Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 September	21 September >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Meskah

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

This has been tagged for copyvio Kottu investigation since last April (2014) (see previous version here) and my searches found nothing to suggest improvement and considering there's never been much improvement or even information. Pinging Namiba and Fayenatic london. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article consists of two lines copied from EternalEgypt.org, a site which is used for a few other citations in Wikipedia but does not seem to be particularly reliable. I cannot find any corroborating sources, so the claim at the cited page that she is "One of the most famous women of Egyptian Islamic history" does not seem valid. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the same editor created Khawand Toghay from the same source page, but I have been able to verify that one from other sources. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a complete copyvio of [1]. --Biblioworm 15:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to XLRI- Xavier School of Management. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Aptitude Test

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

Promotional article, with extensive puffery. No reason to think it notable, either. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to XLRI- Xavier School of Management. Entrance exam to an MBA university is a very likely searchable term though not notable for separate article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to XLRI - Xavier School of Management for reasons already outlined by @Dharmadhyaksha. Quis separabit? 03:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to XLRI - Xavier School of Management per the reasons given by Dharmadhyaksha. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as there's nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed

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

Procedural nomination per the CSD I declined. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claims of notability made as such. Affiliation to a particular religion is no notability in this case. Also, the references used in the article aren't neutral. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her notability is part of her religious affiliation: first woman Muslim pilot. The article describes her struggle to be a pilot after 9/11. I'll check for more sources, bit she seems to meet GNG.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reworked article to be less like a press release. Easily meets GNG. Articles have appeared over time (2013 to 2015), in a wide variety of venues (Saudi Arabia, India, Australia). Concur with both Megalibrarygirl and sources that her notability lies in her religious affiliation because of perception and stereotypes associated with her faith, she has become a role model for other women. SusunW (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely keep as although this could be better, this seems notable and acceptable enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DIscounting all the "keep" opinions by accounts with curiously few edits. Sandstein 18:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C-tru

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

Non-notable artist. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. No charted songs or albums. No albums released from a major label. There is claims to be on a charted single, but no references to back that claim. References are either press releases or brief mentions. No in depth coverage of artist. Makes a weak claim towards WP:ACADEMIC, but a review the paper cited shows that subject was only thanked in the paper, not an author of the paper. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. References that are present allow for enough information to be eligible for wikipedia. Verifiable objective evidence is included through the sources that are provided. This includes itunes, pandora, etc. Associated rapper includes papoose. Music video appeared on MTV. He might not have as much as senior artists, but I think enough to be eligible for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semyfayn (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. My findings are such that this subject meets WP music notability as relevant info was added recently that support this. Subject has won 1st place in major national music competition. ^[1] Subject has a collaborative album that charted in Swiss Music Charts and had retail and digital release. ^[2] The subject has collaborated and made music with notable artists in his genre including Papoose, Ras Kass, SwizZz, and Gunplay. These artist have been or are in major labels and have had major label releases and also have an extensive body of music work. I found sources listing C-Tru performances in Europe and sources of these concert venues were added. These all meet the multiple criteria for WP music notability, and C-Tru's body of work is notable. In regards to the review of the science paper cited where subject was thanked, that fact was cited not for WP academic purposes but just to show background info on the subject and past work. Peruporfavor (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing good aside from one press release, simply too soon for a better article. BTW Gogo Dodo it's good to see you around AfD (you'd certainly be welcomed to come around here more often)! SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Upon further research the subject has satisfied a number of the criteria for music notability. Eg. subject of multiple published works, has album on Switzerland music chart, non-trivial coverage of international tour, has collaborated and worked with notable music artists, has won first place in a major music competition, has been placed in rotation on major television network (MTV)^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karisma808 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of your claims establish notability or hold up upon further scrutiny. I see no references to back up the claim of "multiple publish works". I see one press release, a reprint of a press release, and a blog post about the press release on the competition win (which has issues all on its own). All other references either do not mention C-Tru or are not published works independent of the artist. The claims that the artist has an album that charted on the Swiss charts is misleading. The album is by another artist, DJ Swissivory, which establishes DJ Swissivory's notability, not C-tru's. Appearing on the album does not qualify for being C-tru's album. The "non-trivial coverage" of touring is trivial: all references are just schedule listings, no articles about the tour. Collaborating with notable artists does not make one notable. It is just name dropping. There are no reliable sources showing that competition won is a "major" music competition or notable event. It looks to me to be a marketing event. The MTV claim is for DJ Swissivory's video, so you have again established DJ Swissivory's notability, not C-tru's. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The MTV video does establish notability, as it includes 3 rappers: Papoose, C-tru, and Spits Nelson. This is a collaboration, i.e. team work. Feel free to watch the video. Swissivory was the DJ for the song. Moreover, a collaborative effort does not mean name dropping, but rather that it was a group effort. C-tru is up-and-rising, his Wikipedia should not be removed because of this. I feel that there are enough sources to meet criteria. Also, the “Real Dreams” album was #59 in the Swiss Charts, in which C-tru was features in at least 4 of the songs. This further establishes notability and eligibility for Wikipedia.
Comment: In the composition of music works, the writers and collaborators play a very integral part in the success of the song, during the Grammy's all of the writers of a song are brought on stage, recognized and receive the award as well. Therefore the subject is notable for being a major contributor as writer and performer for a charting album. A search on C-Tru in American music publishing database for ASCAP ACE under "Writers" show this subjects published works. https://www.ascap.com/Home/ace-title-search/index.aspx In regards to the MTV music video, the subject is shown prominently as he is the main performer of the entire song chorus, the second verse, and the bridge. As that is the main single which received the most exposure and college radio play for the collaborative album "Real Dreams" it can be argued that the subject's work had significant influence on the success of the charting album. Therefore DJ Swissivory's notability is also in direct correlation to the notability of the subject. Peruporfavor (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I saw this music video on MTV and decided to start a page for each rapper. I saw that Papoose had a wiki page, so then I moved to the next one, which was C-tru. It was relatively easy to find objective information, and I feel that C-tru should be part of wiki. Thank you. -Semyfayn
Keep. Subject reminds me of MC Jin, notable for being one of the first rappers of Asian descent to achieve mainstream recognition in the U.S. rap markets. The subject's music accomplishments seem more significant being that artists of Asian descent are one and few in the mainstream hip-hop genre. It is noteworthy the artist was found in the hip-hop music genre working with accomplished rap artists and has a fan base to tour in Europe. With the globalization of hip-hop music I think this subject will be an important addition to wiki as his inclusion further expands wiki's expansive reference of different types of artists in the hip-hop genre.Djhero2099 (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFF and MC Jin is signed to a record label, has released albums with said label, has film and television credits, and covered multiple independent reliable sources. C-tru has none of these. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. C-tru 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)globalmario

Delete Despite all the "keep" !votes, nobody seems to have uncovered any solid sources able to withstand closer examination. --Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive coverage of the subject has been turned up in reliable, independent sources. I could also not find any. Jujutacular (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Trujillo

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable writer. Quis separabit? 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Gabor

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

Delete: as non-notable porn actor. Quis separabit? 19:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the citations in the article, seems to be notable in Norway.[2][3][4][5][6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I originally closed as Keep but someone was writing there !vote whilst I closed so I've reopened it. –Davey2010^Talk 01:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails PORNBIO. The coverage cited by MT falls well below what is required to meet the GNG, amounting to 1) a brief obituary; 2)a brief mention (with no biographical information) in an article about pprn performers ripping off actual celebrity names (Gabor acted as "Turd Wrenolds"); 3)a news-of-the weird type item that boils down to "porn star comes to town, wants local girls to have sex with him on camera", saying next to nothing about Gabor himself; 4) a brief description of a video (now offline) of someone named Alex Rosen telling a story about Gabor, labelled "humor"; and 5) a very brief followup to item 3, reporting that Gabor can only find one local girl willing to have on-camera sex. My comments here are probably longer than the collected biographical content about Gabor in the five articles combined. That's really not enough to sustain a biographical article for a subject who fails the relevant SNGs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (changed from Delete) fails PORNBIO and there's no other claim of notability in the article, the refs shown here are of the "tabloid journalism" variety, discouraged to be used by WP:SENSATION. Having an obit in a newspaper is not enough, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly fails PORNBIO, and I still think that most sources are tabloid journalism and a lot of obits which all repeat the same story. However, he may have been a minor celebrity in Norway, based on his looking like Sean Connery. There's reasonable doubt here as to whether he fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Passes GNG with wide margin, I see dozens if not hundreds of articles in all the major Norwegian newspapers and publications. Some examples: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Gabor was also the subject of an NRK1 (Norway's largest and oldest TV channel) documentary ([22], [23]). More coverage easily available, clearly a celebrity in Norway. Cavarrone 19:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm in the delete camp on about 97% of the debates about pieces on porn actors brought to AfD. However, Cavarrone has demonstrated that this deceased individual, as "Norway's most famous porn actor," has been the object of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independent publications of presumed reliability — and thus passes GNG, completely setting aside our ludicrous SNG for porn stars.. Carrite (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 04:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Griffin (educationalist)

