a source which explicitly says that Turx is the first Hasidic reporter in the White House press corps. Please read WP:SYNTH. Yoninah ( talk) 18:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not news and we do not cover minor news incidents that have one day of coverage and then vanish. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - It happens to be that this one news story brought this person to the forefront, but the fact that he’s the “first Hasidic member of White House press corps” is notable regardless of this one incident.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - After considering the arguments above, It’s my opinion that the page should not be deleted. I think the reporter is notable enough, given his being the first Hasidic reporter in the White House.
Also being an important person in a community should add notability. This story may have been what put the spotlight on him nationally and even internationally, but he’s a well-known and important member of the ultra-orthodox press for a couple of years.‬ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisroel Tech ( talk • contribs) 04:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Turx is currently very famous in the Orthodox community, for being their voice in the White House. Yes, this incident raised his profile, but made him now notable beyond this episode, and made him the leading voice within Orthodox Jewish media, when it comes to WH politics. He also became the face of the debate regarding the Trump administration's response to antisemitism, and his Tweet about it was retweeted 1,200 times and liked over 3,300 times [3]. I think that a comparison with Joe the Plumber is in place. Unlike Joe, whose notability came by a chance encounter with President Candidate McCain made him famous, Turx is a reporter, and his question and President Trump's outburst thrust him into the limelight. The notable episode and his notability are intertwined, in addition to his articles being read by tens of thousands, and his page should be kept. OrthodoxActivist ( talk) 22:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC) — OrthodoxActivist ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Joe the Plumber did not qualify for Wikipedia as a one-time event. He appeared several times on the campaign trail and also ran for office himself. Jake Turx has not reached that level of significant, ongoing, national coverage by any means. Yoninah ( talk) 22:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally, retweeting and likes are an indication of popularity - in this case not a big indication of popularity. Being read by "tens of thousands" - although I would ask how you know this - is also an indication of popularity. Popularity in itself is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. reddogsix ( talk) 23:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Reddogsix: Ami has a circulation of about 25,000. [4] As cited in the article, Turx is the first reporter for Ami magazine to become a member of the White House press corps. Those of us who've been reading Ami for years (myself included) are pretty excited over that fact. But it doesn't make him notable by Wikipedia standards. Yoninah ( talk) 23:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  1. ^ https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22Jake+Turx%22/
  2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/us/politics/trump-press-conference-jake-turx.html
  3. ^ https://twitter.com/JakeTurx/status/833729278848139265
  4. ^ Goldman, Ari L. (30 September 2015). "For ultra-Orthodox newspapers, women and the Web present growing challenges". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 26 February 2017.
  • Comment - Given that some editors are getting so “bent out of shape” to delete this page. Even after many people have given their opinion for it to stay, pointing out the notability of the individual. I would like to show for compresence, a few people just out of the one Print/Internet section of the White House press corps page [9] - the very same section where this individual is mentioned - that have separate pages, with much less notability, much less worldwide coverage, and much less information about the individuals themselves Etc. Etc.
Christoph von Marschall, Myles Miller, Susan Page, Tara Palmeri, Shannon Pettypiece, Sean Quinn (writer), Glenn Thrush, Lucian Wintrich, Yasmeen Sami Alamiri.
So either at least some of those pages should be nominated for deletion - on the same basis as the deletion nomination of this page - or this page souled be left alone. Bloger ( talk) 00:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It wasn’t an argument for “keep” per se, just to point out what seems to be a bias. Bloger ( talk) 00:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Bias? Please be specific as to where there is bias or anyone has gotten "bent out of shape" in any of these discussions, otherwise I suggest you WP:AGF. reddogsix ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No need to be specific, just compere other pages with similar or much less notability, meanwhile you have no problem with those pages. Many of the pages would have some of the same issues, yet common sense is used. Bloger ( talk) 01:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You should realize that you are the only individual coming back repeatedly to try to refute each and every “Keep” argument.
Even User:Yoninah - who initiated the delete conversation - only has a problem that the notability of him being the first Hasidic member of White House press corps is not sourced.
That’s an argument that I can understand. And although It’s my opinion that as long as no one denies that fact, because he was just given that job, it should be taken into account and more time should be given for a proper “bio” article about him to be written.
However, “I get” that argument.
You On the other hand, don’t even want to agree that as “a first” it’s notable. Instead of addressing the argument when put to you, you just did a “copy/paste” and added a metaphor of a rabbit hole. Bloger ( talk) 01:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • </sigh>The real sadness is you have accused me of bias without any reason to. My failure to comment on other's notability is based solely on the fact I have not and cannot comment on every page out there - nor would I want to. To comment on pages without reviewing each would be unfair to those pages. Let me try to explain this as simply as possible. Being the first of anything is not what drives Wikipedia notability, what drives Wikipedia notability is meeting certain referencing criteria. If you can not understand simple statement, that I cannot help you. reddogsix ( talk) 01:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • And I have pointed out again and again that the persistence in almost every article about this incident that the individual is an “orthodox Jew” - in addition to the quote from the NYT above - should be enough for notability. As it clearly points to the “novelty” of the situation in the eyes of all those reporters. And since in at least some cases – as in “the first African American” for example – common sense has to be applied, the same should be done here.
BTW, it seems that you are taking the “bias” argument personnel and in the wrong way. So to clarify, I specifically added “seems to be” as I can’t really know if there is a bias or not. Secondly, I didn’t mean a bias in the “bad” sense of the word - like racial or otherwise - just a bias to one’s own initial opinion. And am sorry if it was understood differently. Bloger ( talk) 02:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact this article was only created after Donald Trump abused Turx demonstrates that this individual had no prior notability nor no lasting notability. Also, WP:NOTNEWS states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" AusLondonder ( talk) 03:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Does the fact that he is the first Hasidic Jew in the White House press corps mean anything to you as far as notability goes? Bloger ( talk) 19:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Although I had heard of Turx before the 'incident', I immediately searched for him on WP, fully expecting an article to be there, because that's where I always go to learn more about a subject. There was none, so I had to settle for whatever was written in the Heavy article. I imagine there were many others who encountered the same problem, but Bloger stepped in and wrote it (I considered starting one myself, but began to falter when I found discrepancies in the spelling of his actual surname). To the argument that this is a case of WP:1E, on the contrary, I see the incident as introducing Turx to the world. From the looks of it, he doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon. That being said, the Media appearances section could definitely use a rewrite. StonyBrook ( talk) 05:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 03:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Snakes in Suits

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

Article appears to function for spam advertisement promotion purposes. Only citation is to a hyperlink to Amazon.com. Article appears intended to drive readers to make a purchase at Amazon.com. Sagecandor ( talk) 21:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep The OP misses the point that the book is co-authored by Robert D. Hare who is considered by most to be the world's leading guru on psychopathy. The book is also mentioned in Robert D. Hare. It is one of the pioneering books in its area although many more have now followed. Criticisms of the article content may require cleanup but are not grounds for AFD.-- Penbat ( talk) 09:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I must disagree with the reasoning for deletion. Article content is not a valid reason for deletion per se (see WP:ARTN), I would submit that notability is the guideline being questioned in this case. Granted, there is a degree of promotion, and that must be fixed but this is not a valid reason to delete. I have found many sources covering this book: [10] [11] [12]. This passes WP:NBOOK. TheMagikCow ( talk) 16:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 14:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- definitely notable. Here are a few reviews:
  • Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. Mourik, Orli Van. Psychology Today, Sep 01, 2006; Vol. 39, No. 5. The article reviews the book "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work," by Paul B... more
  • The dark side of charisma. Baines, David. Canadian Business, May 22, 2006; Vol. 79, No. 11, p. 142-143. A review of the book "Snakes in Suits: When Psycopaths Go to Work," by Robert Hare and... more
The book was apparently a #1 best seller in Canada in business books, as noted in "Business bestsellers". Canadian Business, 00083100, 9/25/2006, Vol. 79, Issue 19. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Doğu Abaris

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

Does not appear to meet WP:FILMMAKER. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 21:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete being such a minor person in the production of major films is not a sign of being a notable person. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Fabiola Gomez

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. The only sources I could find that cover Gomez herself, and not her company or product, do not seem sufficiently independent. The first, which is cited in the article, is a promotional interview from "The Business Woman", which appears to mostly host partner content and guest bloggers. The second is from Women Love Tech, which seems equally promotional and is tagged by Google News as a "Press Release". All the other sources I could find refer to a different Fabiola Gomez who runs an American Hispanic magazine. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 21:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame ( talk) 01:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman without the level of coverage to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete created by a single purpose editor. Looks like blatant self promotion with poor quality sourcing. LibStar ( talk) 22:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Steal This Beer

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Only sources I could find were just passing references to the podcast. Ahecht ( TALK
PAGE) 20:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG as I can find no mention of this podcast in reliable sources but only in listings and suchlike. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Matty Wilkinson

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

A contested Prod. Wilkinson fails to meet WP:RLN as has not played in the Super League and the article does not meet the GNG in any other way. Mattlore ( talk) 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep - He has played professionally in a professional league, in a professional team. Fleets ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keepper WP:SKCRIT. The nominator's statement is contradicted by the article, which verifies that he played for the Salford Red Devils, which is in the Super League, which therefore means he meets WP:RLN. Unless there's something wrong in these points, I would ask the nominator to withdraw this. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
He has not played in a match for Salford yet and it is not stated in the article or the articles source that he has. – skemcraig ⊗ 22:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as according to the one source provided in the article, he has not played a match for Salford and therefore fails RLN as Halifax and Crusaders are not currently in the Super League, or even fully pro. – skemcraig ⊗ 22:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as he is on a professional football team. GSMR ( talk) 22:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I suggest you read WP:RLN, being on the books of a professional team is not good enough for an article. He must play at least one match for them, which as of right now, he hasn't. – skemcraig ⊗ 22:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Well, if he hasn't in fact played, that's a different story. Article states he has. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 23:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:RLN as he's only played at semi-pro level. J Mo 101 ( talk) 18:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the WP:RLN failure. Playing for a "professional team" isn't relevant here. Number 5 7 22:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

21st century technology plc

21st century technology plc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any in-depth reliable sources to indicate notability. Anything I've found has been just reprints of company press releases or brief snapshot profiles that indicate only that the company exists - nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. I have checked Google and Google News under Toad Group, TG21, and 21st Century Technology. The problem is compounded by the fact that all 3 names also throw up a lot of noise in a Google search. "21st Century Technology" even when paired with "company" gives nothing, with "plc" it's mostly just its own website. TG21 is apparently also an experimental drug, a government form, and a designated model for a number of other random products. Toad Group mostly brings up hits about groups of the Mario character, although that name is over 11 years out of date now, so it's not that surprising. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete: Unremarkable company. Adding {{ Db-inc}} is enough. Luis150902 ( talk | contribs) 21:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It was declined for speedy on that grounds previously, although god knows why. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I added a reference. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, you added a reference to a website that describes itself as offering "Press Release Distribution," which is rather meaningless in terms of establishing notability. The other one, to Proactiveinvestors, about the profit warning, is at least independent. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I just can't find enough reliable sources. However, I do now believe Eastmain was right in de-speedying. It's listed on the London Stock Exchange and I can see why he'd feel a discussion is warranted, per WP:LISTED. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Jennifer Behm

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

Winner of a minor beauty pageant ,an unplaced contestant in a national beauty pageant and the winner of a cookery programme on TV does not appear to convey notability. Only one working ref - even wayback machine could not recover the other ref. Notability not established. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Nominator has now added significant source material to the article, there is even more stuck behind a Newspapers.com paywall from 2011 and the early 2000s but I currently do not have access to add those. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 23:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - the nominator has not added any significant source material. However, the author of the article has added a number of other references although none of them get close to encouraging me to withdraw this AfD   Velella   Velella Talk   23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Oh oops I wasn't paying enough attention there. However the point still stands, a number of WP:RS have been added, and there is even more significant material stuck behind a paywall. I am still in the queue for Newspapers.com access. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 23:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ PageantUpdater: I have Newspapers.com access, and I can tell you that unless you're willing to pay $139 for premium access, you will not be able to access all those articles from The News-Journal in Delaware. The sources I've added to the article pretty much cover her biography, anyway. Yoninah ( talk) 17:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete Passing references as a beauty pageant contestant are not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:BIO. I tried to add additional sources to beef up this article, but she just sounds like a local personality who's running a restaurant and appearing in some shows. Winning Master Chef does not confer notability. Yoninah ( talk) 17:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Wholeness axiom

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

Very obscure mathematics topic. I appreciate that different notability criteria may apply in this area but does this article establish notability? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 14:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ( t)  Josve05a ( c) 15:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete there are a few offhand references to this axiom, but mostly it's just Corazza's papers and a few papers by Hamkins. There might be more that generic searches aren't turning up (Web of Science etc) but from a "general knowledge" standpoint it doesn't look to meet notability guidelines. Primefac ( talk) 18:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Updates show a few more references from different authors. I'm not fully convinced this needs to be kept, but I'm not going to advocate it be deleted. Primefac ( talk) 12:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think most topics in science are notable unless they are new or failed to gain wide use. I'm no specialist in this area, this topic doesn't seem to suffer from that issue. Note some specialized concepts in scientific subjects might be technical and obscure but that doesn't mean they are not notable. I know it's hard to prove the negative, there might also be a possibility that google is just not reflective of the literature; not everything is online. -- Taku ( talk) 23:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't have the ability to investigate this adequately. It is an important function of an encyclopedia to teach us about things we don't know about, not merely to confirm our existing knowledge. In this respect I am entirely unsympathetic to the nomination – obscure topics should be particularly welcome. However, I wonder whether this article as written teaches anyone anything very much at all. It is also important that an encyclopedia does not give misleading information and, as written, I don't know and am not led into a position to form a judgement. Thincat ( talk) 08:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice to possible recreation at a later date once more sources become available (if they ever do). My review of the literature on this subject only seems to show the term existing in citations (rather that as a subject of actual discussion), and those are all to the original publication by the person who apparently coined the term (i.e., P. Corazza, who is given here as the only source for this article and who is therefore a WP:PRIMARY source and not suitable for establishing notability). I was unable to identify any non-trivial coverage of the term. As a WP:NEOLOGISM (?), it doesn't look like it warrants inclusion here until people other than the person who devised it start writing about it. That doesn't appear to have happened yet (and, of course, might never happen). Also, let me echo Thincat above: what this article DOES say is utterly opaque. I have put in a word to a mathematician I know to see what his thoughts are as well, will get back with that soon. KDS4444 ( talk) 19:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The mathematician got back to me, saying, "Yes, it is a thing", but that he was not at all familiar with its use and sending me a PDF of an article by Paul Corazza discussing it— which is once again a primary source unsuitable for establishing notability. If the mathematician (an associate professor at the University of Indiana in Bloomington) can only come up with the same person as a reference for the term that I did, then I will have to stand by my support for deletion. KDS4444 ( talk)
  • Move to — well, there's the rub. Not sure where to move it. Maybe Reinhardt cardinal? I don't think wholeness axiom is the standard name. -- Trovatore ( talk) 22:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, that came up blue. OK, changing my !vote. Merge to Reinhardt cardinal. -- Trovatore ( talk) 22:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Whoops. I looked at the Cantor's-attic link, and this is apparently not quite the same thing. Rather than dropping AC, the proposal is to keep all of ZFC, but only for the language of set theory without a symbol for j, and keep careful control over what instances of separation and replacement you allow in a language with a symbol for j. That's a bit subtle. It might still be reasonable to treat it in the Reinhardt-cardinal article for now, as a variation, but the case is not so clear. I guess I would say keep and improve or merge are both viable options. -- Trovatore ( talk) 23:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Update I just did a search for this term on JSTOR— it had five hits: one was the same article by Corazza; another was a the record of a meeting of mathematicians in which Corazza presented this article as a paper; the third had a sentence "urging readers to consult Corrazza" for a discussion of the term, which it did not discuss but did use; in the two remaining articles, the axiom is applied to formulae and constructs of super huge cardinals but is itself never the subject of any specific meaningful discussion. Any of these could be used to fill in an article whose notability had been established by other means; I am not convinced that any of them works to actually establish that notability. KDS4444 ( talk) 09:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Besides the initial work of Corrazza, this has been studied by Hamkins ( MR 1816602) and Apter ( MR 2914539) and is well-known enough in its subdiscipline that, in a review of one of Corrazza's paper, reviewer Bernhard A. König can write "The author has long been interested in an axiom called the Wholeness Axiom" ( MR 2298604). That meets my (very low) standards for WP:GNG for a research contribution (it has been the subject of reliably published works by multiple independent researchers or groups of researchers). In addition, I'm inclined to trust the judgement of article creator R.e.b. on whether this is actually significant. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Lean toward delete or move to draft, without prejudice toward recreating it when we can say something. Large cardinals aren't exactly my field, but it's close enough that I should be able to understand an article about it. This article doesn't really say what it is. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Other deletion or "move without redirect" reasons include the question of whether this is the most significant "wholeness axiom", whether it has importance in the field (I would expect a 2000 concept which is important to have about 20 published papers by now), and whether those other papers might use a different name. This suggests a possible working name as Corrazza's Wholeness Axiom. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I expanded the article a little, and in doing so found another source, a section in the Holmes et al survey (see article for full ref) that claims to be about the same theory. I am unaware of any work on "wholeness axioms" that are unrelated to Corrazza's, and the other publications I have found just call it the wholeness axiom, so I don't see any justification for Arthur Rubin's proposed rename. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep - based on the clarifications to the article by David Eppstein, this seems to be ok as a stub. Smmurphy( Talk) 23:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I'm kind of embarrassed we didn't have this already. I added article to our Category:Axioms of set theory. -- do ncr am 04:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Changed to neutral; the article now provides additional sources and a statement describing what the axiom is. My source (who also has a Wikipedia article) doesn't recall any other "wholeness axiom" (at least in set theory), but isn't sure about significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete" side makes the uncontested and strong argument that this is basically an OR essay. In view of that, it isn't enough for the "keep" side to assert that the topic is important and notable - that may well be the case, but it does not address the arguments for the deletion of the content as it currently exists. I must therefore give the "keep" opinions less weight and close this with a deletion, but this does not prevent a sourced, more competent recreation of the article.  Sandstein  07:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Censorship of music