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

Do not find the subject notable and cannot find many sources discussing the relevance of this particular Kathleen Griffin (school teacher/educationalist) as there seem to be so many Sheroddy (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree that independent notability has not been established. Quis separabit? 21:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft and userfy if wished) as I found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references should definitely be upgraded: all 4 "External links" and 3 of the 4 inline cites appended to the article are either broken or provide no readily discernible access to subject (the brief informative exception, inline cite 4: http://www.wwv.org.uk/worldwide-volunteering-patrons-and-trustees-2/). However, upon typing "Kate Griffin President of the International Confederation of Principals" into Google, one can find numerous mentions of her as well as references to her, thus confirming her notability (per WP:COMMONNAME, the main title header should be "Kate Griffin", rather than "Kathleen Griffin"). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the last comment, this might need a little more evaluation. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ICP seems to be a professional or trade group that itself has questionable notability (unsourced for almost 10 yrs). Griffin does not seem to have any other claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - it's arguable that her volunteer work, combined with her headmaster status, could make her notable, but I don't see that yet. Bearian (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rich Kids on LSD. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Other (punk band)

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO. Also look to be some WP:COPYVIO issues. PRODded a few months ago. Article creator dePRODded on the basis of being on iTunes and notable members. We do have an article about Chris Rest, but notability is not inherited. It looks like the most logical outcome is a delete/redirect to Rich Kids on LSD, which shares band members and already mentions The Other. There are not sufficient reliable secondary sources for a stand-alone article, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing good and the name is no help even with adding "punk band San Francisco". Rhododendrities Considering this was PRODDed in May, what made you nominate it now? (I'm assuming you were watching it and you found it again) SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through my PROD log yesterday and decided to follow up on a few. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd be ok combining with RKL (although RKL and The Other are two completely different bands) as long as the information was not lost (i.e. merge the content) and then redirect "The Other" to that section of the RKL wiki. Pacohaas (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pacohaas: Since you expressed that you aren't familiar with this process, I'll just drop a quick note to suggest adding the word "Merge" in bold text to the beginning of your comment above (like SwisterTwister did with "Delete"). Just a convention to succinctly communicate a proposed outcome to precede more substantial arguments/explanations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rich Kids on LSD, and merge any content where appropriate from the page history. This group does not appear to have independent notability -- I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rhythm D. Redirecting, although the target seems to be headed for AfD, too. If that is deleted, this one should be deleted, too, judging from the comments of the editors participating in this debate. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intense Method

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

Fails WP:MUSBIO -- notability claim seems to be that a song appeared on a popular soundtrack album. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rhythum D (the second option was to delete) as the one charting would be the only thing saving this and my searches found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or possibly even delete both articles. I could not find significant coverage of either in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JProfiler

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

Can find no reliable sources on this topic. Sam Walton (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as I'm compelled to say delete because although my searches found results (here, here, here and here), I'm not sure if it's enough to swing improvement and I think this could be mentioned elsewhere but there's no target as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winner of the, "2007 Java Developer's Journal Readers' Choice Awards". [24] [25] The software is also recommended in dozens of programming books.[26] It appears that they have a free version for personal and a paid version for commercial use. 009o9 (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the hope this scatershot AFD can actually go somewhere. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a java developer there is very little reason to keep this page there is nothing of worth on this page that you would not see from attempting to use it inside of eclipse. I understand that it is a good tool but it is a bit simple. Its like writing an article about a specific brand of pulley system. There will never be a reason to write about the branded item but about the system itself. We have an article on Software profiling. I don't see why this is notable beyond that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrdema (talk • contribs) 10:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. K. Lyhne

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

No indication of meeting WP:ARTIST Derek Andrews (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 23:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom: the Guardian article is the only decent ref, so subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Preview Channel

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

I found results for both companies but not for this joint venture and I'm not entirely convinced it existed although it is common for there to be few results therefore I want comments. Calling Calamondin12 and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This did exist, for whatever that's worth — on a ProQuest search, I found one isolated listing of it in an article about Ottawa's cable lineup being revised in 1988 (channel 18 west of Bank Street and channel 33 east, in the unlikely event that anybody cares.) But it clearly wasn't notable in any substantive way — out of 71 hits for the phrase "preview channel", that was the only one that was the proper name of a specific channel rather than a generic noun for the concept of television "preview channels", and that's in a database that provides comprehensive access to all of Canada's major market daily newspapers. So there's just no real substance here beyond "this is a thing that existed", and no reliable source coverage by which any more substance could be added. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, I could not find significant coverage. Jujutacular (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound and The Fury (band)

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

Fr an article from January 2005 with hardly much information and change since then, my searches found absolutely nothing and it seems they may no longer exist and their website is closed. I was initially going to PROD but this seems better for comments and given the age (the article claims they performed at some Award shows but without good sources, there's simply not much). SwisterTwister talk 21:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced article which makes no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. If you squint hard enough, it could maybe be considered as hanging by its toenails off the edge of NMUSIC #7 ("most prominent of the local scene of a city"), but even that would have to be properly supported by RS coverage, and doesn't give a band a no-sourcing freebie just because you claim it. So I'm willing to revisit this if the sourcing can be substantively improved, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I could not find significant coverage of the band in reliable sources. Jujutacular (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Hudak

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

The subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG and fails at WP:SCHOLAR. Google searches didnt give any favorable result for the subject. Hitro talk 20:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than links at News, Books and browser but nothing to suggest immediate improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I could not find significant coverage of him reliable sources. A fair amount of hits in searches, but no in-depth coverage of him specifically. Jujutacular (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find any reliable sources for WP:GNG. I fear, even Mooshu the dog will not save this.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Crawford (pornographic actress)

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards, just nominations. Negligible independent reliable sourcing, mostly press releases, presskit pieces, and promotional interviews. No real claim of notability. There's just nothing here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won of awards, (two times: individual and scene), 16x interwiki, notable. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with a minor individual award win and a scene-related win. Fails WP:GNG. Mainstream media coverage is trivial to nil. Porn trade press coverage is mainly republished press releases. Only plausibly non-trivial coverage comes from Adult Video News. Not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually both awards are scene related and as Gene notes there is not the coverage to pass gng. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spartaz & Gene93k - Looks unfortunately don't count towards notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus at all to delete this content, and we don't need to be at AFD to discuss whether to do some selective merging or not. Courcelles (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal

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

I cleaned up a couple of these lists a while ago, as they had an excessive number of external links to (mostly) iTunes and similar commercial sites. However, I now believe that they should be deleted as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE for listing every song she has recorded.

Edit: Added additional lists. Bjelleklang - talk 20:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan with maybe a possibility of merge. Bhojpuri, Marathi and Pakistani song list aren't that huge. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all lists into List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't understand the segregation by language. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation by languages was probably made to keep article sizes within limits. Merged article would be huge. Also segregation by languages means segregation by various Indian film industries which are language based. Unless we can find a different criteria for segregation or a way to keep size small, status quo seems the only solution. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Clay, New York. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moyers Corners Fire Department

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

Nothing to indicate notability on article; all secondary sources found on Google news are either about fires or personnel; neither of which show notability for the department John from Idegon (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clay, New York per WP:OUTCOMES. This is a small, (now) suburban fire company in Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this is always considered the best option. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ASUS Transformer Book T100

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

Non-notable product; just another tablet. No references provided; the only one is dead, and its at the manufactrer's own website. Unencyclopedic rundown of all submodels and options. Mikeblas (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete per-model articles have an uphill struggle to demonstrate any encyclopedic significance, and this one isn't even trying. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although News, Books, browser and highbeam all instantly found links, I suppose we can wait for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam (Politician)

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

The subject does not meet WP:NPOL and clearly fails on WP:GNG. I did not find anything significant on Bing or Google searches. Hitro talk 19:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN AND WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Full name is Anupam Singh, which is probably the better search term ( Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ). Having said that, there seem to be quite a number of recent news sources for him, but most seem just to be quoting him as spokesperson for Swaraj Abhiyan. There might be something substantial about him buried somewhere among the passing mentions, but if so, I haven't spotted it. PWilkinson (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless this can be noticeably improved as I'm not seeing much to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Gunn

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

I believe the page has already be deleted. Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. SALT maybe required. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A previous article about the same subject, at Angus Gunn (footballer born 1996), was deleted by PROD last month. Fails the football-specific notability guideline because subject has still not played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, and there's still no evidence of the player receiving enough significant independent coverage to pass the general notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the same level of notability as Kelechi Iheanacho when the consensus was made to keep his article. Arials101 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? Kelechi has actually played for the first-team. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus to keep Kelechi Iheanacho during any of the 4 deletion debates that I'm aware of. Was there a fifth? Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No there wasn't any other AfD, the last one was closed as "no consensus" per the votes cast, not per the "level of notability". Aside from WP:OTHERSTUFF in general, Kelechi Iheanacho and Angus Gunn particularly have nothing in common, notabilitywise. Kraxler (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no pro appearances Spiderone 18:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage over the years in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Examples from 2012, 2014 and here's one from after the AFD started 2015. Nfitz (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wait until he makes a professional debut. Thursby16 (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? If he meets WP:GNG then doesn't matter if hasn't made professional debut. Nfitz (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... but he doesn't JMHamo (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He clearly doesn't. The sources provided above to support GNG are classic examples of WP:NOTINHERITED. There's a bit of chat going on about this young player because of who his dad was, not because of any achievements the player has gained. You simply cannot claim a player is generally notable in the field of football when they have never actually played football at any senior level. Fenix down (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Danzig

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

Does not meet notability guidelines —Boruch Baum (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Neil Gdansk, surely? Claudebone (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Claudebone -- very droll. Quis separabit? 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I presume that this person's notability would come from his academic work. But I don't see how he comes close to satisfying WP:NACADEMICS. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as insufficiently notable academician. Quis separabit? 03:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although I found some results here and there, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tekken. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mishima Zaibatsu

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. I would entertain a redirect to the Tekken series, but this topic doesn't have enough secondary source coverage to warrant its own article. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 18:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tekken. Coverage isn't significant enough for separate article. --The1337gamer (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as this is best known through the game thus moving it there is best, I imagine there will never be enough for a separate article here. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A9. — Earwig ^talk 18:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save His Shoes

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Masi. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A9. The artist's page has just been deleted. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A9. — Earwig ^talk 18:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strobelight (song)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Masi. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A9. Artist's page has just been deleted. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as blatant hoax. There may have been an Enoch Kimball, but not the cow.... Peridon (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Kimball

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

This is a hilarious article when it comes to an exploding "weaponized cow" Kimball supposedly invented, but I can't find a source that verifies this person and/or his invention. I don't know how this article wasn't caught as a hoax by a patroller. TheGGoose (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but not exactly as fabricated because Books actually found links here for a Enoch Kimball from Massachusetts particularly Essex (including other places such as New Hampshire) so he may've actually existed but as there's not much with these, delete and WP:TNT. Pinging past editors Comatmebro and Rberchie. The cureent vwrsion simply seems to be a juvenile's playful version. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: How is this not a G3 for a blatant hoax? Ravenswing 18:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged it with G3 speedy deletion. TheGGoose (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert DeProspero

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

A secret service man. The only actually independent source is a mention in a book about the Secret Service, not about this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found news coverage either mentioning him or interviewing him over a 25 year period from 1973 to 1998. The AP published an article about him in 1985. There are various other mentions of him in books discussing Reagan and/or the US Secret Service I'm leaning "keep", but I'm interested to see what others may find. - Location (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he was head of the President's security detail. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - That he ascended beyond being a regular secret service agent to the head of the President's security detail and influenced procedure seems to be relatively notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Dwaah

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

Article on a football scout that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. References only make passing reference to the subject. Fails WP:ANYBIO: no awards, no significant contribution to the field, etc. Tassedethe (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG in either his playing or non-playing career. Fenix down (talk) 12:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: whoever created this article evidently has mistaken Wikipedia for LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 03:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Football scouting isn't a field of endeavour in which notability can be presumed, it has to be demonstrated. And there's no evidence of this person receiving enough significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to demonstrate it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Nothing more than passing mentions. Spiderone 16:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 17:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Port George Jamboree

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

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Geodon93 (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's a local community celebration -- where is the notability? Quis separabit? 22:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, does not appear to meet guidelines for general notability given the lack of substantial coverage from third parties. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now but draft and userfy if necessary as the best my searches found was this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Marks

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

Looks basically like an advertisement, not written in the style of Wikipedia and do not see the relevance or notability of this subject for Wikipedia. Sheroddy (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no improvement here (my searches found nothing good). SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Blogging is NN, and that is about all he seems to have done. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Rangaswami

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

This article about the subject J. P. Rangaswami is just blatant promotion and should have been deleted a long time ago. Sheroddy (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there's no good move target and although my searches at Books and News instantly found results, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No demonstrable claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to V. C. Andrews. No more discussion seems to be forthcoming, so I am redirecting this as suggested, but without prejudice to restoring the article if significant sources crop up. Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Orphans series

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

I'm not finding reviews or usage that would support notability for this series (or any of the titles within). Mikeblas (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to V. C. Andrews rather than delete as although I found some links here and here, there's nothing to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Brother Africa. The redirect is fairly cheap here Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Africa 10

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL: Article about future event without substantial coverage by reliable sources. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG at this time. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Maybe replace content with a redirect to Big Brother Africa, similar to Big Brother 18 (U.S.)? As more information becomes available it could become a full article again. Icarusgeek (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no noteworthy coverage by reliable sources, although redirect would be okay too.--Staberinde (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Sharjah

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

Another small shopping mall., 1/3 the size of the ones we usually keep (which is 1 million sq ft = 100,000 sq m) Trivial or local awards. References are press releases/announcements, or local shopping or travel sites. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the most prominent mall in Sharjah, UAE. Currently mall is again being redevoloped to achieve the distinction of being the largest mall in Sharjah . Also it is a popular landmarked in Sharjah and is owned by Majid Al Futtaim group, arguably the biggest investment group in UAE.Abidahmed1983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidahmed1983 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see no further signs of improvement and it would be best mentioned elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are trivial, passing mentions, directory listings. Some sources such as this one [27] appear to just be advertising and the malls only mention is at the very end that they participate in a phone buy back program. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Academy, Darjeeling, India

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

Non-notable nursery school. I don't think that nursery schools even merit a mention in the article for their city, so redirect would be inappropriate. PamD 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no indication of significance or notability per WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 06:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW, WP:MILL, WP:OUTCOMES, WP:SCHOOLS, and WP:GNG. Pre-schools are run of the mill, not notable, unless Princess Diana worked there. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart when better though I'm not imagining any anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Basics

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

Non notable 3-year-old small company. Sources are rehashed press releases, minor mentions. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:Mistersun is suspected of being an undisclosed paid editor sock. GreenC 16:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there simply appears to be no better solid coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salve Hakedal

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

Mention inpssing in refs on page, no depth, no multiple sources about himself. Fails WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than some passing mentions at Books and News and unless it can actually be improved, I'm not seeing much. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches turned up some mentions, but nothing to show they meet notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Outreach Opportunity League

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

Tagged for notability for over seven years, this promotional article's subject does not pass WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found results at Books, browser, highbeam and Scholar, I see nothing to suggest immediate better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although the article has an unusually large number of sources, the consensus appears to be that they do not establish notability. The samples I looked at confirm this. Randykitty (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bradley-Fulgoni

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

Almost zero information exists on this individual, with what little information I can piece together coming from concert bios. {{Refimprove}} tag has been on the page since 2009 with little to no indication that anyone has done anything to it. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unsourced individual biography, which fails WP:N and WP:GNG for starters. Quis separabit? 18:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac and Quis separabit?, I infer that the reason for the proposed deletion of this page is the lack of sources: I will immediately provide all the necessary sources for every statement in the page (sites of Cambridge University Press Journals, Christine Talbot Cooper International Artists, Delphian Records, Worcester Concert Club, Sinfonia of Leeds, etc.) in order to prove that any information relative to Peter Bradley-Fulgoni adheres to the criteria indicated by Wikipedia. Grateful in advance for your cooperation.

BWV846 —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrators, I'll be grateful for your feedback on the status of the updated page in relation with the Wikipedia requirements, i.e. with respect to the recent proposal of deletion.

BWV846 —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BWV846 the references you have added seem to mostly be from places where you've given concerts, and (if I'm not mistaken) often those biographies are supplied by the subject of the bio. These, and articles you have written, constitute PRIMARY sources, and while they are not forbidden, they do not demonstrate notability. The remainder of the sources seem to be one-sentence mentions of you, which are fine for verification of facts but do little for notability. The page still requires multiple independent reliable sources that talk about you in detail.

As a side note, please end all of your comments with ~~~~, which will sign your messages and more easily allow people to know left the comment. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, thanks a lot for the information you've given: I've never given concerts (and it's nice of you to think I could), but I suppose your thoughtfulness was addressed to me.