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

There are a host of problems here. The article is basically a series of assertions and alleged examples with no sources; it's been tagged as deficient in citations for 8 years, original research for 6 years, irrelevant examples for two years; no effort whatsoever has been made to improve the situation, and the article seems, to me, an unsalvageable essay best suited for someone's personal website. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 14:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. MereTechnicality ⚙ 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Whatever the problems with the article -- and there are problems to be sure -- it's a valid main article for Category:Censorship of music, even with the flaws. Also the tag bombing of the article, section by section, which seems to have come out of a period of edit warring on this topic, is among the host of problems. Whatever the state of the article, the topic is notable, much of the article may still benefit to readers looking for an overview of the subject, even in the state it's in. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I've removed the redundant WP:TAGBOMBing. Not all sectional tags, just the most obvious case where {{unsourcedsection|date=January 2017}} had been applied again and again, when the article is clearly tagged already at the top as requiring more sources. The article is still abundantly, even lavishly tagged, even with my edit. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. We need an article about censorship in music. There are a ton of sources out there; googling "censorship in music -wikipedia" provides a start for scholarly and journalistic articles. This, however, is little more than a poorly sourced list of examples of and anecdotes about alleged censorship (including things like corrections of copyright violations being called censorship.) --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Initially I was for deletion, but I've changed my mind. There is some good content about the motivations / history of music censorship, but on the whole as it stands right now it's just a long list of individual examples. Best to take the good parts and cut out the rest, but we shouldn't get overzealous here. This is almost certainly an encyclopedic topic and so deletion would just be kicking the can down the road for someone else to come make the article later. Pishcal ( talk) 17:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Original judgment was poor. Refraining from !voting. Pishcal ( talk) 19:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, because I do concur with Pishcal that the article's subject IS important, the article needs to be referenced properly to have value, and if it had not been for all those years then maybe it would be best just to let go of it and start from scratch. -- Ouro ( blah blah) 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - lacks WP:RS - written like an essay. DrStrauss talk 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete - I agree with what several other people have already said - the subject itself is definitely notable, however this particular article on it is terribly written. However, I would argue that its terrible to the point of being un-salvageable. The vast majority of the information here is completely unsourced, making most of it OR. On top of that, many of the few sources that are present are not usable, as they are unreliable things such as blog posts and youtube videos. The entire article would pretty much need to be completely rewritten from scratch, and until that happens, I feel that it would be better just to delete the existing article, rather than having a terrible article sitting here until it is rewritten. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keep Although I agree it lacks sources, a quick glance at some search engines reveals much of it is sourcable. 79.67.72.139 ( talk) 23:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As with any article on censorship, it should include cases where music works were banned because they were "considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions". This is not the case with this article. The works described either underwent Bowdlerization for release to a wider audience, their would-be censors targeted a relatively few words of the lyrics and left the rest, or the music artists themselves practiced self-censorship. In some cases the "censored" version does not seem to be less offensive than the original. One of the examples mentioned involves the change of a lyric from "anal sex" to "bestial sex". Dimadick ( talk) 12:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Delete It's an essay. Unsure if article can be rewritten to fix this. I think the best route is to take usable parts into censorship as needed. South Nashua ( talk)
  • Weak Keep. Article topic is likely to be encyclopedic, the issue here is a lot of the content isn't. I support keeping on the basis that a lot of the superfluous content is retrenched and the essay-like tone is taken out. Ajf773 ( talk) 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep – Deletion is definitely not cleanup. Being the main article for a category definitely reinforces my point of view. The subject of the article is encyclopedic, despite the tone similar to an essay. The arguments presented by the advocates for the deletion of this prove unpersuasive. The reason that I marked strong in here is because of the fact that GNG is easily met, a shown by [13] [14] [15]. I thoroughly encourage keep advocates to strengthen their !votes and for proposers of deletion to reconsider. J 947 05:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There is consensus that this article should be deleted immediately. — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 09:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Larry Nassar

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

Possible BLP violation ( WP:BLPCRIME) - see this discussion at BLPN. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Even if convicted, the subject fails to have any significant notability outside of the crime, thus meeting WP:BLPCRIME and reason to delete. -- MASEM ( t) 19:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - This does have a lot of coverage for the events surrounding the alleged crime. However, per WP:BLPCRIME "editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured." At this time, there is no conviction. If a conviction is secured, this would also likely be a WP:ONEEVENT issue but we are not even there yet. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. "Editors should seriously consider" does not mean "Editors should stick their heads in the sand and blithely disregard widely, extensively and reliably reported national news stories merely because they may reflect badly on a living person". We had a detailed article on Dylann Roof before December 15, 2016. We had a detailed article on Jerry Sandusky before June 22, 2012. We had a lengthy Grim Sleeper article before May 5, 2016. In this case, it's also not at all evident that BLP1E even applies, since the subject was arguably notable for his association with the gymnastic team, his academic credentials, and his scholarly publications (or in some combination thereof). This appears to be a bigger scandal than the Sandusky affair, and shouldn't be disregarded merely because the victims are young women. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
In all those other cases, the crime(s) were notable on their own, attracting a large deal of attention to them, and thus when the suspects were identified, they also got a great deal of attention - hence surpassing the requirements of BLP1E. We have no article on this crime at all (nor should there be one at this point), and thus BLP1E/BLPCRIME is not met. -- MASEM ( t) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That's just factually incorrect. There's been extensive coverage of the crimes in the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS News, USA Today, BBC News . . . The major difference between this story and the Sandusky story is that it involved Olympic-class adolescent female athletes rather than high school class adolescent male athletes. By reasonable standards, the Nasser story is much more notable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
To add, even if it was the case that he was notable before this trial (as was the case of Sandusky), then the amount of coverage that article should have until the trial is over should be minimal since we operation on "innocent until proven guilty", no questions asked. If he ended up convicted, then maybe expansion would be appropriate, but if he is determined innocent, then it should remain a brief section. But that's presuming notability before this point, and I am having no luck finding sources; there are no SNGs that he would qualify under as a academic or as a support member of the Olympic team. -- MASEM ( t) 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
WP:OTHERSTUFF. But Sandusky was notable before the abuse scandal, and we also have Penn State child sex abuse scandal (see my !vote below). VQuakr ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I see only trivial mentions of this person in news prior to the assault allegations. Rather than have biographical article that focuses on the criminal allegations (which is mostly all that we can verifiably have on Nassar), I think an article about the event (something like USA Gymnastics sexual abuse scandal) is more sensible. VQuakr ( talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In cases of doubt, WP:BLP is the operative rule. There's plenty of doubt that this subject is notable. This is sensationalism. I get that the guy's in a tight spot, but there's no need to trumpet his troubles to universe and keep this for future generations to know about and poder. Give the guy some space per WP:BLP, we don't need to do this. And of course WP:BLPCRIME is operative here, as well as WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. If when the guy is convicted of anything we can maybe revisit the issue. Herostratus ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Immediate delete This is the first such article I have created, and now wish I hadn't. I wish I could delete it per WP:G7 but it is here at AfD. I did read WP:BLPCRIME and other policies and it seemed okay. But then I had doubts, and that is why I posted at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Alleged but not convicted to get feedback. Please, accept my apologies for creating this in the first place. Please, lets close and delete. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It's OK. The existence of the article is arguable. It's a good article, and you didn't do anything wrong. I (and others) are being strident because here at AfD we go into "prosecutor mode", slash and thrust to win our points. It doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable case for the article, and it certainly doesn't mean you did anything wrong. It was good of you to post for advice on the BLP Noticeboard as you did, shows a find Wikipedian attitude. We'll keep at it and we'll learn and grow together. Herostratus ( talk) 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you Herostratus for the kind and comforting words. I must have done something wrong when a dozen people show up saying "get rid of it, and quickly". I just went hot and cold this morning when I woke up and saw all of this. Next time, I will certainly get more familiar with outcomes of controversial BLP articles before starting another like that. Again, many thanks for being so kind. I just wish somebody would come along and close this as delete as soon as possible. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Immediately Delete or Userfy per 1E, BLPCRIME, NOTNEWS, NOTDIRECTORY, and ATTACKPAGE. There's no reason on earth Wikipedia should have an article which is solely a list of a living person's alleged and unconvicted crimes, and there are plenty of legal and libel reasons it should not. Softlavender ( talk) 02:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thomas Meehan III

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

Thomas Meehan, although commander of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. Meehan died when the aircraft transporting him was hit by enemy fire. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 06:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The Murder Show

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

Unremarkable mixtape that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. My search could only find websites that stream this tape and not in depth coverage which the guidelines indicate is needed. 331dot ( talk) 12:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 05:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not enough coverage in WP:RS to be considered as passing either WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains ( talk) 19:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: We could probably create a page for the group, since it has so many notable people in it and it has some coverage here and there in RS. I'll try to create one and then we can redirect this to that article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above comments. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Kokuchou no Psychedelica

Kokuchou no Psychedelica (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been tagged for a year as needing better referencing to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Not finding the published sources needed, though there are false positives where the name is used for something else than this recording. Edison ( talk) 22:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 05:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 15:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Unsourced and searches return no WP:RS: only other wikis, music databases, download sites, social media, etc. There is enough evidence of the game with the same name to suggest notability, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. The song definitely has not generated coverage to pass WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Eric Benson

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

Professor who doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Provided references are directory entries, YouTube videos, self-published pages and press releases. I found no significant independent references. Article looks to have been created by co-author of a book they wrote together (she had also created an autobio article which was quickly A7 speedied and an article about their book which was deleted at AfD), and appears to have been heavily edited by the subject himself with no significant contributions by others. -- Finngall talk 15:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I removed five or six self-published, Amazon and Youtube 'sources'. The remaining sources, as well as a cursory web search, do not turn up anything promising enough to establish WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.163.152.194 ( talk) 05:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMICS. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Thomas Kent Miller

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

Delete I searched the internet about Thomas Kent Miller and could not find any legitimate articles to justify giving him notability on Wikipedia. There’re mentions of Thomas Kent Miller and his books in brief on online shopping sites; more in the lines of self publication of his books. I found no confirmation of any awards given to Thomas Kent Miller as a writer or no major publication articles talking about him anywhere, except for a few Blogs. This article mentions his new book "Mars in the Movies : A History," again there is nothing but a few references towards it on various online websites from customers who purchased it. -- Seditt ( talk) 14:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply 

Try searching under the author's byline, which is "Thos." Kent Miller.  — Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
104.254.184.192 (
talk) 20:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
reply
  • Comment: They're no legitimate news articles about Thos. Kent Miller. I found websites such as Amazon, LinkedIn, goodreads, worldcat, target and so on. I found no newspaper articles, magazine articles from any legitimate organization about Thos. Kent Miller or Thomas Kent Miller. If you know of any please post them soon. None of Thomas Kent Miller books are best sellers or have large followings or news coverage about them. I will keep looking but it doesn’t look to promising.-- Seditt ( talk) 22:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Seditt:

I suppose none of the below legitimizes Thomas Kent Miller, but it is worth mentioning for the record.

Ligament articles: I fear I don't know the term "Ligament articles".

Awards: TKM has been the recipient of no awards.

Major publication articles: Publishers Weekly in 2005 published a short review of his second novel. See http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-8095-0049-9 . In 1988 Kirkus Reviews reviewed Baby James: A Legacy of Love and Family Courage written by TKM and his wife about their amazing life with their first son, who was the first toddler to receive a heart transplant and who subsequently passed away. See https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/thomas-jayne-miller-miller/baby-james-a-legacy-of-love-and-family-courage . The book was also reviewed in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Riverside Press Enterprise, and some other newspapers at the time .

Legitimate news articles: Back in 1986, TKM and his wife were mentioned in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and other major publications in news articles referencing aspects of the heart transplant received by their toddler son, Nicholas, but who was known in the press as Baby James in order to keep his and their anonymity, as it was newsworthy at the time. See for example http://articles.latimes.com/1986-04-27/local/me-24034_1_new-heart , http://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/02/us/baby-who-got-heart-implant-dies-as-his-body-rejects-it.html .

In 2005, The San Bernardino Sun and The Redlands Daily Facts, owned now by The MediaNews Group, published an interview with TKM re: his second novel. See https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10969900.html.

In 2014, the same MediaNews Group published an interview with TKM's wife that mentions TKM. See http://www.redlandsdailyfacts.com/health/20140318/why-i-came-to-redlands-millers-son-was-heart-transplant-recipient-baby-james .

Mars in the Movies : A History: The publishers McFarland and Company believe the book will receive nice reviews and sell well, but not until about four or five months after the book has been published, which was November 2016. The fact remains, though, that it is the first of its kind. 47.153.117.186 ( talk) 23:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyleelmocollins ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply


On the off-chance that the original article did not communicate the extent of Miller's contributions to society, the article has been entirely rewritten and reorganized with new material added. Clearly, though, Miller doesn't expect this will change the Wikipedia's gatekeepers somber evaluation. After all, this all began as a sort of gift from an anonymous admirer, and if it fails to "make the cut", c'est la vie! Doyleelmocollins ( talk) 04:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Of course, none of this reorganization changes the gatekeeper's last words, "I will keep looking but it doesn’t look too promising." 47.153.117.186 ( talk) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)DEC reply

  • Comment: The Baby James links you provide are about the baby and what happened; they only list Miller as the adopted father. As far as Thomas Kent Miller having his own page he needs to get massive news coverage about something he has accomplished from several reputable news organizations. Example, he needs to write a book that hits the bestseller list that gets nationwide news coverage. His whole page is based on selling books which is borderline promotional/advertisement content which Wikipedia discourages. My suggestion to you is to read the “notability rules,” especially the part about what types of news articles Wikipedia considers acceptable. The administrator will use these rules to decide if the page stays up or gets deleted. Mars in the Movies: A History was not written as a novel, it’s more of a guide with reviews about Mars movies. “Mars in the Movies: A History” is more like reading a TV guide pamphlet of television shows. It’s not likely Mars in the Movies: A History will become a bestseller. If it dose resubmit the Wikipedia page about miller at another time. -- Seditt ( talk) 14:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment*: Thank you for the detailed overview. Please remove this article before the day is out (Feb. 23). It can never meet Wikipedia criteria. I have done everything possible to shoehorn the article into acceptability. As I've mentioned, it being here at all was some nice anonymous professional colleague person's idea of honoring/surprising Miller. It will be that person's loss. All best regards. DEC Doyleelmocollins ( talk) 15:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, PW has reviewed one of his books here but a lot more is needed. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete review by Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly establish that the trade expected a book to do well, but the lack of reviews in other media indicate that none of his books caught fire. Beyond that, the only solid source is an article in the LA Times local edition, which is local, and an article in the NY Times about the birth of a baby that, I gather, was adopted by the Millers. It seems to be a dramatic story, and he wrote a book which I gather is about the adoption, but the book failed to get reviewed or written up. I'm just not seeing notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep. ( non-admin closure) Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

List of surviving veterans of World War II

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

The list is a page which will eventually reach a content count of zero. It's not necessarily inclusive and probably never will be. There was a previous discussion about deleting the article conducted at Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War II and a discussion conducted here at AfD. There is some support at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#List of surviving veterans of World War II‎ for a World War II list similar to List of last World War I veterans by country. Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This list gets nearly 1,000 views per day, showing it to be a great example of how wikipedia is different from a regular encyclopedia. There are many news articles which list living WWII vets from a region, so there are reliable sources that suggest listing in this way is not OR. Almost all of the individuals (and in theory all of them) have pages. Also, when the list does get small, it would be nice to have it as a redirect rather than a delete, as we have for the former Featured List, List of surviving veterans of World War I, so that the history is kept. Smmurphy( Talk) 15:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - This is a frequently viewed, frequently edited article. I see no reason to delete it. Czolgolz ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep I feel like this verges on WP:CRYSTAL BALL of those lists that have the last survivors of a particular war, but as said above, it's become a relevant focal point with reliable sources. South Nashua ( talk) 16:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The only place where information of notable WWII-time persons, who still are alive, can be found.-- Nillurcheier ( talk) 17:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - a list declining in size is not sufficient rationale to delete it. DrStrauss talk 19:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I don't think it's WP:CRYSTAL to say that they will all die eventually, and that the list will eventually become comprehensive. That said, the latter is still about 10 years away, and the former perhaps 20. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As with the publicity surrounding the death, on February 27, 2011, of Frank Buckles, there is interest as to who will be the Frank Buckles of World War II. Since the time period between Armistice Day on November 11, 1918 and VJ Day on August 15, 1945 is 26 years, 9 months and 4 days, if any American veteran of World War II is still with us on December 1, 2037, 20 years, 9 months and 5 days away, he or she will have matched Frank Buckles. Each nation that participated in the war has or will have its own Frank Buckles equivalent. Let us make it easier to keep track of this rapidly diminishing company. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep List of notable individuals with a clear inclusion criteria, easily meeting WP:SAL. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article is well established and relevant, and likely to become even more relevant in coming years. Mediatech492 ( talk) 17:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' a non-useful list with too many red links. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There's not a single red link on the page. Czolgolz ( talk) 04:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There are actually a few, but it stretches the limits of credulity to say that there are too many. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I scanned through the article and found less than 20 redlinks. Out of nearly 1000 entries, that's a minor issue. Some of them appear to be broken links to the German language Wikipedia. It's an editing issue, but not even remotely grounds for deletion. Mediatech492 ( talk) 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep articles such as this one improve Wikipedia, as has been demonstrated throughout the various arguments above. Lepricavark ( talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Brielle LaCosta

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

Non-relevant subject, not neutral article, weakly sourced, not organized properly { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 14:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contezza1 ( talk • contribs) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) There is absolutely no reason why this page should be deleted. She is a three-time pageant winner, has been honored by the State and is on the national advisory board for Autism. Why in the world would this page ever be deleted? I see you peg pageant winners, as you are doing to Miss NJ 2017 and do this same thing. A non-relevant subject? That's insane. ––––—″″keep″″——— I saw a Twitter post about this and came to check it out. LaCosta was named as one of the four most influential people in the state so I believe she deserves a page. She works hard to bring funding to Autism and brain cancer. She has spoken at Rutgers University on this topic. She sits on the NATIONAL board for Autism Radio and is regularly featured in New Jersey publications. She has 100,000 followers on Twitter alone that love reading her posts and blogs on a autism. There is no reason to delete this page. JohnScarrone ( talk) 00:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Strong delete Winning Miss New Jersey is not a sign of notability. Nor are any of her other accomplishments. Pageant winners at the US state level need to have coverage beyond routine coverage in the local press for such a win, and we see no such coverage here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-notable titles, only minimal news coverage which hasn't been enough previously. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is the closest thing to a MySpace profile I've seen on Wikipedia in ages. Notability is not established by the sources provided, by quite a margin. Guy ( Help!) 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The coverage is almost entirely local which is not useful for GNG. In addition, the article is badly promotional. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 19:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Maths Time Joy

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

Fails notability guidelines. While some references are given in the article, they either do not mention him by stage name or real name, or they are only a listing of his name without anything else. Google searches not finding any WP:significant coverage. noq ( talk) 14:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Floship

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

Clear company advertising, which alone violates our policies, since all sources contain the classic signs of PR, regardless if intended or wherever published, because the contents still show unsatisfactory signs by our policies, since they are only business announcements, mentions, company plans or activities and similar; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and that's exactly what our policies and standards show and, for example, WP:CORPDEPTH notes "[Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements or statements, press releases, anything where the company talks about itself or anything published by or for the company with clear". IN fact, a simple search for the company at News found nothing but clearly labeled press releases, company advertised announcements, financial statements and similar, showing no exceptions to our policies. Next, the history shows clear violations of policy WP:PAID given they're clear COI-involved. Our policies have never negotiated with webhosting simply because there was never any intentions of allowing it at all, which still applies now. Although a user has denied any payment, there is still clear COI concerns by our policies and, although it was assured to be fixed, nothing has happened, at least not significantly to outweigh deletion. SwisterTwister talk 13:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- un unremarkable startup going about its business. The awards/listings are insignificant (Red Herring is pay-per-play).$1M in funding is minuscule, while coverage is PR driven. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Debresser ( talk) 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence

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

This is a controversial claim and the scientific evidence is also non-supportive. wb_admin ( talk) 13:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Favonian ( talk) 14:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Favonian ( talk) 14:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Is there now a different reasoning then the last five AfDs, most of which resulted in a consensus to keep? Smmurphy( Talk) 15:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • If this is as much of a rationale as the nominator can supply, I see no reason to reopen a fifth time. Oppose. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep with a Massive Gefilte Fish Slap This is the sixth nomination of this article and consensus is rather clear that the subject is notable, based on the ample reliable and verifiable sources that are explicitly about the topic and would have been discovered if the nominator had either done the due diligence required by WP:BEFORE or had bothered to read the article. I don't believe in the existence of grey aliens, black helicopters or President Donald Trump, but the preponderance of sources on these topics is what establishes notability and the continued existence of those articles. The nominator's excuses for deletion -- that this is a "controversial claim and the scientific evidence is also non-supportive" -- are all efforts at establishing truth, but what we're doing here is confirming notability of the topic. This has every indication of being an improperly formed and bad faith nomination. Alansohn ( talk) 15:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Yes, it's scientifically impossible for this to be true but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Exemplo347 ( talk) 15:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The topic is notable – see The Genealogical Science, for example. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep Silly theory in my opinion (not that anybody asked), but an abundance of reliable sources establish that it's a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. —  MShabazz  Talk/ Stalk 19:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Confronting a topic that has survived multiple AfD discussions, it's incumbent on the nominator to explain why things should come out differently this time. Consensus can change, but there needs to be some basis to explain why it should. In the absence of any discussion of the prior discussions, there's just no point to continuing with this one. -- Arxiloxos ( talk) 19:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Unless we are going to delete such articles as Jewish nose we should not delete this article. Bus stop ( talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have placed a request to salt, as well, given article title history. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Nawa Raj Subba

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

Was declined through the AfC process, which the article's creator then abandoned, revised the article (including adding a slew of more references of the same type which led to it being declined at AfC), and simply moved it to the mainspace. The references show that he has written. Accomplished, but not notable. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 TT me 12:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - fails WP:BIO. While there are lots of sources, they're just thrown in without thought or relevance. DrStrauss talk 14:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Look at the article creator's edit history: he seems to have taken to creating this article under a variety of guises, while moving article and out of draft space to avoid deletion? Do I understand that correctly? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • He's even moved this Afd into draft space, which he has no right to do. I've issued a warning. More should be issued. He's actually done enough disruptive editing to have been blocked, I think, had warnings been issued. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Okay, NOW he's requesting deletion -- in addition to creating at least one duplicate article. Bizarre. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Dolotta ( talk) 13:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Rattlesnake Knob

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

I'm not sure if the 105th highest point in Wisconsin is all that notable. Dolotta ( talk) 12:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Keep Mountains and summits are considered to be notable; Wikipedia is a gazetter-thank you- RFD ( talk) 13:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND, which provides broad notability on natural features. There is more info in the sources, and this article could be expanded. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Fred C. Pritzlaff

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

I'm not sure being a delegate is necessarily notable by itself and will throw it to the community on whether Mr. Pritzlaff's presidency is notable. I am inclined to say no. Dolotta ( talk) 12:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete and merge the article should merged to the article about his father John Pritzlaff-thank you- RFD ( talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Being a delegate to a political party's convention is not a notability claim in and of itself — and while being president of a hardware store chain might get him over our inclusion standards for businesspeople, that would still have to be sourced a lot better than this before it actually got him over that bar in lieu of the politics test. Bearcat ( talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being a delegate to a national party convention is not a sign of notability. Just the 2016 Republican Convention had 2,472 delegates. The 2004 Republican convention had 2,509. However that is small compared to the Democrat Party numbers. Their 2016 number was 4,763. However in 2012 it was 5,554. These numbers are just too huge, and the participation too short, to justify having articles on every single delegate. True the number of members of state legislatures may be larger, but they have direct power in forming laws, and so the coverage is more long standing and substantial. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Genomic Quirks (Book)

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

Non notable book fails WP:NBOOK and the creator is a WP:SPA editing only on one subject and creating WP:SOAPBOX articles Domdeparis ( talk) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The one source that provides information about the book is the authors own website. There are no reviews. Material the book contains has been used as a course 'hand-out' by the author. My searches found nothing helpful. Currently fails WP:NBOOK. At some future time it may satisfy WP:TBK. Gab4gab ( talk) 13:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Amir Jamal

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

The only link in the article is a dead link. Searches turned up lots of hits, but very little about this particular individual with this name. I did find a single mention in a non-reliable source (blog), but that was it. As such, the claims in the article are wholly unsourced. Onel5969 TT me 12:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedily delete - I'd have gone db-band but definitely fails WP:MUSICBIO. DrStrauss talk 14:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not enough sources to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - few press mentions, but nothing else. Doesn't pass the WP:BIO criteria. -- Saqib ( talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rapid Delete Adding the term "musician" to the search line for the search tools yields zero hits. Zero notability = fast delete. Tapered ( talk) 07:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - non-notable musician. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Globster. Even those arguing for keeping admit that it might be better to merge this, as do most delete-!votes. Thus per WP:ATD-M this is the correct way to handle it. So Why 15:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Philippine Globster

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

WP:109PAPERS. The term "Philippine Globster" is only used by a few unreliable conspiracy sites, while the event itself, while covered by several sources, is only routine coverage for "unusual" events and it remains to be seen if this has long-term notability. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

At this time seems to me this should be merged, not seeing this as particularly notable. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

How about the actual page on the subject Globster? Slatersteven ( talk) 13:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, that would do nicely. Guy ( Help!) 09:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Two more: News.com.au, BBC. I think that's getting good enough for mention in Globster, although probably not a separate article.-- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 07:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – I once removed the link to this page on Globster on the basis that it is unsourced. I can't say whether the source mentioned above passes muster, but it would have to be added to the article. In general, my opinion is that the only reason these objects remain unidentified, given that it is now possible to run DNA tests, etc, is that they are not interesting enough to be worth serious investigation. If serious investigation ever leaves a real mystery, that might rise to the level of notability. jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment just added a BBC source from the whale/dolphin charity ORCA. I think at least it must be mentioned in Globster. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Well then testing does make it a bit more then just a bit of flotsam on the beach. If not keep then at least merge. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Rajat Bhageria

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

Fails WP:Notable: Author of a self-published book and co-founder of a non-notable application and business. The article also looks like a copy of the previously deleted version and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 11:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (was Weak Keep) Most of the sources are to his work or to his supplied CV. The Wharton interview has a summary of his bio and it is an article about him (as opposed to "by" him.) I lean towards keep and improve. Jason from nyc ( talk) 20:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Jason from nyc: Do you think we can use that link to support notability? I don't think we can use interview to improve any article because per WP:IV interviews should be treated like self-published material and he is also a former student of the same school. GSS ( talk| c| em) 03:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There's also a summary bio before the interview. I'd hope the author of that interview checked out his background and I have to assume this publication is reliable in that respect. I would hesitate to write a whole article based on that slim notability. I'd hope that more could be found. That's why I only tend to lean toward "keep" and hope that the article can be improved. Let me consider it further. Jason from nyc ( talk) 11:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm not doubting the reliability of the source but my main concern is can we use this soruce to support notability? becasue I can't see any source which talk about the subject directly and in details. Plenty of self-published, primary and passing mention can be found but can't see any significant coverage in secondary reliable sources that are independent of the subject. GSS ( talk| c| em) 17:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It is rather weak. Let me give it more thought. I'm consumed elsewhere. Jason from nyc ( talk) 18:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Update: On reconsideration Lambert has a good point. I'm tipping to delete. Jason from nyc ( talk) 22:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete There is a lack of reliable sources about him. The intro to an interview is not a fully indepdent 3rd party source, and even if it was, GNG requires multiple sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

New Education Experiment

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

Reads like an advert - neither the project nor the organisation running it meet notability guidelines (for the latter WP:ORG). DrStrauss talk 11:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 11:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 11:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

ANASS MAKSI

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

No evidence of any notability. The references barely show that the Radio stations exist let alone are notable. And the subject of the article seems to be evn less notable. An earlier PROD was removed by the article author without any improvement to referencing. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   10:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Notability not demonstrated, and I had already speedied it when I realized there was a deletion debate open. Deb ( talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Materialscientist ( talk) 11:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Mohsin Abrar

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability fails WP:GNG. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk| c| em) 10:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. The only article that mentions his is in gulf news, talking about Marketing Manager and the contest of Readers' photos. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 14:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete. Does not demonstrate notability - his photographs have only appeared in 2 magazines/newspapers and he is merely 1 of 100 winners in a competition. - Lopifalko ( talk) 17:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - clearly fails GNG Spiderone 13:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for photographers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

GetCITED

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

No consensus as far its notability in 2008 - but almost 10 years on, the site is defunct and the article has not been expanded. I think we can conclude now that this was never and will never be notable as a stand-alone topic. Ping User:Randykitty, User:DGG - what do you think? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, agree with the nom and can't find any references either. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. – Matthew - ( talk) 10:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as simply a listing-esque page with simple announced information, regardless if it no longer exists, making an unconvincing article. SwisterTwister talk 18:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It was notable previously, and therefore it remains notable. WP is a permanent record, not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 02:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ryan F. Zackon

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

Contested PROD, for which I can find no evidence of notability, and with slight promotional overtones as well. Vanamonde ( talk) 09:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Ethnicity in Nigeria in the 1920s

Ethnicity in Nigeria in the 1920s (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic may be notable, but there is actually no content in the article aside from quoting two books without any context. Whpq ( talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia ( talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - We have a section that is similar, Colonial Nigeria#Emergence of Southern Nigerian nationalism. I would support an article that delves even more into the development of Pan-Africanism, Nigerian nationalism, and ethnic nationalism in Nigeria, but this doesn't seem to be a very useful step in that direction. Rather, it is the start of a bibliography or history on ethnic nationalism in Nigeria. Such articles would probably be notable, but I think WP:TNT is ok here, given the article creator hasn't continued to develop these rough notes. Smmurphy( Talk) 15:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Burak firik

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn ( talk) 07:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: A WP:SPA biography with no references, so falling under BLP Prod (though an IP removed that notice). The text in the article makes insufficient claim of notability, whether as WP:POLITICIAN or WP:JOURNALIST, and my searches are finding nothing better. AllyD ( talk) 08:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 issue is notability. Opinions differ, but two of the "keep" opinions don't even address the notability issue and are therefore discounted, leaving us with a sufficiently strong supermajority for non-notability to constitute rough consensus to delete. I'm also salting this to require a community consensus before any attempt at recreation.  Sandstein  07:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Teresa May (actress)

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

The article does not convince me of the notability of the subject nor does it seem to conform to Wikipedia’s guidelines on biographies. Wiki-Coffee Talk 06:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Yup, time to go. This is a ridiculously thin WP:BLP1E.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Well, the thing is, it isn't a single event. It's something that has been going on for several years, and resurfaced recently when Donald Trump made a spelling mistake. So this isn't exactly a BLP1E. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 07:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 09:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That is not true. This month alone, there have been articles and a whole chapter in the Prime Minister's latest biography (by Rosa Prince) about Teresa May, and how the link between the two women has been good both for the politician and her party. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note I've declined a speedy deletion of the article as a repost ( WP:CSD#G4) because it is being discussed here. This is without prejudice to the outcome of this discussion about which I'm neutral. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Zero notability as an actress. Editors at last year's AFD searched diligently and found nothing in an well-attended AFD that closed as delete. The fact that she shares a name (give or take an "h") does not make her notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ E.M.Gregory: This is not a restoration of the sources from the last AfD.  Have you read the last two entries in the "Further reading" section?  It was the White House gaffe in January that led to new bio information for Teresa May and restoration of the article.  But on 13 February, a new book has been released, a book that reveals a dramatic story that Theresa May's staff played on the name contrast at a time when as a shadow secretary, they were worried that she was on her way out.  Unscintillating ( talk) 12:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ E.M.Gregory: {subst:{I agree}} If Wikipedia had every person who had been mispelt by a famous person we'd be a birth registary. Wiki-Coffee Talk 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  Here are the two sources I just mentioned, currently at the end of "Further reading":