I'm not a recitalist but I know a thing or two about the music world, and I can positively say that the only artists' biographies which are not directly provided -or do not totally rely on those directly provided- by the artists themselves (or their agents) are those on the Grove (and only in the case of deceased people): if you resorted to the parameter "bio/data uninfluenced by artists/agents" to delete artists' pages, the vast majority of those relative to living artists would be rather short-lived (apart from saying that some Wikipedia page quotes even the personal site of the artist in focus or articles where the artist speaks about him/herself).

And anyway: articles/reviews on artists' performances are out of place because inevitably celebratory, personal research doesn't comply with Wikipedia rules, music sites are unreliable in that we can sense that they draw from material (inevitably) supplied by artists; so, what's the way out? where can I get information to write about an artist I am interested in?

Besides, any 'gradus ad Parnassum' is made of single steps, therefore I don't see why having been only briefly mentioned on a source can make the quotation of this source less authoritative as regards the fact is being referred to (which is what Wikipedia is interested in, having it not an exegetic/critical aim... or has it?). Not to mention -re. the visibility factor- that Cambridge University Press and BBC (which I hope can be regarded as most reliable institutions) have repeatedly divulged thoughts and performances of Peter Bradley-Fulgoni without sparing space or time, and, when I listen to a concert on BBC3 or read an essay on a Cambridge Uni publication, I don't manage to think that the performer/author in question isn't benefiting by the most dazzling visibility an artist or an intellectual can be blessed with, and by a certification of quality intrinsic to the highest standards of efficiency -and consistently strict criteria of selection- which distinguish these institutions on an international level.

Therefore:

if we agree on the fact that being published by Cambridge Uni Press or recording for BBC, and giving recitals in Wigmore Hall, in Salle Cortot, in Richter's Memorial Apartment (a veritable shrine for pianists) is a garland of achievements which are synonym with prestige, please make your decision accordingly.

If instead you say that all the aforementioned achievements are of no interest because reported by unreliable sources (not third-party ones), I think a slight aporia is on the horizon:

in fact, you surely noticed that I used the Cambridge Uni Press/Cambridge Journals site to give evidence of PBF's essays (which are not about PBF, incidentally), and quoted the comments/captions by Cambridge Uni Press in the page (not the articles themselves by PBF) to give further evidence of some artistic achievements;

so, I'm perplexed by realising that, if it's common practice to consider artists objectively reliable when their work gets recognition by institutions such as Cambridge Uni or BBC, according to your suggestion, there are artists whose recognition on the part of such noteworthy institutions makes the institutions themselves unreliable ones (turning them into a primary party): how can this be possible? and, if it is, what are the criteria to tell the difference between the two categories of artists?

Grateful for your reply.

BWV846 (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- The article now has adequate sources, but his recordings are not for a major label. The giveaway seems to be near the end, where it indicates that he earns his living as a school teacher, but doing some concerts, rather than as a fulltime professional performer. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are good for verifiability, but not notability. Can not find enough on the search engines to see where he meets either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not much discussion here, so calling this a WP:SOFTDELETE -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Dixie Seafood

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

Not notable local business. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete as my searches found nothing particularly better with probably the best results at Books (mostly a few listings though so nothing very useful). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few brief mentions on the search engines. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP and WP:BASIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Sawdaye

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

Non-notable or marginally notable actor. The article says his "most notable" role is in The Ungodly but that role didn't even get screen credit according to the IMDB. A total of 8 listed roles, none of them major or even moderately important to the productions. The only significant online sources seem to be Wikipedia mirrors (in google books). Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for notability issues form almost a year, and no better sources have been added. Delete unless significantly better sources can be provided. I declined an A7 speedy on this article, but only just barely. It is possible that there are better sources out there, but I will be surprised. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC) DES ^(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything here that really suggests notability. If the subject becomes notable later, the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable actor per above arguments. Quis separabit? 12:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Bbb23 under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 22:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacitpo Razal University

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

No sources found that indicate notability or even existence. I'm unable to find a use of the "Lacitpo Razal" name outside of this article and its mirrors. TheGGoose (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found absolutely nothing aside from this and something like this would have an official website or at least minimally good third-party coverage. Notifying editors Josve05a, Crystallizedcarbon and Santryl. SwisterTwister talk 17:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely hoax that has no sources, no articles that link to it and no sources found in a Google search. Is this "Lazar Optical" in reverse? I don't get the joke. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nomination and previous votes. Unsourced. It does not meet our general notability guidelines and if it is proven as a hoax then speedy delete.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tzaims Luksus

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

I feel that the subject might be relevant for Wikipedia, as it seems like the subject has done some relevant work, but it seems like the article might be written by somebody very close to the subject or by the subject itself. Would like to have a debate about keeping the article or completely rewriting the article as it seems to contain puffery and limited objective sources. Sheroddy (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has won at least two significant historic fashion awards - the Winnie and the Coty. Winners of these awards are always notable. I see no evidence that you made any effort to search for alternative, better quality sources before nominating for deletion - you would have found many sources in Google Books in which Luksus is discussed at length. Bringing to AFD should NEVER be used as a substitute for article improvement, especially as you clearly think the subject is probably "relevant" enough to have an article. This is NOT how AFD is supposed to work. Mabalu (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely notable, for example here's a large entry on the Cooper Hewitt (AKA Smithsonian) Design museum website, and he is also in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY. Also, here's a 3/4 page article on the subject in a 1968 issue of Life magazine. Notability is crystal-clear. Per comments above, it's clear that Sheroddy did not do WP:BEFORE and thus made a mistake in nominating this artist. The artist being in two collections at very reputable major museums means he meets WP:ARTIST. Sheroddy, I would suggest withdrawing the nomination as described at WP:WDAFD, what do you say? New Media Theorist (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just a note that Sheroddy's stats for AfD are 60% successful according to his vote, which is delete 100% of the time. This perhaps suggests a problem.New Media Theorist (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fox (journalist)

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

Although sources are given in the article of the subject, I still feel that this article is more of a resume of someone who might be less notable than portrayed. Sources either do not contain info about the subject, or are somehow personally linked to the subject (e.g. own website, etc.). Would like a debate about the encyclopaedic relevance of this subject Sheroddy (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article would in any case need to be completely re-done because it does not follow Wiki-style; instead, the links are hyperlinks to pages of named organizations but with no mention of the person who is the subject of the article. That said, I could not find information about the person who is the subject of the article. My gut feeling is that this is a promotional piece written to bolster the WP article on his organization, Business_Services_Association. That latter article is also lacking in supporting sources and should probably be re-written or deleted. (They were created by the same WP editor.) LaMona (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with you, LaMona. The article about his company, Business Services Association, has been nominated before for deletion but was kept with a "week keep". Would it be possible to nominate that article for deletion again?--Sheroddy (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like the AfD for that article turned up some better sources, but those have not yet been added to the article. It is possible that the BSA is notable. I'll try to find time to look at the sources. It was AfD'd and kept just days ago, although there wasn't a great deal of discussion. LaMona (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the AfD for the BSA was in June. Still recent, and was not improved. /me still looking at references. LaMona (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this can actually be improved as I'm not seeing anything here. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches failed to turn up any WP:RS on this individual with in-depth coverage enough to satsify WP:GNG. Regarding BSA, LaMona listed several potential sources on the article's talk page. The first one appears to be a press release from the organization. The second is behind a firewall, so I can't access it. The third and fourth briefly mention the organization (the 3rd very briefly), and the fifth is another brief mention. David Biddulph rightly tagged the existing refs in the article as dead links. A News search returned a couple of dozen hits, but all appear to be brief mentions, along the lines of "a spokesperson for BSA said...", "according to the BSA...", and the like. Might pass WP:BASIC, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microcheilia

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's ICD 10: it's a real condition, there will be more to say about it than a dictionary definition. Bondegezou (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems encyclopedia-worthy and is certainly acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but hopefully expand with sources of a secondary nature, and peer reviewed. — Cirt (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qasr International Festival of Theatre

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

A festival that has less than a year of existence can not yet be on an encyclopedia that lists only the knowledge already known, already notorious, especially perennial. No major national publications have been devoted to it. Too premature. Deleted in French Wikipedia (fr:Wikipédia:Demande de restauration de page#Festival Al Qasr International de Théâtre and seen as self-promotional in Spain Wikipedia. Superjuju10 (talk) 07:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the festival has been held twice? Is this not an article substantially covering events at the festival? OrganicEarth (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I see nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not show enough for it to pass WP:GNG. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Taggart

AfDs for this article:

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

This centarian (not even a "supercentarian" for what that's worth) was the 2nd oldest man in the UK and allegedly was the oldest man in Scotland at the time of his death. However, for whatever reason, according to List_of_British_supercentenarians#Oldest_British_people_by_region, it was David Henderson who was the oldest man in Scotland in 1998 making Taggert's claim inaccurate (or Henderson inaccurate I don't know). And while his love of bowls and singing Humperdinck songs is all so impressively interesting, this is all a giant WP:BLP1E article that may or may not even be accurate. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly every source here is an obituary, which means that the sources border on routine coverage and do little to satisfy the sourcing and notability requirements at WP:N. Per past AfD precedent, being the oldest "X" is not sufficient for a stand-alone article, and there is very little here of encyclopedic merit to justify a merge or redirect. Canadian Paul 18:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I would've suggested keeping but with no preferred better coverage, there's not much else and especially no good move target. Pinging past commenters (in case any are interested) WWGB, Lugnuts, Alansohn, Ponyo, DGG and Niteshift36. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have never understood why staying alive a bit longer than the next guy is at all notable. It's just genetics, nutrition and luck. WWGB (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Not enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sam Walton (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariel Pamintuan

AfDs for this article:

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

Sourced only to the network that employs her, spammy tone, dubious notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @Jimfbleak analysis. Quis separabit? 03:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I commented back in June during the first AfD that this article was relying too much on primary sources to try and establish Pamintuan's notability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. At the time, I looked for more independent sources, but couldn't find any myself. So, I was willing to wait to see if someone else could before !voting in that AfD, but it was closed as a "no consensus". Since then nothing has really changed and better sources have not been provided, so I don't think this satisfies WP:BASIC at least not at this stage of Pamintuan's career. Maybe she'll be notable enough someday, but I think now is WP:TOOSOON. - Marchjuly (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or preferably redirect to Angelito: Batang ama as it seems this is best known role with 218 episodes. Pinging past commenters 333-blue, Bearian, BeenAroundAWhile and Joseph2302. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still spam about a non-notable person, cannot believe it survived the last AfD. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CSD: a11. 333 -blue 09:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mariel_Pamintuan&dir=prev&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 333-blue (talk • contribs) 20:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC+9)
  - Create by herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 333-blue (talk • contribs) 22:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC+9)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 333 -blue 07:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly promotional, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Liu

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

Main notability as IMO coach, so needs independent reliable sources which talk about the subject in detail. Can't verify he passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF Solomon 7968 05:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 05:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 05:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[28] and [29] list Andy (Andrew) Liu as a Team Leader
Andy Liu also authored and translated several math competitions problem books [30], [31] and translated several math competitions problem books [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], to name just a few Victor Ivrii 12:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Ivrii (talk • contribs)
Keep. The many major national and international teaching awards he has won are probably enough for WP:PROF#C2 and #C4, and the citations for these awards provide nontrivial in-depth coverage of the subject from multiple notable organizations independent of the subject, giving him a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I restored some material to the article on a recent arrest on child pornography charges, which had been removed because the previous sourcing was insufficiently reliable for this sort of material. I found two more-reliable sources for the same incident. I'm skeptical that there is enough coverage, and enough long-term coverage, for him to pass notability via WP:PERP, but I think he's notable for other reasons and that this is an important part of his life story. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough references have been used to establish his notability as an academic, IMO. PK T(alk) 14:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M Moser Associates

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

I declined A7, because the size of the firm implies some importance. It would probably be possible to find sourcing, but this is clearly a directory entry by COI editors. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although "M Moser Associates Hong Kong company" found some links at Books and News, there's nothing to suggest outstandingly better. The current article is unfortunately not acceptable and needs to restarted when better...which is not now. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't find anything on searches to show they meet either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iomart Group

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

Declined PROD, concern was: "not a directory, article written by paid contributor". I cannot confirm this was written by a paid contributor and there is some valid info there. May not be enough to constitute an article though. Jujutacular (talk) 02:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article meets WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 02:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I can see that there are significant reasons to be concerned about the process by which this article was created. It appears to have been recreated several times. Iomart was speedily deleted in January 2007, October 2007 and March 2014. Iomart group plc was speedily deleted in June 2014 only for another article with slight variation on the name to be created a month later. I have haven't had any previous involvement with these articles but have tidied up the latest incarnation of article a bit. The article could still do with some further work, but I think progress has been made. The article does include some coverage by reliable, independent sources, so could be seen as demonstrating notability as per WP:CORPDEPTH. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough on searches to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. She played many roles in cinema and TV but the !voters are uncertain whether they pass WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violeta Cela

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

Non-notable actress; fails WP:GNG. The filmography listed are three minor roles in films. An internet search shows that she clearly exists but provides nothing except for database entries. If someone can find reliable Spanish-language sources to prove me wrong, go ahead. There is a Spanish language page on her which is of doubtful notability due to its references as well. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely Delete as there's nothing to suggest outstanding attention with her longest role being 25 episodes of a 1994-95 series. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sometimes it's difficult to ascertain notability with marginal non-U.S. actors/actresses. Usually its a task to figure out whether the film they were in was notable. This actress appears to have had significant roles in several films, Café, coca y puro, The Heifer (definitely notable), La bestia y la espada magica, The Prick, the title role in Juanita la Larga (a TV movie), not so sure how significant her role in Year of Enlightment was. With a resume like that, I think she passes WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hee-soo

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

Fail Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Gumennik

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG, and they don't meet WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Min

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jujutacular (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete national youth champion, but still fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per both nom and Kraxler. Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomoki Hiwatashi

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Figure Skating/Notability Hergilei (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a juvenile champion, but still fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom and above editor. Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Sampson

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable broadcaster and television host. Quis separabit? 15:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets the general notability guideline for having significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Examples:

In addition to the above, there was also a fair bit of coverage for this incident, but it's debatable whether that adds to her notability. Jenks24 (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Jenks24 plus my sweeps show lots of other possible sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough significant sources focused on her and her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be expanded with the sources found by Jenks24. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Current Fast Bowlers

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

The notability and scope of this list are ill-defined, and I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 15:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: classic example of WP:LISTCRUFT No. 11, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Aspirex (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Undefined and potentially limitless; valueless, too. Johnlp (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. There seems to be no fixed criterion for inclusion. Moreover, different sources have different definitions of "fast". 117.192.171.221 (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. There is no value in allowing Wikipedia users to search for any particular type of bowler, they are all pretty much interchangeable. Also "fast" is a fuzzy concept, like tall, or old. Do we find Wikipedia articles describing people as fast bowlers, with a reference? Of course not. Also nobody could possible think of a way to exclude non-notable bowlers from such a list. Furthermore no reliable sources cover fast bowlers as a group. Siuenti (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Fast" is undefinable. I suppose a list of the fastest measured 10 or whatever bowlers would be possible, but that would be generally regarded as fan cruft rather than an encyclopedic topic by many. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. As mentioned above, "fast" isn't even well-defined, and it could be argued that many people on this list aren't fast, but medium-fast, and similarly that other people should be on there. Pointless list. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, undefined scope. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atony

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure deleting this is a good idea. Medical conditions seem to me to be mostly a priori encyclopedic. The fact that an article does not at present contain more than a definition is not relevant. The relevant factor for deciding is whether the article could be expanded to say more about the subject. I think that is clearly the case here.--Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for sifting through many of our smaller articles, Rathfelder, but I agree with Srleffler, this article is encyclopedic but not yet expanded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to keep it if there is more to be said on the subject.Rathfelder (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly a subject matter for which more can be written about pathology and pathophysiology. — Cirt (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to FK Berane. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FK Napredak Berane

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

Failed to pass guideline Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK Berane, as a feeder club of that team. Giant Snowman 17:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Berane Spiderone 20:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ambulatory disorders

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

Dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small, unsourced, and not medical terminology in my part of the world. Perhaps redirect to Gait--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to recreation, if it can be shown there's significant coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jagoda Szmytka

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:COMPOSER. All of the coverage cited in the article are rewordings of this press release in German. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON Jbh ^Talk 13:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Withdrawn by nominator Based on the material identified in the non-English press there is enough to sustain an article that is not simply regurgitation of a press release as is seen in the US media. Well done on the part of Megalibrarygirl for finding this material. Additionally, the identification of potential scholarly review of her work by SusunW is enough to push me over the top and withdraw. Jbh ^Talk 18:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per @Jbhunley -- fails GNG, WP:COMPOSER. Quis separabit? 14:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is already a well-known composer in Poland. She has work reviewed by Polityka. Just because sources are scarce in English doesn't make her not notable. I added a number of sources and found her work reviewed in a music journal from EBSCOhost database, too. I'm sure Lexis Nexus will turn up more. I'll see what I can add from other databases when I have access on site this week. I do agree that she's early in her career, but there's enough to keep and add to.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources are in German, and perhaps some do restate a single press release, but basic autobiographic material does often cite to a press kit; these do appear to be reliable third-party sources, and looks like Megalibrarygirl has found more sources. It appears to meet GNG. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviewing the scholarly literature potential, (since she has won numerous juried scholarships I assumed there would be some), I find that though I don't have access, there are sources which have reviewed her work. OPERAcja analyzed "Jagoda Szmytka's For Voices" per the snippet synopsis I can see; Dissonance / Dissonanz gives an overview of Szmytka's work analyzing various pieces; Tempo Quarterly Review "Four high-profile performances from this year's Darmstadt Summer Courses serve as useful case studies in these discussions: Jagoda Szmytka's ..." Wiki guidelines do not require that the sources be cited, but that they exist. Clearly there are articles which exist and her works would not be being analyzed if they were not deemed notable. Perhaps someone who does have access to these types of materials can flesh out the article. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just found - on top of the above - [37], a commission by a notable radio station, performed by ensemble recherche --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ablepharon