Unscintillating ( talk) 12:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep  Personal testimony at the previous AfD that this was a well-known actress was disputed as lacking in sourcing.  We now have sources that call her a "veteran glamour model" and a "popular pornographic star".  Her notability continues to increase, and the dramatic story revealed in the new book refutes the assumptions at the previous AfD that we needed to be sensitive about associating the two topics.  We now know that Theresa May has actively promoted the name contrast.  As stated at the previous AfD, "...the GNG doesn't ask for the reason for the coverage. It's a simple objective test and Teresa May passes it."  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing refutes the fact that no one has been able to source her career as an actress, let alone as "well known actress." She has a sort of limited use to publishers who want to run a naked photo of "Teresa May." This fails to support a WP:BIO. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: @ Unscintillating: Are you joking right now? "and the dramatic story revealed in the new book refutes the assumptions at the previous AfD that we needed to be sensitive about associating the two topics" that is almost advertising. Maybe remember WP:NPOV? Being a veteran glamour model and popular pornographic star does not make someone notable on Wikipedia. There must be a claim of significance... of which there is not. I could become a popular porn-star tomorrow and I might already have been called a “veteran glamour model” does that make it so I could have a page on Wikipedia? There is no substantiation of the claim that she is a popular porn star in the first instance and it doesn’t even assert why this person is notable let alone anything else. Wiki-Coffee Talk 13:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see your WP:BEFORE D1 research reported in your nomination.  Since you didn't prepare for this nomination, you are not now prepared to advance the discussion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • ( edit conflict) Comment  Here is what I found from looking at the snippets on the first page from a Google News search on [Teresa May].  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The Guardian 27 January 2017
Teresa May...made her name as a porn star
  • Daily Mail 27 January 2017
Teresa May - without the 'h' - is in fact a soft porn actress and glamour model who starred in a video for the song Smack My Bitch Up,
  • RT 13 February 2017
Teresa May – without an h – was a 32-year-old porn star from Beckenham in South London,
  • Daily Mail 11 February 2017
...was a 32-year-old called Teresa May – without an h – from Beckenham in South London,
I skipped to page 5, and found entries from Washington Post and Reuters.  The White House gaffe received wide attention in the US, and these sources show that the new story about the ties between the two is yet another news bubble.
Unscintillating ( talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The sources identified above clearly demonstrate notability. Perhaps the coincidence in name is part of the reason, but that is irrelevant. She has been discussed in some depth by multiple reliable independent sources. The subject has been found notable in three previous deletion discussions. Let's quit beating a dead horse. Aymatth2 ( talk) 14:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Er, no, she has not "been found notable in three previous deletion discussions": discussion #1 in 2008 was closed keep under an old and overly loose set of notability and sourcing standards that isn't relevant anymore, discussion #2 in 2016 was closed delete, and this is discussion #3. Bearcat ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete As written, the article doesn't establish notability beyond the one event. Nothing has changed from the circumstances in which the article was originally deleted. -- Super Nintendo Chalmers ( talk) 14:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Something like this does not escape WP:BLP1E territory just because the same coverage context pops back up a second or third or fourth time — no matter how many more times she gets another brief blip of coverage because she happens to have virtually the same name as the Prime Minister, she still does not cross from BLP1E territory into "satisfies a notability criterion" until you can show sources besides the name-twin blips. If you want to get her over WP:NACTOR for "Smack My Bitch Up", or over WP:NMODEL for appearing in nudie mags, then you can't do it just by referencing those things to sources which are mentioning those facts by way of background in coverage that she's getting because name-twin; you need to show that she got some media coverage because "Smack My Bitch Up" or because nudie mags at the time those things were happening. If there were just three or four sources being shown here which were covering her without mentioning the PM at all, then I'd be happy to vote keep — but as long as the sourcing is dated entirely to 2016/17, and exists fundamentally because of the name coincidence rather than because her work is making her notable at all, then yes, she is still a BLP1E regardless of how many times the same 1E keeps bobbing back up above the surface of the "insignificant news of the weird" cycle. Bearcat ( talk) 15:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The logic and analysis behind the AFD from July 2016 still hold. I think it was imprudent, although not clearly out of process, for the article to be reinstated without a DRV after such an extensive discussion, when the underlying facts and available sourcing had not materially changed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt - Fails BLP1E, PORNBIO, GNG ... Get rid & salt to prevent further recreations. – Davey2010 Talk 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because nobody here seems to have actually _read_ WP:BLP1E. All three criteria must be met to justify deleting an article, and criterion #3 is clearly not met ("event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). Therefore, this isn't a BLP1E situation. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You might want to refresh your memory of the dictionary definition of "significant", if you think this satisfies it. And her "role" in it doesn't involve doing anything besides existing as a person who has a name, so the dictionary definition of "substantial" isn't being met here either. Bearcat ( talk) 17:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You might want to read criterion 3 more carefully. Significance in Wikipedia terms implies significant coverage in reliable sources. Notice also the usage of "or", in "either not substantial or not well documented"; the role was not substantial but it was well documented. So this fails criterion 3 for qualifying as BLP1E. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 17:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
No, significance in Wikipedia terms is not just "coverage exists"; it is "coverage exists in a context that satisfies a notability criterion". If all coverage had to do was exist to get a person into Wikipedia, such that the event had to be either substantial or well-documented but not both, then we'd have to keep an article about the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got news coverage a few years ago for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard. Coverage does obviously have to exist, yes, but it has to exist in a context that's noteworthy before it counts as notability-conferring coverage. In either words, it's not "either/or" in the sense that passing either half of the equation, but not both, translates into escaping BLP1E; it's "either/or" in the sense that failing either half of the equation does make her a BLP1E, and she has to pass both of them to escape it. Bearcat ( talk) 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment  I've formatted some of the references from Google news as citations.
  • Lane, Anthony (4 February 2017). "Theresa May's American Adventure". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2017-02-23. There was one last nicety to savor in the Prime Minister's American journey. In the official White House schedule, her first name was misspelled, as "Teresa." An easy mistake to make, you could say, though it bore a trace of the slapdash, and all was forgiven as global attention turned briefly to another, no less compelling British figure: Teresa May, without the "H."...dug up a BBC radio broadcast, from 2000, in which Theresa and Teresa were interviewed at the same time, and encouraged to compare notes. The joke is that both women emerge with credit and dignity from what was clearly intended to be an awkward clash.
  • Deng, Boer (28 January 2017). "White House misspells Theresa May's name - and also call Julie Bishop prime minister". The Times. The Australian. Retrieved 2017-02-23. Teresa May, whose real name is Teresa Betteridge, has starred in films including Whitehouse: The Sex Video and in the music video for the Prodigy's Smack My Bitch Up.

    Ms Betteridge, 50, was mistaken for Mrs May when the latter became Prime Minister last year. The former model was inundated with congratulatory tweets to her address @RealTeresaMay, and had to change her Twitter biography to read: "I am a UK glamour model, not the prime minister."

  • Murphy, Joe (27 January 2017). "Theresa May meets Donald Trump for talks on battle against ISIS". London Evening Standard. Retrieved 2017-02-23. The hype was slightly punctured when the White House accidentally misspelled her named as Teresa May three times in an announcement - an unfortunate mistake as it is the spelling used by a prolific porn actress.
  • "Theresa May "used porn star to liven up her image"... & chatted over coffee". RT UK. Retrieved 2017-02-23. ...according to a new tell-all book about the notoriously-private prime minister.

    Teresa May...had starred in 60 adult movies

    The legend of 'the other Teresa May' has been passed down through the ages by Tory press officers as an example of spin doctoring at its finest. The story made headlines around the world.

  • Prince, Rosa (12 February 2017). "Theresa May and Teresa May: How the PM used a porn star who had starred in 60 adult movies to perk up her image". dailymail.co.uk. Retrieved 2017-02-23. The two women sat side by side on the daytime television sofa, chatting politely about current events. Both were attractive and articulate; they were less than a decade apart in age. But there the similarity ended.

    One was an adult film star and topless model who had starred in more than 60 pornographic movies. The other was the Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

Unscintillating ( talk) 17:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Heya: @ Unscintillating: So, per you, the claim of significance is based on the fact the subject of this articles first name was accidentally used instead of Theresa May’s name. So even when I am not trying to trivialise the claim of significance you have asserted, it stands to be that due to the subject of this articles name being a typo, that now apparently makes her a notable and significant person? I cannot understate the idiotic nature of this assertion based on mere common sense alone. Furthermore, being subject to news reports alone does not make someone notable on Wikipedia. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not an indiscriminate collection of every person who has been mentioned in the news because their name has been used in a typo. Furthermore, starring in porn films does not automatically make someone notable either. The only things the news sources you have provided prove is that her name was subject to a typo and that she is a porn star who has featured in many movies. The news sources themselves don’t indicate this person is anything notable in respect to Wikipedia’s standards of notability nor do any other sources for that matter. Wiki-Coffee Talk 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • @ Unscintillating:Furthermore, if your assertions that a person’s name being used by mistake instead of a notable person’s name and this being noticed then reported by the media is, on its own enough to establish notability, then the precedent would be set for that to occur with any other biography written about someone on Wikipedia. Would this then mean that anyone with the name Teresa May could automatically become notable enough for a Wikipedia article if they decide to tell the media about themselves and have a story published about it? There are many people who share exactly the same names as notable people, would those people be notable enough on that basis alone? Wiki-Coffee Talk 19:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: Salt it - I didn't request to salt in the nom but after further research and reading discussion it probably would be a good idea to salt it to stop it reappearing. There has already been a discussion to delete this from Wikipedia (which resulted in delete) and I don't really know how it got back here but once this discussion is concluded, and presuming it will be deleted, I would be suggesting salt as well. Wiki-Coffee Talk 19:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Salt per Bearcat's newscycle of the weird. An admin can always restore if some more substantial coverage of Teresa herself does emerge, but I don't think it's a good use of community time to re-debate the same thin info each time it cycles through the press because someone accidentally swapped Teresa for Theresa. Innisfree987 ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easilly passes GNG and WP:BIO due to the coverage she received for her successful career back in the 90s. The 17+ years coverage for having a similar name to a prominent politician is just icing on the cake. Struggling to see why folk are asserting she doesn't meet our inclusion policies when that's so blatantly untrue. Maybe it's a well meaning but misguided view that the article harms one of the individuals on BLP grounds?
Per the 1st AfD, there's reason to think the subject herself likes having a wikipedia article.
As for our prime minister, if one reads Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister by good Rosa Prince, there's a whole chapter on "the other Teresa". It talks about their appearance together on GMTV back in the year 2000. And how the easy rapport the two women showed helped humanise the politician, showing that despite her posh and somewhat reserved nature she was non judgmental and friendly. The Rosa's biography talks about how the Tory party deliberatly kept the story about of the two Teresa's in the news for several years, part of a fairly successful campaign to dispel the image they used to have as "the nasty party". Teresa is thus highly significant both in pop culture due to her fame in the 90s, and in politics. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 20:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Argument based in a false premise that there was "coverage" of "her successful career back in the 90s" NO ONE has been able to find WP:RSs covering her porn career outside the Theresa/Terese context, although many good editors have died trying. Agree with editors above that we should Salt this. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There is no false premise in my argument. For someone willing to spend a little money or who has the right collection of 90s magazines, it's trivially easy to find coverage of her career outside the name conicidence. Most of it is behind paywalls though, as it's in archived / digitised copies of pulications from the 1990s. Just to give an indication, this link shows a snipet view of EMMA (magazine) from 1998 where they are talking about her career from a feminist perspective and without mentioning the politician (who at that time was not even in the shadow cabinet, and much less famous than the model, except in her local area and the westminster village. ) FeydHuxtable ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Ok, maybe we're talking about different things. The book Theresa May: The Enigmatic Prime Minister is definetly by Rosa Prince. Minor point, but the artilce by Rosa in the DM was more publicising the book rather than about it as such. There have been articles recently in Financial Times, The Guardian, and many other papers about the book, but those were by journalists not the author herself. Thanks btw for your heroic working saving articles - wish I had the perserverence to do even a fraction of what you do here. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The RfC says nothing about being "banned", in fact at a current discussion, an editor says, "Honestly I don't see much of a change anyway from normal usage of the DM." meaning that editors already knew that TDM was a limited resource.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt assertion is not the same as providing sources. Are the sun and the revolting DM really what some people round here are acceptable. What a joke. Please discard such ridiculous arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Nobody is disputing that Teresa without a H is a) a porn star (or "glamour model and actress") and that b) her name is similar to that of Britain's Prime Minister. The problem is that none of this satisfies WP:GNG, and also has problems with WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Ianmacm: I should just become a porn star tomorrow... do a few hundred movies then call up the news and tell them my name is Doneld Stump then demand a Wikipedia article be made about me (I am actually starting to seriously think about that.) → ὦiki-Coffee( talk to me!) ( contributions) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Wiki-Coffee: Teresa May's career as a "glamour model and actress" seems to have occurred mainly in the 1990s and early 2000s [16], which is long before Theresa May was a well known politician in Britain. So Teresa without a H is off the hook on the charge of copying someone else's name to gain publicity. If she had used the stage name Margareta Thatcher (or similar) things would have been different of course. There was a court case involving this type of situation with Violet Blue and Noname Jane (star of the memorably titled Bang My White Tight Ass).-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for clarity. Having the article makes it clear that Teresa May is a different person and not a misspelling of Theresa May. Roberttherambler ( talk) 18:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you joking? AusLondonder ( talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- notability not established and the content in the article is mostly trivia. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete notability is in no way established. Weak sourced puff article. It is time to delete. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Most absurdly tenuous claim to notability in a long time. AusLondonder ( talk) 03:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notabilty well established & she is much wider known as a celebrity than countless reality tv stars & some pop stars who go back to stacking supermarket shelves after their half hour of "superstardom." And has been known to the public at large longer than the current PM who shares her name. CliffordJones ( talk) 12:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete content and retarget title to "event" article (needs to be written). First, to WP:GNG – there is no doubt that Teresa May has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so she is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article – "presumed" means "that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included", which is why deleting her article is being discussed here "in depth". So we see that this begins to boil down to "what Teresa May is". As for what she is, she has received no awards neither for acting nor modeling, so as I see it, the subject fails both WP:NMODEL and WP:PORNBIO. Therefore, the only possible notability she has must come from the single "event". We go on to WP:BLP1E – one main focus in this discussion has been the third criterion in that part of this Wikipedia policy. After removing other stuff, the sentence becomes, "We should generally avoid having an article on a person [...] if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The event has proven itself in reliable sources to be considered significant enough for us to be having this sometimes heated discussion about it. As well, the subject's role in the event has been quite "well documented". So the final argument boils down to whether or not the subject's role in "the event" is to be considered "substantial". Many say "no", because her only role in the event appears to be that her name, "Teresa May", is just one letter off from the prime minister's name of "Theresa May", and that by itself is not at all significant. Others here seem to say, "But is that her only role in this? Or is there more to it?" If her only role is having a very similar name, then no, her role should not be considered as "substantial". However, if there is more to her role than just the similar name, then that just might make her role in the event substantial, which would meet the BLP1E criteria and allow an article to exist about Teresa May. Fortunately, the (in this case) controversial BLP1E policy is assisted by WP:BIO1E, our notability guideline, which states, "Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people." It is with this guideline that the subject's article fails, which means that its content should be deleted. The guideline also stresses that if the event is significant, as in this case, then an article should be written about the event, and the person's article should be redirected to the event article. This it would seem is the optimum solution. Thank you for your indulgence, and I ask your forgiveness for "thinking out loud" and for being unusually verbose. I actually wrote all this before coming to a final decision.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I have drafted an article at British prime minister mistaken for actress for you all to peruse and improve. When ready, that "event" article can be moved to mainspace and be the target of a redirect, "Teresa May (actress)" and possibly the "Teresa May" redirect could be retargeted to it also.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I have read the draft article, and find it to be precisely the sort of violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:SENSATION that are disparaged by Wikipedia guidelines. I continue to believe that the best approach is to delete the no-"h" Teresa because she is not notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree that the Teresa May article, this article we are discussing, has no business on Wikipedia because the actress/model has no notability beyond that of the event. Thank you for reading the draft; however, it needs much more than reading, it needs much improvement. I'm prepping for surgery tomorrow, so I have little time to spend on it, but I will return to it as soon as possible. Meanwhile, those editors who agree that the event has proven notable enough to be on Wikipedia are welcome to make improvements to Draft:British prime minister mistaken for actress.   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  22:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Club Drive (band)

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

Recently formed band that doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND inclusion criteria. This doesn't qualify for speedy deletion due to a weak claim of significance (BBC track of the week). This band may be on its way to becoming notable, but it seems WP:TOSOON now. ~ Anachronist ( talk) 05:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The BBC Hit of the week is slightly notable, but without additional notability and additional sources covering the "track of the week," I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Concur with above "too soon." Aside from BBC, article sources aren't reliable. None of the search tools produce anything. Not notable yet. Delete Tapered ( talk) 07:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy-deleted (G4).( non-admin closure) AllyD ( talk) 11:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Dr. Seema Midha

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

Fails WP:GNG. There are a few quotes but nothing in-depth that shows notability. Outside of notability, there is also a possible WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK invovled with creation. Recently created page with a prefix for name (Dr.) caused me to search without it (Seema Midha instead of Dr. Seema Midha). I came up with Seema Midha [17] which was deleted back in December for being created by a blocked or banned user. Previously deleted in 2014 after a deletion discussion as well [18]. Appears to be evading block and/or attempting to mask the page creation by using an alternative version of the name. CNMall41 ( talk) 05:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete (possible CSD G4): A WP:SPA posting of a biography previously deleted by AfD and then on re-posts. The tone is promotional and subsequent receipt of a non-notable award from a PR agency does not look sufficient to change the previous decision. AllyD ( talk) 08:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) LibStar ( talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Ayyalusamy Ramamoorthy

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. created by a single purpose editor. only 1 of the gnews hits I found actually had him as the subject. even for authored articles, he actually was not lead author of any of these articles. LibStar ( talk) 05:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep per WP:PROF#C5 (named professor at Michigan), #C3 (fellow AAAS [19]), and #C1 (very high h-index of 67 at Google scholar [20]). Nomination represents either a failure to apply WP:BEFORE or a failure to understand WP:PROF (hint: gnews is not the place to look). — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep yes, he does indeed seem to meet both #3 and #5 of WP:PROF. In addition to the named chair at Michigan he has three visiting distinguished professorships, internationally. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for clear reasons stated above. Xxanthippe ( talk) 21:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC). reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Huvy Elisha

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

Promotional article--even including prices--for not yet notable artist. Fails WP:CREATIVE--no works in permanent collections, no extensive critical works about her. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AllyD ( talk) 08:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article needs improvement. Politekid ( talk) 11:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet. reply
  • Weak Keep Prices are actually a useful guide to notability in artists, DGG. Many artists who end up here have big oils offered at $hundreds or a couple of thousand on the web. $63K at auction suggests notability, ghastly though the painting looks. No doubt if we could read Hebrew far more would be available (though copyvio might also be revealed). Being a hard-core Ultra-Orthodox settler artist adds a certain interest too - there probably aren't too many of those. The tone needs calming, certainly. Naff top-selling artists like Jack Vettriano belong in WP too. What if Trump relations decide to buy one? Johnbod ( talk) 13:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Doyou think the subject here is of equal notability ? DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Equal to what? To Vetriano, certainly not, but he gets over 5k views per month, & is from an English-speaking country. She doesn't need to be - we have numerous other "naff" artists. Johnbod ( talk) 04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete does not pass any of our actual criteria for artist notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It would need a search in Hebrew to really establish if that is the case. Johnbod ( talk) 19:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Prices - deleted. Huvi is one of the most sucessful Israeli artists. She is unique also for being one of the few jewish religious artists. She is 89 years old and holds a dergee of Central Saint Martins College of Arts and Design. Article also mentions Nicholas Forrest's opinion on her works. I.bel
  • Delete Age and education are not criteria for inclusion. Sources are required. Google books has one source, and the web offers up nothing substantial. Indeed, at 89 there should be very significant sources. Re prices, lots of non-notable painters sell paintings for lots of money. Have you seen the pictures of Trump's condo, or Michael Jackson's house? Expensive non-notable painting abounds. 104.163.152.194 ( talk) 22:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Are you familiar with Jewish ultra-orthodox world? Women don't speak in public, etc. It is a very different way of life. That is why she doesn't have a lot of publications. However, she is a talented a succesfull artist. Do all articles about artists have a lot of sources? I.bel
I.bel, Someone's religious background, gender or socio-economic status are not criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Zero import for inclusion/deletion discussions. Such things probably should be considered in policy, but they are not. (I'm 104.163.152.194, router reset!) 104.163.140.193 ( talk) 23:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: The article's two auctioneer and blog references effectively refer to a single item sale. While a purchase price may indicate that further search may find evidence of notability, I don't think it can in itself trump the four WP:ARTIST criteria, nor does the Nana 10 item look sufficient to meet the WP:BASIC criteria. My searches are finding nothing better, but I'm happy to revise my view if some solid critical appraisal can be located. AllyD ( talk) 11:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The mentioned item is not the only one sold. However, it cannot happen that the only item sold is worth 100 000. Do you prefer addind more sold items? Won't it make the article promotional? Nana 10 is a website of Israeli Channel 10 (Israel). The 2nd most popular TV Channel in Israel. What about Nicholas Forrest ? I.bel
  • The Nicholas Forrest blog item contained no appraisal beyond noting that a price had been achieved. I did link to Nana 10 above, but notability does not flow from a TV channel/website to the subject of any feature item that it has run (human interest items are not uncommon, after all). The notability criteria seek more than sales achieved, either singly or in sequence. AllyD ( talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Four-eyes model

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

no evidence for general adoption of the theory. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 13:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Written like an essay which makes the article fail WP:NOTESSAY. - KAP03( Talk • Contributions) 14:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is extraordinarily deep thought. Perhaps too deep for Wikipedia, alas. Delete per nom. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note. I was ready to say delete, but interesting thing that the German article exists from 2011 and it's still there. May be we need to research it a bit more before deciding. Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 14:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 15:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Aaron Ozee

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

self published author, no actual evidence of notability (the article does say "[owner] of the world record title, "Most Books Published By A Teenager," The refs, as expected, are either press releases or notices. He seems to have written many of them himself. == Pleas DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Discussion page was created with a broken template. I've fixed the template and will leave any refactoring of text to the nominator. -- Finngall talk 15:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete most sources are non- WP:RS, either self-initiated or blogs. Article seems more like an advert than a bio.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Seems all unreliable sources are removed and more reliable news sources are introduced.The poet has published around 10 notable poetry books. Abrahamherews ( talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)— Abrahamherews ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    You should be aware of the fact that "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia - a little different than it is in the general language. None of his books is notable according to Wikipedia's definition. -- bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Incredible source material such as press releases and self-written content has been removed from content present on page. New references have been added to further support facts presented throughout. 11:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.128.46 ( talk) — 99.191.128.46 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - the assertion that he was one of the youngest authors ever to be published has no secondary source, and furthermore it is manifestly incorrect given that he is self-published. The recordsetter.com website is not a reliable judge of this by a long chalk, as evidenced by their FAQ page. The sources currently in the article are mainly primary so there is no sign of WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR being met. Too soon for an article, I believe. -- bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete a non-notable poet who has not yet become impactful. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ozee appears to be under the impression that this is " his official Wikipedia Page". A common enough misconception of course; I wonder how it can be made more obvious to people that Wikipedia is not any kind of marketing platform. -- bonadea contributions talk 23:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Good evening, Wikipedia users. This is Aaron Ozee addressing you all. I was recently made aware that a few fans of mine had gotten together and established this page to represent my success in writing. Despite the fact that it was an honest and kind gesture, it appears great controversy has emerged since its creation and is now seen as a threat to Wikipedia. Please know that even though I would like to see the page remain, I understand that if it is the majority opinion of those remarking on this discussion board that it should not belong then so be it. I appreciate you all taking the time to review it and post your opinions. And you must all know that it was never in my intentions to introduce stress to this growing community over my page and that it might be better off deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.182.131 ( talk) 23:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment : I am one of Aaron Ozee's fan who want to see his wiki page live. Google news and Google books have enough and more reference about Aaron Ozee which makes him notable enough to have a wiki page according to Wiki guidelines Abrahamherews ( talk) 15:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment : The nominator of the deletion tag stated that there is no news articles to support the title Most Books Published By a Teenager, Here is the news article from reputed Suburban Life Media Poet Aaron Ozee of Addison sets teen world record. Thus the nomination doesn't stand. Abrahamherews ( talk) 15:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)— Abrahamherews ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Some local coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Claims of various publishing records are of questionable validity given that all of his works are self-published. And Mr. Ozee, might I correct a couple of misconceptions: 1) There is no "great controversy" or "threat to Wikipedia"--this is merely a discussion as to whether an article on you meets Wikipedia's notability standards for biographies. 2) This isn't a vote, and the administrators' assessment is not based on a majority vote, but on the strengths of the arguments as they relate to Wikipedia policy. No "stress" involved, merely the continuing process of improving the encyclopedia. Literally hundreds of articles are under assessment by the community in this way at any one time. -- Finngall talk 02:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete For all the reasons Nom, Finngall, and Bonadea have articulated. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • I have inquired about Record Setter on WP:RSN. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      comment World record This wikipedia article proves the credibility/reliability of recordsetter website. Moreover the reply you got in WP:RSN is by a person involved in the current discussion. So i think thats not ethical to conclude about recordsetters authenticity. When the World record page of the wiki itself talk much about recordsetter. Abrahamherews ( talk) 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      The continuing evaluation of which sources can be considered reliable is also part of the endless process of improving the encyclopedia. Just because links to recordsetter had previously been included on several pages doesn't necessarily mean the site had been the subject of any kind of scrutiny before now. Please assume good faith of the part of your fellow editors (all of whom have extensive experience with Wikipedia's processes and procedures) rather than assuming a lack of ethics. -- Finngall talk 17:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Unreliable sources have been successfully removed from this page and have been substituted by more reputable and concrete sources suitable to support all content present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.210 ( talk • contribs) 11:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment Statements made about only local coverage supporting this page are unfounded. Articles released by outlets such as " The Huffington Post" span nationally and credibly back the facts presented throughout. Also, in regards to the claims made about Record Setter, those too are not substantiated. Record Setter is one of the largest world record organizations in the world besides the Guinness Book of World Records (think of them as a direct competitor). Sources such as those published by " Shaw Media" accurately support the records listed on this page and ultimately tie into the overall credibility of Record Setter as an organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.210 ( talk • contribs) 12:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment : Here are the news links to prove recordsetter.com's credibility - > nypost.com , Forbes.com , journaltimes.com , cartoonbrew.com , Dailytimes.com , thenextweb.com , Journaltimes.com. I found many more articles in web to prove the credibility of recordsetter.com , but mentioning only 7 here . Thus the article must not be deleted on grounds of credible world record. Abrahamherews ( talk) 03:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    Of these links, only the one from thenextweb.com discusses recordsetter.com in any kind of detail. In my view, it would be a decent reference for a Wikipedia article on recordsetter.com (which, by the way, doesn't exist yet) but it doesn't really say anything about why we should take it as a reliable source for records or anything else. -- Finngall talk 04:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    comment : These are only few links , there are many and many more in the web. Reliability is a factor that comes into account with news mention and featuring in trustable news outlets and there are many such for recordsetter.com , and i dont think , there will be any article about "is guiness book reliable for wiki" . Reliability or credibility is something that is already proved for recordsetter.com through the widespread nontrivial news featuring. Abrahamherews ( talk) 05:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as there is simply no credible claim to notability. "Payed for the most self-published books while a teenager" is not a claim to fame, and does not guarantee a Wikipedia article. Someguy1221 ( talk) 05:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment Stating that "there is simply no credible claim to notability" is an unfounded and highly dubious claim in itself. Not even taking the world records into consideration, all publications released by the author alongside the new references added to the page prove notability by a landslide. 12:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.128.46 ( talk)

*Strong Keep Claims made about having achieved world records are well supported through sources such as those published by My Suburban Life" and by evidence presented by Abrahamherews. 12:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC) Striking, as this IP address (99.191.128.46) [21] already !voted once above. First Light ( talk) 09:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Self-published author with no evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Does not even remotely meet any of the four requirements specifically for notability of authors at WP:AUTHOR. First Light ( talk) 07:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    Comment : Suburban Life Media - Article 1, The Huffington Post - Article 2, The courier (College of Dupage's student newspaper est 1967) - Article 3 , Daily Herald (Arlington Heights) - Article 4 etc.. makes it pass WP:GNG and thus proves notable. Abrahamherews ( talk) 09:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    1). mysuburbanlife.com is a local paper, possibly not a RS and certainly doesn't fulfill 4(c) at WP:Author: "(c) has won significant critical attention," which would be the only potential application of that article 2). is a HuffPost blog, not a news article, nor sufficient to fulfill "significant critical attention." 3). is a student newspaper 4). is a local paper's announcement of 19 different local author book signing/appearances, of which this is the last in the list, one sentence long. None of this, alone or as a group, conveys "significant coverage" or "has won significant critical attention." First Light ( talk) 09:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All fluff, no substance. The prolix SPA posts here sure resemble the subject's unpoetical interviews. This oddity http://publishingperspectives.com/2015/02/teenagers-10-steps-to-become-successfully-self-published/ is worth a look, giving as it does a glimpse into the subject's talent for soaring imagery e.g.

Most manuscripts that are submitted for review are tossed away into the black abyss of a cold file cabinet with no assurance that they will ever crawl to the surface again.

Not to mention:

I feel have done [sic] what it takes to learn the many aspects of the self-publishing industry and the necessary information to fully understand how to exercise it's [sic] true abilities. Starting to write at the early age of five, I have never ceased to compose imaginative, unique, spirited, and contemporary poetic art, and will continue to do so until those who have been terribly misguided by common misconceptions of publishing comprehend what they need to do in order to achieve success.

Pure art! Also has a great photo of the subject posing with one of this books in what appears to be a school library. Meanwhile, at http://www.aaronozee.com/ we find,

Readers that frequently show their support for Ozee Poetry understand the importance of poet Aaron Ozee's bestselling publication and how it has changed the face of literature for the better. In addition to the knowledge they hold regarding the poetic triumph that poet Aaron Ozee's bestselling publication continues to claim, it should be known that as of last week, a prominent online retailer known as Jet accepted, "Ironic Perfection: Poetic Works of Aaron Ozee," into its family of products.

And finally,

Back in 2013, poet Aaron Ozee discovered two aspiring writers after browsing potential publishing connections on Linked In that went by the names Antony Hammond and Thomas Robertson from the city of Nottingham in the United Kingdom. Together, they held the desire to compose and self-publish a novel that would change the way the world viewed the economic status of the United States by recanting [sic] their own experiences on Wall Street.

That last sentence won Best malapropism at Sunday's Academy Awards, for those who weren't watching. E Eng 11:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment : Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write This is what written in the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page. The huffpost blog article is written by a professional journalist as per the info within the article. So it can be considered as a reliable source. and can anyone point out where it is written local news papers cant be included as reliable source ? Abrahamherews ( talk) 11:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    @ Abrahamherews: as you have not yet declared your conflict of interest (merely claimed to be "a fan"), and as you are actively participating in this discussion, please make it a priority to make that declaration. This is based on your claim to own the rights to the publicity photo of Ozee (now deleted as a copyright violation from Commons), and this edit summary. Again, as explained on your user talk page a few days ago, editing with a conflict of interest is not prohibited, but pretending that it does not exist can be seen as disruptive. Thank you. NB: This is not a request to disclose your identity. Nobody is ever required to do so publicly on Wikipedia.
    Regarding "written by a professional journalist", the relevant info about the writer is here: freelance writer and marketing professional with a journalist background. -- bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and as per nom and EM Gregory. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Bonadea, I found his pic online and uploaded it to commons, later i found about the copyright issue , i am actively participating in the discussion cause i find many similar poets page live in wiki without even any reference and being a fan i like to see his wiki page live. Abrahamherews ( talk) 15:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    Can you point out any of the similar unreferenced poet pages you mention? First Light ( talk) 15:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    comment : Alberto Bayo , Adisa Andwele , Osama Alomar , Hermann Bellinghausen , Nicolae Beldiceanu etc.. etc.. there are lot and lot of such pages without even a reference or passing any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR Abrahamherews ( talk) 18:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment : Can anyone comment on my previous comment ? why Alberto Bayo , Adisa Andwele , Osama Alomar , Hermann Bellinghausen , Nicolae Beldiceanu and lot and lot of such pages without even a reference or passing any of the criteria for WP:AUTHOR are live in wiki ? Abrahamherews ( talk) 03:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
It was wrong of First Light to send you down that path. It's irrelevant -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. E Eng 03:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Probably correct, but since I took the bait, I'll reply: some of those articles are likely AfD candidates. Most are non-English and are difficult to ascertain without foreign language help. I don't see any of them being comparable to this discussion. Aaron Ozee is a self-published author only, has received no significant coverage in mainstream news sources, or anything close to "significant critical attention." Also, see Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Deletion of articles. First Light ( talk) 03:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete self-published author. Fails notability guideline. Extremely poor quality sources, with significant evidence that some/all are fundamentally artifacts of self-promotion. My own search for sources just turned up a huge pile of press releases. A Highschool newspaper (dupage88) has no reputation for reliability by our standards, no non-local weight, and was produced by schoolmates (i.e. not an independent source). The college newspaper (codcourier) is only marginally better. The Huffpo blog does not appear to pass WP:Newsblog and is written by a self-identified marketer. Lulu self-publishing site might be usable for certain facts, but has zero notability weight. The other refs are either negligible passing mention (dailyherald), are clearly promotional and involved (publishingperspectives), or very appear very questionable (mysuburbanlife). Alsee ( talk) 19:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Non-notable teenaged self-published poet and self promoter. My good faith search yielded no evidence of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • comment : Whats happening to the page ? Someone deleted many news sources even before the discussion is over and someone even deleted the entire article ? please reinstate the page as the discussion is not yet over Abrahamherews ( talk) 03:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Articles are subject to normal editing even during deletion discussions. I removed unreliable sources (e.g. a high-school newspaper) and sources which didn't support the statements cited to them. As it happens, there's nothing left, which is what you'd expect in such a case.
Listen, I have two questions for you. (1) How is it you uploaded an image of Ozee's signature, marked as "Own work" [22]? Are you Ozee? If not, how is it "Own work"? (2) Is Ozee's poetry any more literate than his prose, which contains frequent grammar and spelling errors plus the occasional malapropism? Or is that part of his folksy appeal? E Eng 03:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment : I got the signature from his book, which i photographed and edited and added to the wiki.But its not that ethical for removing all links even before the deletion is initiated. And i think you are no one to talk about him literature. This is a discussion whether to approve or not approve his page and not about the quality of writing and i strongly feel , you are no one to judge a poet who has released around 10 poetry works Abrahamherews ( talk) 04:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Then it's not your own work and will have to be deleted. But you're right about the inappropriateness of passing judgment. After all, the dust jacket of Ozee's Ironic Perfection declares, "The world will at last know poetry at its finest." Who am I to disagree?
I have another question. Ozee's poem "Deeper" ends, "The sound of screams beneath the floor/ceased to continue nevermore". Now, is that some kind of homage to Poe? "The Tell-Tale Heart" meets "The Raven"? E Eng 04:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I want to apologize for suggesting that the subject might be illiterate. I have no reason to doubt that his parents are married. E Eng 14:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Clearly fails notability for authors - maybe it will someday, but hasn't happened yet. Not even the publishing houses see fit to publish his work at this time. Scr★pIron IV 14:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, blatant advertising. Guy ( Help!) 14:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The current sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's standards for notability, and a number of them are promotional anyway. For example, the PublishingPerspectives article appears to have been written by Ozee himself and half the citations simply link to his self-published works. My own search did not turn up anything. If his career takes off and he receives more coverage by reliable, independent sources, then the article could be recreated. ZettaComposer ( talk) 14:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The only actual sources about rather than by Ozee appear to be a blog post and his college's student newspaper. That's not good enough for WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Wikipedia does have an issue where even highly accomplished poets have trouble meeting our bar for notability, but that's not a justification for including articles on lesser lights with a greater appetite for self-promotion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, for all the reasons given above. Page is ready to be "tossed away into the black abyss of a cold file cabinet with no assurance that they will ever crawl to the surface again." -- Tryptofish ( talk) 02:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing seen within the discussion, even though its semi protected Abrahamherews ( talk) 06:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • COMMENT Passes notability on grounds of WP:ANYBIO - The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. Abrahamherews ( talk) 06:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
No. For the umpteenth time, to be added to recordsetter.com's database is not a "significant award" (and certainly not well-known). There have also been recent false claims in the article that Ozee has a record number of publications, when 1) this is provably untrue for more than one reason (those are self-published and there are other teenagers with more books published, they just never sent it off to recordsetter's community) and 2) the only thing that is in fact shown is that he and his marketing people claim this. -- bonadea contributions talk 07:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ( non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