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

dictionary article Rathfelder (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The disease, AMS, is notable, but this is simply a definition. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, pending argumentation with secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 06:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MYLAND

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NBAND. Jbh ^Talk 13:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources don't demonstrate notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while difficult to research, due to the plethora of other things/people/places with this same name, I couldn't find anything on the search engines which show that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Palestinian stone-throwing. The principal policy issue under discussion is whether this is inappropriate newspaper-type coverage of current events, or an event of lasting, encyclopedic significance. The discussion's quality is generally poor, with multiple editors on both sides offering opinions that amount to little more than votes. Nonetheless, I think that based on the opinions that attempt to address the policy issue, we have consensus that at this time this ought not be covered at the article level. I am discounting the "keep" opinions by Bolter21, Epic Genius and Sean.hoyland because they do not address the WP:NOTNEWS issue, as well as giving less weight to opinions on either side that are basically "keep/delete per x", but the end result is that relatively few participants here have made a cogent argument for why this is not the NOTNEWS case it appears to be. However, we don't have a very clear consensus for deletion either, and such incidents may well become more important later depending on what consequences, if any, they have. I'm therefore implementing this as a "soft" deletion by redirecting it to the appropriate parent article, to where content may be merged to the extent editorial consensus allows. The article may be editorially restored (and, if then still contested, be renominated for deletion) if, after an appropriate period of time on the order of months, new significant coverage in reliable sources indicates that the event is of a more lasting importance than is now apparent. Sandstein 18:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing

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

Both pr WP:NOTNEWS and pr WP:BIO, Fails WP:EVENT, Huldra (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I understand that Israel/Palestine pages are problem areas on both sides at times, but this is a crime with a national government reaction and in one of the world's pressure points. Coverage extends beyond Israel, Arab source '''tAD''' (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article so far doesn't set the scene of the Al-Aqsa tensions. That can be added if non-partisan sources can be found '''tAD''' (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge into Palestinian rock throwing or wherever the recent Al-Aqsa mosque troubles are being covered: This should not have a separate article. It is very soon, so fails WP:NOTNEWS. It has no lasting impact by itself: the incident happened in East Jerusalem and was very likely influenced by the recent tensions over the Al-Aqsa mosque, many sources present it in this context. The increased penalties for rock-throwing etc. was already in the pipeline, see for instance the Haaretz article here. The proposed changes to the law go way back (see last November), and there was already a law passed in July. At most, this incident added fuel to the fire. Are we going to add an article for every criminal incident which happens in that area? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully. Article, like the sources on which it is based, claims that this murder was an additional factor in a season of rising attacks on Jews with rocks and Molotov cocktails. It was an attack in which man was killed; an attack covered by newspapers around the world; an attack that the Prime Minister called "one stone too many"; and an attack, therefore, that became notable when it provided the incentive for emergency cabinet meetings to debate changing the rules of engagement for incidents in which young Arab men endanger lives by throwing rocks at moving cars and at people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed read the article carefully, and more importantly, I have read the citations. All your points have been addressed in my justification. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Significant deadly rock attack covered by multiple reliable sources, just like Asher and Yonatan Palmer, Yehuda Shoham, Adele Biton and others.--Balckagaming (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