La resistance allemande au Trumpisme

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

Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix ( talk) 04:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Brad Whitsitt

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Does not pass WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 TT me 03:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete as unconvincing in our standards. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete being a college and development league player as he has does not meet the nlotability requirements for footballers. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment does the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup count as a professional competition? If so the subject would pass WP:NFOOTY as per multiple references in the article state that he has appeared in that competition. Inter&anthro ( talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Inter&anthro: It would count if the Cup game were between two teams from fully professional leagues, which it wasn't. Smartyllama ( talk) 20:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 04:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

John Morgan (lawyer)

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

Less an actual biography than a legal-services directory entry. Not seeing much actual biography nor any really good reason for one. Calton | Talk 03:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Morgan's notable involvement with 2014 (see article) and 2016 medical marijuana initiatives. The Florida press has often highlighted his strong backing of Amendment 2, which passed last November with over 70% of the vote. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Ubiquitously well-known lawyer in Florida and the Southeast, one of the (if not the) largest Democratic donors in the state, the chief supporter of the successful marijuana legalization referendum not six months ago, and the current prohibitive front-runner for the Democratic nomination for governor in one year. Absolutely ridiculous to call him "non-notable". Could the article be better written? Totally. Should it be deleted? No. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 08:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. MB298 ( talk) 09:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Scott Mannion

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

Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mannion's short film The Defector (not The Defector (film)) seems to have more coverage than Mannion himself; however, I doubt that it would be notable. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete tries to show the person is notable because he worked with notable people, but that does not make him notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete fails WP:CREATIVE. No actual awards won and trying to use reviews of his non notable film as sources doesn't add to notability. LibStar ( talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keep the Defector is notable. Anima is notable. He directed both. Nominated for prominent national award by the Australian Directors guild. Films broadcast on national and international television. Films selected for world class festivals. Directed work broadcast on SBS and CANAL+ . The director is interviewed in several national broadcast and print articles, all listed to source. Deletion schedule is due to user JJMC89 vandalism and COI. rakanishu666 ( talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) — rakanishu666 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    defector is not notable . It does not have an article. LibStar ( talk) 23:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "COI" JJMC89 claim that it lacks "significant coverage in independent reliable sources." it incorrect. See Sydney Morning Herald, Fairfax media, Radio national, User is unaware of Australian national newspapers and international broadcasters. All are listed in the sources provided in the page. Australian users have added this article to Australian Directors. International editors should consult Australian users. JJMC89 rakanishu666 ( talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "COI" User JJMC89 had no previous issue with article notability, making many edits. Only after edit conflicts, he schedules the article for deletion discussion. This is clearly COI. This needs to be removed from deletion discussion. rakanishu666 ( talk) 12:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
    given your single purpose editing I wonder if you have any connection to the article subject. LibStar ( talk) 23:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show that he passes WP:GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • possible keep Please give this one a relist, it looks as though there are sources in major media in Australia. I'll take a look now. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your indulgenceof that irregular request added because article was past the 7-day expiradion date. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Dunno I added a few sources, the 2016 article from The Age also ran in the Canberra Times under the title Holt conspiracy theory ripe for filmmaker. Looks like a marginally notable youngish Aussie filmmaker. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

BeritaSatu TV Medan

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

BeritaSatu is a satellite channel which doesn't have any terrestrial/local TV stations, and its content were apparently copy-pasted from here ArdiPras95 ( talk) 02:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Additional note: The article creator is indef-blocked on Id Wiki as well. - ArdiPras95 ( talk) 02:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ArdiPras95 ( talk) 02:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ArdiPras95 ( talk) 02:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: appears to be a hoax. While there is a regular BeritaSatu TV station (source of most of the content of the nominated page), Google does not indicate that there is one specific for Medan. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 11:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I do not see any evidence of channel. Even if this is not a hoax, it is an unnecessary content fork. This can be safely deleted. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Warren Fahy

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

No independent references Rathfelder ( talk) 17:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 03:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep because sources exist. Click on HighBeam or News and enough hits come up to show that look at this search on gImages [23]. Article needs work; obviously. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a biography of a living person, and such need to be based on reliable sources, of which we have 0 in the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No reliable and independent sources on article. Politekid ( talk) 11:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet. reply
  • Delete There are hardly any sources to satisfy WP:GNG. (A search on highbream gives only 3 results which are mentions of his debut book, but that's all). There is no indication that this debut book was an important work. In addition, I am unable to see any other coverage about the subject's work. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 13:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

AP1 TV (Nepal)

AP1 TV (Nepal) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Advertorially toned article about a TV channel, which is not reliably sourced. The only sources listed here are its own self-published website about itself, and an article in the newspaper that owns it (thus not independent) -- and even the self-published website does not suggest an operating channel, but one that's merely "coming soon". No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be written neutrally and sourced properly, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON at best. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 17:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Easycwmp

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

None of the sources prove that this product meets the WP:GNG. The article creator is also the developer and has been unable to supply any reliable in depth independent coverage to prove the notability. This is an effort by the company to include its product on Wikipedia. There are no claims to significance in the article. Domdeparis ( talk) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I can't find any secondary sources, no professional reviews, only reviews are personal. Article fails notability guidelines. - Pmedema ( talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking high-quality, independent RS refs. Refs provided are company sources and blogs. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric ( talk) 21:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yandere Simulator ( non-admin closure). clpo13( talk) 19:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Yandere Dev

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

WP:BEFORE does not reveal enough reliable sources to support a BLP. Article has entirely primary sources (either self-published or interviews). Waggie ( talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Yandere Simulator, as I created it, but don't delete it to wipe the edit history in case of the slim chance consensus decides he should have a page again. Raymond1922 ( talk) 05:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Aari (name)

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

This is a non-notable name per WP:APONOTE as there aren't at least two notable people with the name, or is otherwise notable per WP:GNG. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 10:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ( talk) 03:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Enough consensus. (non-admin closure) J 947 04:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Amell Santana

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

non-notable ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 15:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete people who did not win the national beauty pageant are not notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Unless they meet WP:GNG of course. ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 13:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: It appears that she advanced to the international Miss Earth pageant (perhaps the winner was DQd?) At any rate, if Miss Earth is one of the top-level pageants where national winners are most likely notable, this one does appear to have competed as her nation's representative. Not that I have terribly strong feelings on the topic. Montanabw (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You used the words: "most likely". BLP subjects are notable if they meet WP:GNG. It is completely irrelevant if someone has competed in a pageant (and which pageant it was). ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 13:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 02:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh ( talk) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. She won first runner up in the Miss Universe Dominican Republic pageant in 2005 and then participated and won in the national search for Miss Earth Dominican Republic 2005 (Miss Tierra República Dominicana 2005) and represented her country and won one of the four major titles (Miss Earth Air) in the Miss Earth 2005 pageant. -- Richie Campbell ( talk) 13:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Richie Campbell & NewYorkActuary. Also have to be aware of a language bias, given that most sources would likely be in Spanish, making sourcing more difficult. --- PageantUpdater ( talk) 10:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\  talk / 01:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Meadowbrook Country Club

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

This is probably a notable subject. However, it has on editor, is nothing resembling an encyclopedia article, the one editor appears connected with the subject (mcc is the first three letters of username). I was tempted to mark it up speedy-promo, but thought community input would be wise. In case I'm not being clear, my deletion rationale is TNT for PROMO. I don't see a good way to salvage this. Perhaps others are braver. But please, unless you are willing to actually clean it up, don't say it's notable so keep it. Thanks. John from Idegon ( talk) 00:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are divided about whether this is a notable or a (sadly) routine crime, and as there are valid arguments on both sides, i can't determine that by fiat.  Sandstein  08:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Delta Meghwal rape case

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

Subject is not notable. Media coverage of subject begins April 2016 and ends June 2016. Article should be deleted and redirected to "Crime in India". Jrheller1 ( talk) 19:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment September 2016: [24]. Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this is a September article in The Hindu, "Cong seeks Governor's intervention in Dalit girl’s case." It demonstrates major, national, in-depth coverage of this case continued into at least September. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix ( talk) 04:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the media coverage has been massive, hence the topic passes WP:GNG hands down. Note that this article should be renamed "Murder of Delta Meghwal". Thanks and regards, Biwom ( talk) 05:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep fully meets GNG. It is comparable (probably better sourced than say) Prathibha Srikanth Murthy. It may require some minor copy-editing to make it less "newsy" (I can do that). Inlinetext ( talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - coverage in scholarly article in Understanding sexual violence as a form of caste violence, 2016,Prachi Patil (Journal of Social Inclusion) Inlinetext ( talk) 09:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Not "scholarly" where anyone can make an account, login and post whatever they want to. Person still remains non-notable. D4iNa4 ( talk) 10:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment Incorrect. The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) is a peer-reviewed academic journal that will contribute to current knowledge and understanding of the social processes that marginalise individuals, families and communities. The journal will be published bi-annually under the guidance of an International Editorial Advisory Board. The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) is an initiative of the School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University (Australia).. The author is at an eminent Indian University. Inlinetext ( talk) 10:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That description is copied from their website though and it proves nothing. For determining reliability of journals we look at whether it has been indexed by major publishers (who only index is after determining if the journal satisfies certain standards, such as being selective). Unfortunately this one isn't included, so I am unable to trust this. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and 'Redirect to Crime in India - WP:NOTNEWS, there are literally no sources after months and remains largely non-notable. It was a low-profile case that has received zero amount of coverage after months of its occurrence. D4iNa4 ( talk) 10:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - The Indian legal system is notoriously slow and, inevitably press coverage declines when there is nothing happening. I suspect it will pick up again when there is some movement in the courts. Admittedly, that could be two, three or more years off. Rape is a high profile issue in India, especially since Modi came to power (coincidence, not correlation!) and as such it does tend to garner a slew of short-term interest that, usually, doesn't seem to have a long term significance. Also, if we are to allow this article to be kept then we're basically going to have to allow hundreds of articles about the other rapes that have occurred in, say, the last three years. That could indeed be a NOTNEWS issue. So, I'm on the fence about this. - Sitush ( talk) 11:01, 15 Februaruy 2017 (UTC)
BTW, if it is redirect then Rape in India might be more appropriate than Crime in India. - Sitush ( talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

KEEP PLEASE. SIGNIFICANT SUSTAINED PRESS COVERAGE IN NATIONAL MEDIA. VERY SHOCKED TO SEE COMMENTS DALIT INDIAN FEMALE RAPE OR MURDER VICTIMS ARE EXCLUDED IN WIKIPEDIA BY SLOW JUSTICE SYSTEM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.57.250.74 ( talk • contribs) 12:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)— 101.57.250.74 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    • Note: This is the IP's only edit. — JJ Be rs 03:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • keep Here is a gNews search filtered by date; it shows coverage continuing through the end of 2016. [25] contravening Nom's understanding that coverage ceased in June 2016. I draw editors attention to Category:Rape in India, which shows a number of recent, high-profile cases; a consequence, presumably, of the growing focus on this issue in India. I suspect that a capable editor could demonstrate notability by expanding the article with WP:RS, which also could involve Hindi sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note, however, that Crime in India will not work for a redirect, nor will Rape in India; both are long article about the topic that do not include lists of individual crimes. It is, I think, easy for editors to forget that India, with multiple languages, cultures, and a pop. of 1,400,000 (compared to Europe with 750,000) is far too large to admit of simply redirecting all notable crimes to such pages. What Wikipedia should have is a List of rapes in India that would include verifiable notable rape incidents, both those that are bluelinked and that are not. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Eh? If the crime was notable it would not be redirected. As for lists, as one editor who never forgets the Indian situation, the less we have of them in connection with India, the better. They are an absolute nightmare to maintain, and especially if redlinks are introduced. Don't get too hung up on WP:SYSTEMIC, please: we've got enough clueless do-gooders circling India articles without adding more to the list. - Sitush ( talk) 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
And your so-called proof that coverage continued until Dec 2016 is very dodgy: there appear to be three items there, two of which are "review of the year" things, basically rehashing what was already said etc. I'm still not saying keep, delete or redirect etc but let's not introduce poor arguments. - Sitush ( talk) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply

::::Keep WHAT YOU MEAN AS DELTA MEGGWAL MURDER NOT NOTABLE BECAUSE THE LESS "WE" HAVE OF "THEM" IN INDIA ? WHAT IS YOUR CASTE AND WHERE YOU PUT UP? ARE YOU NOT READING SAWARNA BRAHMIN LADY WARDEN GOT DELTABEN RAPE AND MURDER? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.61.86.4 ( talk) 14:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC) — 101.61.86.4 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

    • Note: This is the IP's only edit. — JJ Be rs 03:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Everyday there are are hundreds of cases which gets massive coverage. It can be recreated in the future if there is continued coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep NOTNEWS is for excluding routine news reporting and breaking news. This is a well documented BLP with firm multiple sources spanning months and media forms and covered in a published paper by a JNUniversity scholar. The policy for notability is CRIME/VICTIM. Victim was earlier known as a national award winning child painter. The article is notable to highlight that the Police in the BJP Hindutva majority state removed Meghwal's corpse in a garbage tractor because she was a Dalit. Vedicant ( talk) 05:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)— Vedicant ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
  • Keep Not a standard rape case - it has become a significant political issue and received coverage for that. AusLondonder ( talk) 06:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete — WP:NOTNEWS applies. Though meets WP:GNG, lacks enduring notability to meet WP:EVENT. Hundreds of such cases happen everyday and most of them do not warrant articles. — MBlaze Lightning T 07:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Hundreds of cases involving the elements of significant political controversy and class discrimination do not happen every day. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Covered for only some days though, this remains random. Capitals00 ( talk) 13:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete- WP:NOTNEWS. Event received attention only for some days and today no one talks about it. Largely random. Capitals00 ( talk) 13:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The assertion that coverage was minor, local and brief is demonstrably false. Note that in-depth coverage of this case in major national dailies continued for months; here, for example, is Hindustan Times 14 June 2016 "Dalits demand CBI probe in Delta Meghwal rape case " [26]. That coverage continued in The Economic Times [27], Times of India here: [28] and here: `Dalit women's voices muffled behind veils', [29]. That use of this case by Dalit rights activists continues as here: in the HuffPost January 20167 [30] and here: [31] in a 17 January 2017 article focused on the Rohith Vemula case. And That it was included in a number of year-end roundup articles on the major news events of the year in major papers, example:"Year-Ender 2016": "The rape and murder of a Dalit girl hailing from Barmer who was studying in Bikaner also led to much..." [32] The Indian Express. I see no valid arguments against keeping. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The Economic Times article and both Times of India articles E. M. Gregory cites above only mention the case in passing (exactly one sentence in each article refer to the case). The references to the case in both HuffPost articles are also very brief. These very brief references don't increase the notability of the subject. It also seems to me that focusing excessive attention on this one incident is unfair to the many other victims of rape. Jrheller1 ( talk) 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I do see unfairness in the fact that a rape, rape/murder, or identity-related rape in a country with a lively free press like India or Italy will generate enough coverage to support a Wikipedia page, whereas in countries where a far greater problem the lack of media coverage means that it goes unreported. It is unfair that Category:Rape by country makes it look as though rape ts a far larger problem in India or Sweden than it is, say, in Syria or Sudan. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I meant specifically rape in India. There are probably more than a hundred thousand rapes every year in India. I don't think it's fair to say that the alleged rape of Meghwal (it is still only alleged) is more important than these other hundreds of thousands of crimes by giving the alleged Meghwal rape its own article in Wikipedia. Jrheller1 ( talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I would say, rather, that these major publications using the case as an example in articles months after this rape/murder took place at the very thing that marks this particular rape/murcer as notable, in addition, of course, to in-depth coverage that ran long after the event, including articles like the [33] "Cong seeks Governor's intervention in Dalit girl’s case." in The Hindu. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The coverage in the Economic Times article, both Times of India articles, and both HuffPost articles is exactly what WP:GNG calls "trivial coverage": "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." The only non-trivial coverage of the case after June seems to be that September 3 article in The Hindu noted by Biwom (and E. M. Gregory). Jrheller1 ( talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The article in Economic Times is about a political candidate, it reads :"He has travelled over two lakh kilometres in the state since he took over as the state president of the party and covered every district mobilising the party cadre and also taking up every issue that needed to be highlighted. From the incident involving the alleged rape and murder of a 17-yearold Dalit girl, Delta Meghwal, to how the state government failed to regularise Madrasa para teachers, Pilot has been trying to highlight several issues of the electorate’s concern. 'These issues must be taken up and we will continue to raise all issues relevant to the people of Rajasthan.... ' he added.[

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55123285.cms]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • The Times of India article is about a yatra "In Rajasthan, this yatra began at Trimohi village of Baran district, from near the home of Delta Meghwal, the 17 year-old girl whose body was recovered in March this year from a water tank in the teacher training institute she was studying at in Bikaner. A teacher had allegedly raped and killed her. 'Even the girl's father, who is himself a teacher, has said that he will now restrict his three other daughters from further education so they do not meet this fate. That is how scared the Dalit communities have become,' Anju said." [34]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The other ToI article is about a political contest in Rajastan to unseat the governing party, among the accusations it flings is that: "'Rajasthan ranks third among states with highest number of rapes, second in terms of atrocities against SCs and first in terms of atrocities against STs. It ranks sixth in terms of murders and eighth for dowry and kidnapping cases. The state home minister is helpless and probably toothless too,' he said. 'The handling of Delta Meghwal rape and murder case by the government is a reflection of its insensitive and careless working.'" [35]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • None of the 3 are trivial coverage. They are the sort of evidence of notability that WP:GNG refers to when it states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Moreover, these are not the only sources that cover the article long after the initial news cycle, including the article form Hindustan Times in June and February 2017 article below related to a film festival. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Here: [36] is the Economic and Political Weekly 28 January 2017 political scientist Arvind Kumar accuses a fellow scholar of "purposeful sampling" for failing to mention this case in a discussion of "atrocities" committed against Dalits. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 17:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The political agitation around case has been significant, here: [37] for example, is a news story about a protest by workers objecting to a the dedication of a film festival to "'Demanding justice for Rohith Vemula and Delta Meghwal'. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I am not sure how much you know about Indian society and politics. Leaving aside that I've never heard of the Catchnews website, which is odd for someone who spends so much time editing Indic stuff, protests for or against X and Y and Z are daily occurrences throughout the country, including in relation to the movie industry. You will see instances of rabble-rousing, gathering of upset crowds etc in the media every day. It is practically a national pastime. - Sitush ( talk) 11:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing editor. There was some pretty tense edit-warring on this article (including editors who have weighed in above,) before User:Jrheller1 had the good sense to bring it to AFD. The article deals with some fraught issues, including women's rights, caste tensions, and Muslim-Hindu tensions. It is hard to avoid suspecting that some opinions expressed on this page boil down to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, and its converse. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • More sources, 5 September 2015 2 versions of article (newspapers do this publish and early draft online, then a final draft) in Times of India "Rajasthan beats Bihar in Dalit atrocity" [38] and later version "Downwardly mobile! Rajasthan No. 2 in atrocities on Dalits" [39] More than a mention of this case. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This 16 April 2016 article gives some sense of how political (and retro) the political conversation around this case was "Dalit minor's rape, murder: Govt questioning girl's character to dilute case, alleges Congress" [40]. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 22:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for now. I have thought long and hard about this. The only reason it is attracting any greater significance than any of the many (tens of ) thousands of other rapes in India is because the alleged victim comes from the Dalit community and that community is particularly active in attempting to promote its agenda both here on Wikipedia and in the Real World. It is awful that such things (rapes) occur but to maintain an article that is based almost entirely on a politicised agenda is to give it undue significance. At best, redirect it, pending some truly notable divergence from, alas, the commonplace. This is fundamentally NOTNEWS, being driven by a core of self-interested people (eg: the anons above) and what I can only describe as "do-gooders", even though I do understand that they mean well. Indian society is a massively complex thing to people who are unfamiliar with it and it is very easy to make something into more than it is. It is also very easy to misread so-called reliable sources: aside from The Hindu, the media sources in that country are mostly plagiarists, clickbait, sensationalists when it comes to stories such as this. And that includes the once-respected The Times of India. - Sitush ( talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Struck mine - back on the fence, sorry. It's the political aspect that makes it potentially significant, even though that is also the cause of all the problems. - Sitush ( talk) 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment What a cynical view, the entire English press in India is unreliable and sensationalist for running stories such as this, ignoring that intellectuals in India complained about the inadequate coverage to this case in mainstream media exemplifying news reporting from India's villages where the news coverage dies faster than the victim. The reality is there is a BJP government in the state and which party maintains a 'troll army' for online reputation management. Is it coincidence that an objecter above had earlier cleaned the article with a malafide redirect to "Maratha Empire" ? Is it coincidence that this objecter some time later only pinged 2 specific editors who had earlier also made redirects diff when I began referencing this article and who extensively edits cooperatively with another objecter here [41] ? This problem is not that there is too many Dalits (the poorest and down=trodden of India) at Wikipedia (as editors or in articles), but that there are too few. Is it a coincidince that a 4th objector here had earlier helpfully advised diff this conflicted objector that he was the subject of an WP:SPI. Is it coincidence that 3 objectors here have all been previously blocked for socking in similar nationalist causes #, #, #. In conclusion, The New Indian Express lists this among the 7 important crimes which evoked outrage in 2016 diff. Inlinetext ( talk) 05:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It's funny we got a new user here who barely got active in January this year, already been subject to lengthy WP:ANI [42], already calling people a sock after linking to a spurious SPI, and falsely alleging them to be canvassed [43]. Stop your disruption already with senseless badgering. D4iNa4 ( talk) 11:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
"Senseless badgering" is right. Just look at how Inlinetext has been interacting with user Cffk. Jrheller1 ( talk) 21:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I am confused. Inlinetext says ignoring that intellectuals in India complained about the inadequate coverage to this case in mainstream media. If correct, doesn't that rather prove the point regarding lack of true notability? On the other hand, they're claiming it has been reported substantially. Something is wrong here and their pugnacious attitude does suggest yet another person pushing the Dalit activist agenda. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. - Sitush ( talk) 10:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Sorry but yet another comment. The article has changed since this discussion opened. It seems to be very heavily based on a First Information Report. Anyone can file an FIR in India and the police are obliged to investigate, however improbable or lurid the claims may be. (I'm not commenting on the specific claims here, merely that FIRs per se are not terribly significant.) - Sitush ( talk) 11:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. You changed it to remove a citation which asked early on (on 7 April 2016) Why Has The Mainstream Media Blacked Out The Death Of Delta Meghwal?. It also contained the answer which is pertinent to reproduce exactly When this writer asked Mr. Jogesh as to why the media was blacking out the story, he said, “The college’s owner Easwar Chand Ved is of course very influential man. He has four colleges and allegedly has been linked to RSS too." In regard to the blackout, Mr. Jogesh points to another obvious yet worrying factor -- "this [blackout] is very common with dalits and we all know their share in media".. Only after reports like these, was it boosted in national media because the respect The Citizen's editorial board commands in media. Inlinetext ( talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • My removal of that source is unrelated to my remark about the apparent discrepancy in your earlier statement here. I think the removal also post-dated my comment about your comment (!). Look, it is blindingly obvious that you are pushing a POV. It isn't going to end well unless you rein it in a little. - Sitush ( talk) 17:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is my final comment on this topic. I believe that Mr/Ms. Sitush has twice removed that particulor citation because 'The Citizen' is an outstanding, independent and well respected feminist publication which exposes in considerable detail rapes of vulnerable Indian ladies. The Citizen of course also exposed Tarun Tejpal's rape, see The Hindu which of course has now been watered down in Wikipedia despite The Hindu naming it as the rape case, in which a young woman colleague at Tehelka alleged that Mr. Tejpal sexually assaulted her on two occasions inside a lift in Goa in November 2013, is one of the most discussed matters of its kind in recent memory. Inlinetext ( talk) 17:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, as I have told you on more than one occasion, I removed it because it is relatively poor and we have umpteen other sources for the statement it was being used for, which is the opening sentence of the lead section. I even referred you to WP:OVERCITE. Please stop with the snide attacks. - Sitush ( talk) 17:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Really? Who? Want to chance it at ANI? Put up or shut up. - Sitush ( talk) 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, please take this to ANI; I would be grateful to have some objective administrators look at this discussion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - The GNG has been met. As a side note, if people would take their messy arguing elsewhere then perhaps more editors would feel inclined to participate in this discussion. Exemplo347 ( talk) 01:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG. – Matthew - ( talk) 10:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fits WP:NOTNEWS, as all but 3 of the 11 references are from a 2 week long span, and all of the refs are from media outlets. — JJ Be rs 03:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, I have addressed your concern to add in a Journal article reference which discusses this case. Inlinetext ( talk) 09:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin Sitush is repeatedly removing the well cited peer reviewed journal reference to distort this AfD. Inlinetext ( talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

It's a decent reference about caste violence, but not about the case, which already is a good enough of a clause to remove it off the page. — JJ Be rs 17:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Inlinetext: Looked at above conversation and it looks like that it may be unreliable...— JJ Be rs 03:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ David Tornheim: Even if it does have reliable sources, that doesn't mean it fits WP:NOTNEWS or WP:EVENT. — JJ Be rs 03:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
See responses from E.M.Gregory above. I am not going to reargue this. E.M. is doing a fine job. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 03:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Speaking about @ E.M.Gregory: and @ Sitush:, please read WP:TPNO.— JJ Be rs 04:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ JJBers: What specifically are you accusing me of? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 05:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ David Tornheim: I think this whole conversation has de-railed now.— JJ Be rs 05:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per coverage, per WP:GNG. This is notable. BabbaQ ( talk) 18:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment WP:GNG is the general nobility guidelines, not set in stone rules. Something may be able to fit WP:GNG, but still be deleted due to other concerns. Specifically, see WP:PRINCIPLE. — JJ Be rs 00:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Due to lack of WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:LASTING and also due to WP:BLP concerns (Note that for events we tend to use WP:EVENTCRIT). The entire article is about allegations which seem to have not been proved. And yet names of multiple people have been mentioned. I do not see enough continued coverage (the examples in the AFD are trivial coverage and limited to 4 articles at max). It has also not been demonstrated what are the lasting effects. The assumption that there would be more coverage is WP:CRYSTAL. It should be noted that similar AfDs (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Greater Noida Rape Case) have not resulted in a keep. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 22:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment Can't comment on the sourcing for the deleted Greater Noida 2016 rape case, which rape case is not mentioned anywhere in the redirect. These AfDs recommending redirects expose the double standards employed by certain Wikipedians when it comes to suppressing articles for victims from the Global South. Delta Meghwal's article is clearly distinguishable from the Greater Noida Rape. It is very well sourced for a murder in a remote India village which ten got prominent national politicians involved after respected journalists like Seema Mustafa took up her cause, it has persistent coverage with Delta's name now as potent a political symbol for Dalits as Jyoti Singh's (Nirbhaya) was for upper castes. If non-English sources are added the article's reflist will easily balloon to a hundred. It is convenient that you are confining yourself to the 4 sources in this AfD and ignoring those in the article, where incidentally the consequent scholarly journal source containing copious references to Delta is also being deleted and substituted by trivial contemporaneous newspaper quotes as part of a "white-wash" tradition for controversial Indian articles. Inlinetext ( talk) 05:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Further Comment Its curious Rape in India contains a section on "notable incidents" whereas Rape in the United States does not. This strongly suggests either there no notable rapes in the United States or that prominent US rape victims are "entitled" to standalone articles? Redirects it appears are simply a convenient device to "sweep" India's notable rapes under the carpet? BTW, this is not only a rape case but has a murder case as well. The article should be renamed to Murder of Delta Meghwal. Inlinetext ( talk) 05:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Inlinetext: Please look at WP:WAX, WP:MASK, WP:ALLORNOTHING, WP:POPULARITY, and WP:INN. Just because one article exists on a major case in America, doesn't mean that a less important case in India can just exist because of that. — JJ Be rs 17:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
More alphabet soup to white-out female victims from the Global South from Wikipedia. Did I mention that surveys (eg. see 'The Lancet') [1] say that 8.5% of all Indian women between the ages of 15-49 have been 'sexually assaulted' (which in India is a euphemism for rape) whereas you say that there exists one article in Wikipedia on a major rape in America (see Murder of Holly Bobo). Inlinetext ( talk) 00:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
That doesn't contribute to the AFD at all. I striked it out, because all it does is rant about Sexual violence in India, not discuss or talk about the article or it's subject at all. — JJ Be rs 00:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Unstricken. See this for explanation + note on JJbers' talk page. - Sitush ( talk) 00:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, I can't even remove parts of my own comment...dang. — JJ Be rs 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Inlinetext: I understand your concern about WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. However, in this case there are multiple issues.
  • First, the article is all about allegations with no proof. The content about the suspects is a BLP violation and it should be removed immediately.
  • Second, the lasting coverage has not been demonstrated. There was a brief spike in the news, but nothing much after that. I searched on my own and I wasn't able to find anything after the news spike, other than the few mentions.
  • The journal coverage you are talking about is seems to be a university open access journal and is not indexed by any of the major publishers. That makes me hesitate to use it as a source. There are many of these open access journals around the world where just about anyone can publish anything and these are equivalent to WP:SPS.
I have been concerned about the disparity in coverage between regions and I have often helped to delete non-notable crimes in the US as well. However, in this case, there are multiple issues (and for me BLP takes precedence over anything). I unfortunately cannot support keeping this at the moment. Should coverage emerge in the future, I welcome you to notify me and I would support undeletion at a deletion review. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • pointwise - I'm pleased we both acknowledge the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. In which event the solution is to clean the BLP names of the alleged offenders. Since Sitush last edited there the present version with the BLP vios is effectively his. 'E.M Gregory' has established the media coverage is as extensive and persistent as can be expected. Obviously you cannot extrapolate US media standards to Indian contexts. "Australian Research Council Classification : The Journal of Social Inclusion (JoSI) meets the definitions of research and peer-review required to claim articles under the C1 composite category (Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal).".These are no longer mere allegations, because a magistrate took cognisance of the matter under India's Code of Criminal Procedure and the alleged offenders were tracked down and arrested on magesterial reference. Inlinetext ( talk) 07:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Cutting off the previous discussion, can someone close this...I believe it's getting to the point that not much has been suggested in a few days, and all we have had is just simple arguments at this point. — JJ Be rs 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment ^I do not believe you can unilaterally cut off discussion. If a closer sees a consensus and thinks it is time to close, then so be it. If not, editors are welcome to continue to comment. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 20:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that although some editors argue (and appear to believe) that a crime must be proven to have occurred before it can be kept as an article here, we in fact have many articles about alleged crimes (see for example: Duke lacrosse case, Columbia University rape controversy) and even articles about the protest of individual alleged crimes ( Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)), and an article about an article about a false allegation of rape A Rape on Campus. Notability is determined by the degree of government, media, academic and other verifiable source attention an alleged crime received. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Your example isn't relevant because every single example was proven (wrong) in a court of law. And there was continuous coverage, which unfortunately has not been demonstrated here. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: Yes that is true, and outside of a disputed ref, the sources come from the news in a select time-span. While the news is reliable most times, it can be wrong on many things. If a article just relies on mostly newspapers released around the time of the crime, basically media sensationalizing around this case, with possibly incorrect facts about the case. Sorry if this derailed slightly off the topic of the article/AFD.— JJ Be rs 01:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
(Striked unrelated stuff)
@ JJBers: Your explanation is packed with weaselly qualifiers. The last version of the article as written up by Sitush is now not as you describe. Inlinetext ( talk) 02:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Inlinetext: Manual of Style applies to articles, not discussions. Also, the purpose of the tag is because nothing much is cited outside of a few refs in a 15 day time span. Also please discuss it at the talk page next time you revert it. Thanks! — JJ Be rs 03:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Sexual violence and rape in India The Lancet, Vol 383, March 8, 2014, p. 865
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The article's subject is found, via multiple reliable sources, to be notable enough for inclusion on this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Salvation bracelet