struck because: sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. We should keep a WP:MEMORIAL violation because there are already other similar memorial violations? Great argument, not. Zero^talk 23:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous, Zero, as an experienced editor, you surely know that this is not in any sense a MEMORIAL page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what it is. The whole series of similar articles about individuals from one side of the conflict but almost never about individuals from the other side is an abuse of Wikipedia. And, yes, my long experience here makes this judgement easy. Zero^talk 00:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your argument is WP:OSE, and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is with AfDs in this area that bring out people with 10 edits or so out of the woodwork to comment? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the perceived injustice of deleting an article with this level of sourcing and political impact inspires WP readers to become editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps they are just sockpuppets. I am pretty sure that one is, like the horde of sockpuppets that disrupted your last AfD. (I am not accusing you of anything, just that the subject is similar). Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is so funny how the usual editors have the usual opinions. But is is also good to see a few new editors, on both sides/opinions. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions Huldra (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This incident shocked the nation and is quoted often in regards to a discussions about a change of policy in dealing with Palestinian stone-throwing that will be far-reaching. See the Israeli law section there. Maybe, if the law won't change, then in a few months or years this death will receded to the backgrounds, but for now it is notable. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, the burden to demonstrate lasting impact is shouldered by the person creating the article. WP:NOTNEWS is policy. One does not have a crystal ball to determine if some incident will be impactful in the future. I have already addressed the argument that this incident will by itself lead to changes in the law. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is flawed. 1. At this moment it is notable. 2. Maybe and if the law will not be changed, then it will change to be not notable. Ergo, there is no reason at this moment to say with certainty it will not be notable in the future. You reversed the burden of proof in WP:CRYSTALBALL, which at the moment is on you to prove non-notability. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? The way to do it would be to create an article when it actually has lasting impact. That is what WP:NOTNEWS is for. You are reversing the burden of proof, and making it impossible to shoulder it, since one cannot predict the future (my other point is that it is irrelevant whether the law is changed, see my response above). By your criteria, everything currently in the news cycle can be put on Wikipedia. This is absurd. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article will be read by almost no one, the community has already demonstrated its indifference to the growing systemic bias in the ARBPIA topic area numerous times at AfD with respect to Wikipedia's coverage of the distribution of violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict and its disinterest in implementing policy with respect to the "enduring notability of persons and events". The article history may also be useful for the identification of potentially block-worthy editors if the community decides to address systemic problems at some point in the future. These editors, in my view, repeatedly use a fatally flawed and fundamentally unethical approach to sample information spaces in order to frame and spotlight (or perhaps curate is a better word in E.M.Gregory's case) specific cases, but ignore others. Perhaps they see victim-hood and propensity for violence as functions of ethnicity, presumably through no fault of their own. Either way, this kind of behavior and article is apparently accepted by the community for the time being, regardless of policy, guidelines and discretionary sanctions, hence my keep vote. I see that it has already attracted an IP sockpuppet of blocked editor AndresHerutJaim‎. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, when hooligans pick up rocks and throw them at human beings - and the event generates national coverage - I create articles irrespective of ethnicity, faith or other personal status attributes of the criminal. See, just for example, Death of Chris Currie, Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident, Interstate 80 rock throwing, and Criminal rock throwing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss user conduct, but I am reminded of the quote by Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Guess which side engages in rock throwing in this conflict? A cursory look at the articles you have created is enough to see what is going on. It is ok to have POV and interests, but please don't insult my intelligence with such comments. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blaming you, I'm sure you think you are making Wikipedia better, but I don't think it is the case that you "create articles irrespective of ethnicity, faith or other personal status attributes of the criminal". You have created 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing, Death of Binyamin Meisner, Death of Adele Biton and List of deaths and critical injuries by Palestinian stone-throwing. I'm no expert on the spatial or frequency distribution of fatalities caused by stone-throwing, but I'm guessing that your efforts in this regard don't reflect it and tend towards a focus of Palestinian throwing stones and Israelis as victims. And again with the skewed sampling, even of your own efforts. You missed the 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, 2015 Shvut Rachel shooting and Kidnapping and murder of Moshe Tamam articles you created. Where are your articles about professional soldiers, border police, young Israeli men and woman using more refined and respectable methods (like bullets) to kill and injure human beings? If you enjoy writing articles, is there anything stopping you from trying to tackle some of those topics so that the systemic bias in Wikipedia's coverage is reduced? If there is, perhaps you should try figuring out what it is and getting rid of it before someone who cares decides to test whether ARBCOM are willing to block editors based on evidence of systematically biased editing in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False statement and sloppy assertions by Sean.Hoyland, KingsIndian. I did not create an article on the Kidnapping and Murder of Mosher Tamam. I started to write such an article and deleted it after, I recall, about an hour - long before any other editor had seen it. I did so because I decided that the incident was not notable. I have created over 100 articles - my first was created last December. Above I was explicitly discussing articles about notable incidents of malicious rock throwing. If you know of such an incident that would pass WP:GNG but that I have not written an article about, I would be happy to look at it and consider whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to support an article. I do so in that topic area, as I stated, without regard to ethnicity, etc. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no lasting impact, WP:NOTNEWS. nableezy - 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep and close now. (Yes, I created the article, but hear me out) AFD tags on stories in the news make Wikipedia look silly. This article is about a criminal rock throwing in which a random driver was killed. See links in my comment above for other stories in this category. When a hooligan throws a rock at a car and kills or maims a passenger or driver, it is often becomes a big news story whether it happens in New Zealand, Germany, Pennsylvania or Jerusalem. Random murders of total strangers - especially when the weapon is unusual and the situation one that many people can imagine themselves in (riding in a car) when hooligans decide to start throwing rocks at cars - sometimes generate enough media attention to pass WP:GNG even if there are no political or policy consequences. In this case, however, the killing triggered, led to, was the pretext for, or was a contributing factor in (take your pick) a decision by the Israeli government to change the rules of engagement with regard to the handling of rock-throwers. The arguments being brought at this AFD having now deteriorated into rants about ARBPIA bias, personal attacks, and voting by sockpuppet, I move that we keep this article and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That explains it. You have worked hard, creating several articles, to try by interlinks, to push a thesis that stone-throwing by an unarmed occupied people against either settlers occupying their land or an army defending that theft is comparable if not identical to the murderous hooliganism evinced in Western countries. Thugs chucking rocks in Italy or the US are one thing, youths challenging a colonial power another. Binjamin Meisner, in the article you created, was indeed killed by a block of stone thrown at him while he was patrolling a Nablus casbah: what you don't want to know is that anyone in that casbah who raised a Palestinian flag on his home roof, or launched a balloon with Palestine's colours, could be shot dead by those occupying soldiers. The examples you give are from inside properly constituted states, not from countries which, as in the West Bank, are under occupation and where 60% of the population has been incarcerated or has had some family/kin member shot at. Your constant linking of these Palestinian events to criminal rock throwing is farcical because of the conceptual confusion between colonial resistance and infranational delinquency. This is the context (not a justification for the tragic incidents that obsess you - though the parallel to it all, the daily maiming or murder of young protestors by a professional army is of no interest whatsoever). Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Debresser. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this article should be deleted. It is just the latest of several WP:MEMORIAL articles (some background on that can be seen here). --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge there are a rather staggering number of individuals who have died as a result of actions of others, in Palestine, China, and other areas of war or domestic unrest, which receive a flurry of media coverage at the time but which do not demonstrably have any sort of long-term impact or even discussion. At this point, unfortunately, there is no very good reason to believe that this will not be another such, although, should it prove otherwise, the article could be recreated. I think a very good case for a List of civilian deaths in the Palestinian conflict or similar might cover this topic at this point and still include all the really encyclopedic content. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was a falsification from the outset, since sources either affirm he died as a result of stone-throwing or as a result of a heart attack. The editor who created the page suppressed the heart-attack theory, and pushed the view, because it was quickly put up by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and many copycat newspapers, that stone-throwing had been proven. Al most nothing E M Gregory does in this line can be trusted (compare just one entry on Esther Ohana before I had to correct it ) and requires repeated editorial corrections to either fix erratic selectiveness in source use or sheer POV pushing. Numerous sources ignore reliable reports that the police 'suspected' stone-throwing as the cause or were investigating the cause. Since we don't (yet/perhaps never) know what the 'truth' is, the article has no justification for inclusion as one of Gregory's series of 'stone throwers are murderous Arabs' articles. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't plan to participate but some comments are completely mistaken. This event will most probably contribute to a change in Israeli legislation for stoning punishment and 10 days later, there are still articles which refer to the incident. This event is just slightly less notable than Duma arson attack which was never AfD and I bet all those voting delete would have voted keep in a heart beat. Am I wrong? Settleman (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Settleman: I specifically answered this point. As the Haaretz article mentions, the change in the law (if it happens) was already in the pipeline following the tensions of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Governments seize on certain events for publicity purposes, we don't have to go along with it. Even if the law is changed, it is a routine matter. See for instance the Reuters source in July which increased the punishments to up to 20 years. This kind of criminalization of rock throwing has been going on for years, indeed decades. Such kind of hype is common in news stories, this is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. And if you are talking about WP:NPOV and double standards, please take a look at the number of articles in the same vein for Israeli civilians killed, and compare it to Palestinians. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: The fact it was in the pipeline for very long time and got boosted after this event means it did have a direct affect. Personally, I wouldn't have started an article yet but some of the arguments for deletion are superficial (or less). How is this different than Duma in a meaningful way? The fact that stones are thrown at Israeli cars every day and now they got 'lucky' while extremists rarely put families houses on fire? 3 fatalities vs 1?

@Settleman: No, it was in the pipeline means that it was already going to be done, and the government (like every other in the world) will maybe use this to push the law through. As I said, it is a routine matter, and does not need a reason either (see the July Reuters report, for instance). As to your other comments, you say "I would not have started it", yet you !vote "Keep"? And you cite the Duma arson attack for this as some kind of "balance"? As the UN notes "Israeli settlers have perpetrated at least 142 attacks against Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem/West Bank since the beginning of 2015". I am sure those articles are on Wikipedia, in contrast to the horde of similar articles like this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: Do we have articles about the 1000s of stone throwing incidents? They have been talking about legislation for long time and now it was expedited. In addition, there were discussion about required minimum punishment that wasn't discussed before. On Susya deletion page you mentioned WP:OSE which is valid for this whole discussion. This article go beyond NEWS or MEMORIAL. Settleman (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They not only talked about it, they passed the legislation in July, with sentences up to 20 years, as the Reuters source states. It is an absolutely routine matter, with roots going way back. See this article from last November. To claim that this incident is the cause of the proposed change in the law is disingenuous at best. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletionists familiar with the I/P area refrain from jumping at every report of a murdered Palestinian to make articles on them. They regularly say in AdFs that this kind of WP:NOTNEWS violation has one justification, pursing victimization theories for an ethnic party to the dispute. Were editors prepossessed by the propaganda possibilities of this abuse, you would see dozens of articles on Palestinians shot by IDF snipers, or seriously injured by settler stone-throwing written up to ostensibly 'balance' the POV thrust. Thankfully, no one follows the bad example being set here.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments above. See also, as minimum, such article as 2014 Beitunia Nakba Day deaths. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid parallel. The 2014 Beitunia Nakba Day deaths was created over a month after (16 June 2014‎) the incident, sufficient time to see if the issue had notability over time. This page was created within 4 days of the event, so the editor had no interest in the policy indications regarding WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTABILITY.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "youths challenging a colonial power another", etc. (@Nishidani)

Such comments seem me more suitable for forum desks than for Wiki's dicussion. Sorry. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read some books (i.e. Ian Lustick). Wikipedia is optimally based on scholarship. That Isrfael's occupation is 'colonial' is a commonplace, not a point of view. When a state occupies another land, and begins to settle on its territory, in English as in all languages this is called 'colonization'. Ian Lustick has done a great 4 country study of the practice. read it.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. Apparently, the murder of Israelis in attacks is not uncommon. Also, this is a great issue in Israel. However, could it be proved that the car's driver spun out of control because of the attacks? Epic Genius (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, it can certailny be answered to the satisfaction of a trial judge, but not that in this case government authorities and all working journalists agree. (the only sourced uncertainty was in breaking news reports in the immediate aftermath). The sequence agreed upon by all sources is that this car was hit by thrown rocks; the driver lost control; the car crashed. The driver suffered both a heart attack and critical injuries in the crash. Nishdani is relying on a press report [38] dated to the hours immediately after the crash. It states that after the car was hit by rocks, the driver/victim "had convulsed before losing control of the car." This sort of course of events is not unusual: rock hits car, driver suffers shock or heart attack and steers wildly, or drives too fast, or jams the gas pedal - or the break, or has to reach across dead or wounded body to gain controls, or a critical mechanical element is hit making the car hard to steer, for any of these reasons or others he then loses control of car, and crashes. Know, however, that even when a heart attack is known to have followed rock throwing at a car but preceded crash an American or other Common Law court would rule second degree murder caused by rock throwing. Reasoning that shock rocks being thrown and hitting car caused a heart attack that led to the crash. Note: medical forensic evidence cannot establish precise moment of heart attack. i.e., the car could have crashed first causing the shocked driver to sustained a deadly heart attack. No autopsy will be able to fix timing whit this degree of precision. What Nishdani proposes (with flimsy-to-no support from sources - pure OR) is a distinction without a difference, since the rock hit first, it caused both heart attack and deadly injuries in crash, whether the crash or the heart attack happened first, a judge will assume that both were the result of being pelted with rocks. Once the car is hit by rocks, in the eyes of the law, the thrown rocks are the cause of death. Death by thrown rock. Note also that it is not necessary to have a heart attack, perfectly fit, experienced drivers swerve and crash after being hit by rocks.