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable craft project popular amongst some strands of Evangelical Protestants as an evangelism tool. It does appear to be a popular craft project, but doesn't have the reliable sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The only things I found on a Google search were from vendors or blogs, no articles or mentions from RS. Since it is a common item, it may deserve a little more mention in Wordless Book which is what influenced the creation of the item. LovelyLillith ( talk) 22:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi LovelyLillith, what is RS? -vyxf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyxf ( talk • contribs) 14:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Vyxf: taking the liberty to respond here. RS is the Wikipedia abbreviation for reliable sources. Typically these are third-party sources from major publications that are generally recognized to have a strict vetting process for content, or many sources from local publications that also have a content policy that screens for accuracy. Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that there be substantial coverage in reliable sources for a subject to be considered notable for inclusion. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC) reply
What he said. :) LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  08:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - also known by other names, including "gospel bracelet", and is notable: see these reliable sources: [44] [45] [46] The article needs significant cleanup, though. St Anselm ( talk) 10:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: There really ought to be a picture in the article, but I can't find a free image anywhere on the internet. Someone should make a bracelet, take a picture, and upload it. St Anselm ( talk) 10:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I started with a little cleanup/source. You can find some RS sources by searching gBooks. But then I ran a news archive search and hit the motherlode. Scads of articles form the early years of this century when it seems to have been a hot fad. Lots of stories in daily newspapers about people donating tens of thousands of them to a range of evangelical and overseas missionary groups. Bracelet stories go back to 1995 with titles like "Operation Carelift '96 brings hope to Russian orphans" and "1st Baptist youth group in Big Apple for big ministry." Article in desperate need of improvement. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that much of this material on salvation bracelets is in What would Jesus do?. @ StAnselm: should we be talking about a merge? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 11:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, WWJD is bigger than bracelets, and gospel bracelets have their own characteristics (like the accusation that the association of black with sin is racist - though I suppose the Wordless Book does that too.) St Anselm ( talk) 18:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm seeing sufficient RS in the Google Books link to meet GNG. Jclemens ( talk) 06:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Google books primarily return evangelical sources ( link, i.e. not independent of the subject, such as:
  • "A salvation bracelet is a fun way to share your faith with your friends. All you need is some twine or string and a few colorful craft beads. When your friends ask about your bracelet, you can explain what the colors mean to you." Etc.
The article could be a definition at best; I don't see independent sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:K.e.coffman's comment is absurd. His assertion is that no "evangelical" books can be regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for an evangelical topic.
  • Corollaries: No Marxist book can be regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for any Marxism related topic. No environmentalism related book can be a regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for any environmentalism related topic. No yoga related book can be regarded as a secondary source supporting notability for any yoga related topic. coffman, you want to retract that? because your biases are showing. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Though I haven't formed an opinion on whether the subject is notable, K.e.coffman's comment is not absurd, presuming he/she was talking about the publishers rather than the content. Obviously a book about Marxism, as with a book about Christianity, shouldn't be disqualified from discussions of the notability of Marxist or Christian concepts. In this case the corollaries are actually closer to "No Marxist book published by a company that only publishes Marxist texts and/or ideas that align with their own. No yoga-related book published by a press that exclusively promotes the practice of yoga. Etc...". I'm far from a thorough look at the sources, but I did notice that a few of the first I checked were from Christian publishers. The crucial factor is probably that this subject is only meaningful within Christianity. If the subject were, say, creationism or sexuality, the discussion would take a different form, I think. Again, that's not an endorsement of either position -- just want to push back against this idea that a publisher who only publishes things that conform to a particular worldview is just as reliable as any other. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thank you, Rhododendrites. If we had an article on a topic related to, say, Veganism, we would probably look for a general publisher or a scholarly publisher, and not a publisher solely dedicated to Veganism topics. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
We could certainly use a book written by a vegan, even by a crusading vegan, to describe the way vegans use juicers. And we could use The Joy of Vegan Baking, by vegan chefs Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, to support an article on using almond meal in vegan recipes. The fact that an article published by Oxford University Press or The New England Journal of Medicine is always an excellent source, does not mean that no vegan sources can be used, especially, as here, when an evangelical source is used to describe the details of the use of a physical tool (a bracelet) used by evangelists. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Did you read the sources I linked to? E.g. " Unfortunately, many of these bracelets' color schemes reinforce the racist association of "black" with "sin""? St Anselm ( talk) 06:00, 20 February7 (UTC)
Looking at that source, isn't it a how-to guide on evangelizing? Even if it is critical, I'm not sure it meets our WP:RS standards. TonyBallioni ( talk) 06:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It's certainly independent of the subject, and Baker Books is a reputable publisher. St Anselm ( talk) 08:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That doesn't make them reliable sources for anything other than confirming the existence of things that are talking about. We wouldn't accept a guide on how to teach your child yoga as evidence that a particular form of yoga were notable. I don't see why we should accept guides as reliable sources for topics in general. Also the headlines mentioned above E.M. Gregory, they weren't linked to, but from the headlines I suspect they were local human interest pieces about local religious groups. I don't see GNG here. TonyBallioni ( talk) 15:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Nonsense. A handbook on evangelizing is a reliable source for a tool used in evangelizing; in this case a type of bracelet worn by believers as an emblem of faith. Just as Matteo Ricci's De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas would be a thoroughly reliable source on the usual type of icon to take along on a mission to bring the Chinese to Christ. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • They are a thing, like POW bracelets Yellow ribbons and other "cause" symbols that people wear; but also somewhat like Friendship bracelets in that they especially appeal to the young. There are lots of article that describe their use and distribution. I had begun a few days ago by adding a few sources from small papers as I tried to figure out whether notability was there. It is, and I stopped editing the article when I realized that. But I also saw that there was more coverage in the late 90s and early 2000s. I chose not to spend the time untangling the origins of this trend - that section needs work. What I have now done is to WP:HEYMANN the second and third paragraphs of subhead "Bracelets with material well-supported by major newspapers. To be sure, these are human interest stories, but they are published in major newspapers and establish notability even if they are about "about local religious groups". I truly question the implication that human interest stories in a major big-city daily somehow fail to confer notability on an activity because the stories deal with participation in that activity by "about local religious groups." As opposed to what? The implication is that stories in the same newspapers supported by human interest pieces about local NON religious groups would be notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • E.M.Gregory, my intention was not to imply that non-religious groups would be notable, but to be specific about the type of group here-- its just my writing style. If it were a local human interest story about a secular charity promoting a niche awareness ribbon that did not have significant coverage in major independent secondary sources, I would think the same. I don't have access to PROQuest, so I can't see them all, but the one from the Christian Post is a short paragraph at the end of a longer article, and many of the headlines suggest that the articles aren't about the bracelets themselves, but about larger events where they were given out. I don't think a quote from a local pastor explaining it to his local newspaper in a broader piece meets GNG. I would think this whether the content was religious or not, and I am sorry for the implication that it was only because it was religious. TonyBallioni ( talk) 02:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Coverage in WP:RS even of cultural ephemera such as friendship bracelets, pussyhats or Pink ribbons supports notability. As per WP:GNG as long as it "is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." We may differ on exactly where to draw the line between a "trivial" and "more than trivial" mention in some articles. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The "cultural ephemera" that you mention (except perhaps the friendship bracelet?) happen to have been in many different reliable news sources around the world, vs. a few books or articles with barely more than a sentence mentioning their existence. There was only one link (#2) presented that provided any real explanation of the bracelet. Saying something is notable because a newspaper says it was one of the trinkets in an Easter egg is really a stretch (in which case, everything else in the Easter eggs should have their own articles too, yes?). We acknowledge that the bracelets are a "thing", but only truly known by a select community. There would be a stronger case if the article could mention "In X denomination/church, the bracelets are used blah blah". I have already mentioned that IMO the topic should be a paragraph in Wordless Book, and have a redirect for searches for salvation bracelet. LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • User:TonyBallioni Can you also respond to my comment above, disputing your assertion that a "how-to guide on evangelizing" published by Baker Publishing Group (an commercial publishing house specializing in evangelical books) cannot be used to support notability? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Sure, I'll respond down here to keep it easier to read: they are essentially contemporary non--independent primary sources. Of course they are going to cover a niche product that they use. If the book you cited was published today we wouldn't use it to establish the notability of Jesuit practices in missions: there would need to be non-trivia coverage inl independent secondary sources, which I currently do not see. TonyBallioni ( talk) 14:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Your assertion about Matteo Ricci is that no Christian evangelist can be regarded as a reliable source on the topic of the tools that he (or she) himself uses in evangelizing. Is no surgeon a reliable source on the use of scapels? You really may want to walk this back. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Scalpels have a number of independent RS that are also internationally known. Some authoritative Evangelical sources may be able to be used, but these bracelets are not nearly as well known as a number of other "tools of the trade", such as crucifixes or priestly garb. The object of the game for articles optimally is balanced coverage from secular as well as theological sources as much as possible, to maintain NPOV. LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You are now arguing that no book published by Baker Publishing Group (an commercial publishing house specializing in evangelical books) can be regarded as a WP:RS secondary source for any evangelical Christianity-related topic. Would you argue that no book published by Haymarket Books or Verso Books can be used as a WP:RS secondary source for anything related to leftist politics? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note That gBooks brings up a significant number of books, from a range of publishing houses (secular and scholarly as well as those that pitch to a Christian market and some that are church-affiliated) from which details of these bracelets - their construction, use and meaning - can be sourced. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The "significant number of books" has mentions of "so and so made/had/wore a salvation bracelet", not "this is the history of salvation bracelets" or "this is what salvation bracelets mean". Being a movie extra does not make you a notable movie star because you walked by in the background of the scene, which is essentially what the majority of these books are doing. If there are meatier sources than "One of our very observant team members noticed the performer was wearing a salvation bracelet" or "In his casket, along with a Bible he clutched in his hands and his salvation bracelet on his wrist" it would be far more helpful. LovelyLillith ( talk) 19:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I read your objection, and clicked the first link that cmee up on the linkbar "Gosepl bracelet" books: "Along with candy, we gave out Gospel bracelets— five beads, each a different color, strung side by side on a piece of hemp. Jesus often referred to everyday objects when he taught his disciples. A grain of wheat or a mustard seed, a sparrow, or a lily - they helped listeners understand the deeper spiritual truths of Jesus' teaching. The Gospel bracelets we handed out by the hundreds helped us to illustrate the message of redemption in simple terms a child could understand. The first bead on the bracelet is black to represent..." It continues through white, yellow and so forth with each explanation cited to a Bible verse. (The View from the Grass Roots - Another Look, By Gregory J. Rummo).
This one is useful. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Next hit on that search: "In my mind I envisioned myself pulling out one of the colorful beaded gospel bracelets and reciting the plan of salvation several times a day. I had a lot to learn. I'm thankful God surrounded me with a Christian community and friends who were ..." (Craving Grace: Experience the Richness of the Gospel)
This one is not useful. It doesn't give much info other than the narrator has a colorful bracelet. Reciting the unspecified "plan of salvation" doesn't indicate whether that is something done in conjunction with the bracelet or if is a separate action, nor does it state what the bracelet does or if there is a use for it (is it just an appearance thing? is it used like a rosary? do you pray over people with it? are there scriptures associated with each bead?) etc. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Next: "Gospel bracelets are simple, albeit effective tools for youth ministry. After learning about them, we made them ourselves with beads, each color representing a part of the salvation process: gold for Heaven and the glory God has prepared for ..." (Skyline Teardrops, by Cody Benjamin)
This one has a bit more substance, so it works. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Next hit is a little different, published by Routledge it appears to be not a work of evangelical piety but, rather a book about Disability Advocacy Among Religious Organizations: Histories and Reflections, by Alfred A. Herzog "The fruit of this three-year-old program has resulted in “involving over 60,000 children who raised some $375,000, resulting in 2,500 wheelchairs being restored and shipped to foreign countries with Gospel bracelets and Gospel literature.".
This one doesn't work. It is just saying the bracelets were sent out with theological literature; the emphasis is not about the bracelets, it's about the program. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I don't claim to be an expert on Gospel bracelets. It simply looks ot me as though there are sources.
  • The fifth hit in that search reads, "Part of the program is making “Gospel Bracelets” as a craft. I share the Good News with them beforehand and then, what can I say, chaos erupts! The lay workers make their way through the crammed-in bodies of the children, while most of ..."
This one is on the fence; other than the idea it is a craft tool, I don't get much information about the bracelets. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The sixth: "Sensing a teachable moment, we handed out "wordless gospel" bracelets to each child and told the story of the colors (gray for sin, red for Jesus' blood, clear for a clean heart, green for Christian growth, and gold for heaven). The children ..." I rest my case. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
This one has some actual information. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I was thinking of making a reasoned policy-based argument on a topic where I have no axe to grind, so I tried to open the citations. When I found that all but two of them (and those were a bit thin) wanted me to sign up to something before I could do so, I decided not to. Narky Blert ( talk) 23:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
I searched on Proquest news archive. Institutions belong; I happen to have access. The great advantage for Wikipedia is that it enables me to quickly search for sources from a few years ago. These bracelets got quite a lot of news coverage around the turn of the millenia. We have a presentism bias caused by the fact that a current pop culture topic will generate lots of hits, but you often need access to a good news archive to find sources for a fad like this that began in about 1995 and got significant coverage back then. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You missed the point I was trying to make. I don't happen to have access. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It's a real problem. Is there a particular aspect, or article taht you were looking for? I could copy and paste it here if there is. I don't have a solution to the paywall problem. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources provided establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Perhaps it would be good for some editors to be aware of WP:WHYN as well. We know these bracelets are important to whichever denominations know what they are; we are trying to determine why this item is important enough to deserve ITS OWN ARTICLE - and I don't think a consensus has been reached that this item merits one. LovelyLillith ( talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Piggybacking LovelyLillith here: I don't think any of those of us arguing for delete would argue that the books are not reliable sources for expressing what the persons that wrote them view the bracelets to represent. They are primary sources and they are certainly reliable for that, and could be excellent for providing context in the article if notability is established, or even providing context in another article. WP:GNG however states that sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The books are not secondary sources as they are guidebooks on how to raise Christian kids, develop a Church, lead a Christian life, etc. They provide primary evidence as to how the people that wrote them view the subject, but they do not establish notability. The secondary sources we have here that are accessible and have been quoted are trivial coverage: a paragraph at the bottom of a longer story or a quote from a pastor during an interview, or a description of what was put in Easter eggs, and all have been from local sources, none from national sources. People can have legitimate disagreements as to what amount of coverage in secondary sources satisfies the GNG, but as I have argued at AfDs about shopping malls, I do not believe coverage about Easter egg hunts in local sources satisfies the requirement. TonyBallioni ( talk) 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that responding TonyBalloni's assertion of this claim of "local" sourcing above I cited a number of articles from major daily papers. TonyBallioni is extending this argument in ways deprecated by WP:BLUDGEON. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • His failure to defend or strike his assertions about the WP:RS status of commercial publishers who publish Evangelical Christianity-oriented books speaks for itself. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • LovelyLillith, I refer you to the first hit in the search bar "Salvation bracelet" , books. The Venetian Glass Bead: 24 Colorful Jewelry Projects, a book of craft projects published by [ Kalmbach], a purely commercial venture with no Christian or religious aspect. It reads"The Salvation bracelet... This bracelet tells the story of God's love; each bead color represents a symbol of eternal salvation...." My point is simply that sources are sufficient confer notability on Gospel bracelets, we seem to be in an era of Green ribbons, POW bracelets, and white knots. This is simply another signifier of commitment. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 02:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, I haven't finished yet. :) St Anselm ( talk) 04:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
OK, I've added three more sources, including two critical ones. St Anselm ( talk) 07:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Sorry, this is still OR or something that I cannot quite put my finger on, as in:
  • The salvation bracelet is a popular tool used in evangelizing to children, in keeping with teaching technique of Jesus. Jesus used items familiar to his audience at that time, like fish, sheep and boats. [1]

References

  1. ^ Schultz, Thom and Joan (2004), Why Nobody Learns Much of Anything at Church: And How To Fix It
How is "teaching technique of Jesus" known with such certainty? Should this be stated in Wikipedia's voice? K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Sorry to say, but one of the most important factors about notability is that per WP:WHYN we should have enough reliable secondary sources to write an NPOV article. I see most of the sources to be Christian publishers with no indication or apparent reputation for scholarly fact checking. More importantly, a lot of the article is actually misinterpreted from the sources (with heavy WP:OR) and there is misleading information written in Wikipedia's voice. Quite a few of the references are passing mentions - none of this is significant coverage. The WP:HEYMANN is not convincing here as I can see that it essentially amounts to barrel-scraping information. All of that just proves that this is not notable enough. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Unsubstantiated, possibly biased accusation that: "Christian publishers with no indication or apparent reputation for scholarly fact checking" User:Lemongirl942 should either strike or substantiate this statement. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
This seems an unjustified bias against Christian publishers - did you actually check the publishers of all the references? Baker Books, for example, is a long-standing, highly-respected publishing house. St Anselm ( talk) 10:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that these bracelets are part for a contemporary fad for wearing creating Wikipedia pages for an enormous range of Awareness ribbons and Awareness bracelets (see: Category:Ribbon symbolism. To make this point clear, I just added an article from a major regional daily, The Grand Rapids Press: "Faith strong ; Christians co-opt culture to wear beliefs on sleeves. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 13:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note on closing Because this discussion hinges on on judgments regarding what count as WP:RS both as regards regional daily papers discussing a topic and with regard to how to treat publishers that specialize in a topic area, I strongly urge that it be closed by an administrator. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • All editors should, of course, feel free to comment on the questions raised. I am only suggesting that the close should be done by an administrator. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note to closing admin about WP:BLUDGEON Please note that despite attempts to bludgeon the discussion, the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources has not been demonstrated. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 14:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per onel5969 - I tend to be more liberal with deletion rules but this article has WP:RS and passes WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh ( talk) 07:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

Vero Marketing Platform

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

PROD contested by IP. Marketing agency where the current sources are advertisements for other startup and marketing firms. Google News doesn't turns up a few press releases and an article in a marketing trade publication. Searching for "Vero marketing" turns up entirely Italian language results which have nothing to do with the company, but the fact that vero is an Italian word. TonyBallioni ( talk) 00:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 02:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete. No independent sources means no verifiability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "Platform" is one of those key words, that usually indicate written by a marketing person. If it really was "large-scale" one would find an independent source. W Nowicki ( talk) 18:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Blatant WP:PROMO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NeilN talk to me 04:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply

INTTRA

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

Non-notable e-commerce site. Almost all sources are reprinted press releases (run the text through Google) or dead. Looks to be part of a long-term paid-editing campaign, and creator has so far refused to answer questions on whether they have a COI. Calton | Talk 00:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowling Green massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noob e ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Patent nonsense !vote is patent nonsense. Struck. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 01:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 01:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - non-notable, and paid editing to boot. Ugh. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong Venue. Take it to WP:MfD. User pages do not belong at Articles for deletion. ( non-admin closure) Lepricavark ( talk) 13:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply

User:Swineposit

User:Swineposit (  | [[Talk:User:Swineposit|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails with WP:USERPAGE. After what the user done adding the unsourced content to other pages. It doesn't belong to Wikimedia and other wikis either.

  • Delete Not appropriate account, since Swineposit was blocked indefinite back in November by Yamaguchi. Shiesmine ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Unacceptable Shiesmine ( talk) 13:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails with WP:USERPAGE Shiesmine ( talk) 13:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete Because it's unacceptable to create an account when is blocked Shiesmine ( talk) 13:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete it's not supposed to be on there Shiesmine ( talk) 13:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment not an article Shiesmine ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, blocked user does not meet guidelines Shiesmine ( talk) 13:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, do it now Shiesmine ( talk) 13:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, do not meet notability guidelines Shiesmine ( talk) 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not an article, it's blocked user still does not meet the guidelines. After it was blocked in November 2016 Shiesmine ( talk) 13:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 86.0.244.52 ( talk) 13:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_23&oldid=1142619142"