I have twice had the experience of having been in the front seat of cars hit by rocks. Once on a major superhighway. Once in a dicey neighborhood in a city with a crime, gang and delinquency problem. One stone was hurled directly at me by a youth, one was kicked up by the wheels of an enormous truck moving at highway speeds. Swerve? Of course I swerved ! The rock hits, the window shatters, the impact jolts the whole vehicle, shards of glass hit your face, you try to stay at speed and in lane and if you are very, very lucky, if the rock hasn't smashed your face or hand, if you don't get rear-ended by the car behind you, and if, by God's grace, you swerve not into incoming traffic, but into a space not occupied by another vehicle or by a telephone pole, you may survive.

I follow these cases closely in recent years, and Nishdani's point is irrelevant. Whether the impact of the rock caused the driver to have a heart attack and then swerve, or to swerve, hit a post, and then have a heart attack doesn't matter - in both scenarios his death was caused by the thrown rock(s). As news reports agree. See: [39].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat E. M. Gregory is engaged in source distortion, repressing evidence uncomfortable for his premise, and misrepresenting my point. One of many examples.

'Nishdani is relying on a press report [1] dated to the hours immediately after the crash. It states that after the car was hit by rocks, the driver/victim "had convulsed before losing control of the car.'

False. I didn't rely on one press report, and the Ynet source in question (Roi Yanovsky, 'Driver dies in accident possibly caused by stone-throwing,') is not dated to 'the hours immediately after the incident' which occurred at 11 pm 13 of September

The Ynet article bears the timestamp 09.14.15, 19:0) 7 pm, i.e.20 hours after the incident. Within 45 minutes of Ynet's article we have

Nir Hasson's Haaretz article Driver in Jerusalem Car Crash Dies From Injuries; Police Suspect Stone-throwing Caused Crash 14 September 7:46 PM which reads

An Israeli man died Monday morning after sustaining critical wounds in a car crash in Jerusalem late Sunday night, which police suspect may have been caused by stone throwing. Police suspect 64-year-old Alexander Levlovitch lost control of the vehicle near the Palestinian neighborhood of Sur Baher in East Jerusalem when his car was hit by stones. The car then hit a power pole and landed in a ditch. Two passengers were lightly wounded in the crash.

The Ynet report 45 minutes earlier says much the same

Man returning from Rosh Hashanah dinner loses control of car; police investigate if crash was result of stones being thrown at car or if driver had heart attack. A man in Jerusalem was fatally wounded on Sunday night, the eve of Rosh Hashanah, when he lost control of his car after it was reportedly pelted with stones. The vehicle struck a power line and tumbled into a roadside ditch. Police said they were investigating if stones thrown at the car caused the accident. Jerusalem police said the passengers were returning from a Rosh Hashanah holiday dinner when they drove on a route on which Arabs were throwing stones. However, questioning of the other passengers suggested that the driver had convulsed before losing control of the car, and police decided to continue investigating the cause of the accident.

Note that however, which grammatically challenges the innuendo in the police's correlation of a possible link between stone-throwing and the accident. The 'however' cites the passengers' testimonies in the immediate aftermath of the crash, where they do not testify to rocks, but to convulsions. All later reports in newspaper drawing on this elementary data of course 'make a narrative' based on journalistic spin to reflect the political narrative, which in the immediate aftermath, despite police wariness, classified this as an ascertained stone-throwing episode.

A gag order was imposed on police investigations, so what had been collected in those 20 hours is what we have in these two articles from the two Israeli mainstream newspapers with the best reputation for 'balanced 'reportage.

The article is named 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing, which means that the article assumes what both the lead and the first main paragraph deny, since, after pressure from other editors, has now been altered to admit that sources state we are dealing with a suspicion, not a certainty. I don't know how E.M. Gregory manages to reconcile his title, which asserts as a fact just one of the hypotheses in the article, but one things is obvious even to blind Freddy and his dog. Until we have evidence or an official conclusion that this death was caused by rock throwing, posting the article was premature, for the simple reason that a possibility remains that the man may not have died as a result of a stone-throwing episode, but a car accident. If it was a car accident, it has no place here. If it is just a suspected stone-throwing incident, it has no place yet as an article.

The regular line-up of editors supporting the article have no answer to these problems, and neither does Gregory.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Breaking news reports often get the details wrong. The Israeli government and the international and national press agree that this death/crash was caused by rocks thrown at the vehicle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'B. .'. . .In a cow's paddock. I provided evidence, and you come back with vituperation and an inconsequential assertion. Newspapers do not determine facts, ask the New York Times.

This is the page as you created it 3 days after those two articles, each written 20 hours after the incident, and each embodying what was known from enquiries before the Israeli gov placed a gag order on the investigation. As anyone can see, you totally ignored the major Israeli sources and used the New York Times’ piece for its headline, not its content, which is more nuanced:

Hadid Diaa wrote, like Nir Hasson and the Ynet journalists

A Jewish man died early Monday morning after attackers pelted the road he was driving on with rocks as he was returning home from a dinner celebrating Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, . .Luba Samri, a police spokeswoman, said the rock-throwing appeared to have caused the accident but that “nothing is 100 percent sure”. The police, with a court’s permission, said no more details about the case could be published while an investigation was continuing.

Since 14th investigations are under a gag order, meaning 'no more details' will be forthcoming until a police report is made and magistrates' decisions are taken. The official government view clashes with what the investigative police say, and is a political point of view.

Worse still, you patently knew that even the sources you harvested contradicted your selective narrative.

You quote for this statement

'Levlovich lost control of his car when it was hit by rocks thrown by Arabs while driving on Asher Viner Street in East Jerusalem, near the Palestinian neighborhood of Sur Baher'

Barak Ravid Netanyahu Calls Emergency Meeting on Stone Throwing in Jerusalem

What Ravid wrote, apart from the Asher Viner Street, was

Discussion on 'war on stone throwing and fire bombs in Jerusalem and its vicinity' follows deadly car crash which police suspect may have been caused by stone throwing. . . The statement followed a deadly car crash in Jerusalem late on Sunday night, which police suspect took place after stones were thrown at the vehicle.

You write that the international press agree on the ‘facts’. Untrue. Your article cites Jack Moore's Newsweek article, which however states 3 days later,

'Hundreds of Israelis attended the funeral on Wednesday of a man who died in a car crash suspected to have been caused when stones were thrown at his vehicle. The incident occurred on Sunday as 64-year-old Alexander Levlovitz was traveling home after celebrating the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

This means the article was constructed in defiance both of the complexities of the reports you read, and that you are on a mission to make a statement about both Palestinians and realities with this nonsense. I asked you a direct question: how do you reconcile the title, which asserts as a fact what the body of the text admits is a working hypothesis. No flaming abuse please. Answer the questions.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, you bolded so much text, that it is unclear what you want. In any case, this is material for the talkpage of that article, not for a deletion discussion. You only prove that this incident was reported in many sources. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded the numerous texts from 14-17 September that said this was a suspected rock-attack. Since sources also say it is 'suspected' not proven, you cannot retain the title '2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing'. If you do, the raison d'etre for the article collapses. That is what Gregory won't do, and what a remarkable number of editors refuse to see. Is that simple enough?Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support name change. I don't see 'by stone-throwing' at Death of Adele Biton or Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer etc'. As for the suspicions, the stones are confirmed and the rest is integral part of the story. Settleman (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani I see. No problem here, per Settleman. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman said:'the stones are confirmed,' which in English means that rocks have been baptized into the Catholic faith. That is not an argument, and no link is made to evidence that police and magistrates have determined stones caused the incident. If I sight such evidence, I will race any other editor to enter it here or in related articles. This is about policy compliance, not competing passions about who is the victim, and memorializing victimhood.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remind User:Nishdani that WP:BLUDGEON is a form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your consistent refusal to explain how you can justify even today editing in that this is an ascertained stone throwing attack, when several sources on the page saying that is a suspicion. Weaseling out of a legitimate query about a patent contradiction in an article you are responsible for by policy tags suggesting I hound you is itself s WP:AGF violation. The contradiction on the page and in your edits is there, verifiable, so answer the question.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The recent change in Israeli law regarding the punishment for stone-throwers, which was still unsure at the beginning of this discussion and has now unanimously passed in the Israeli parliament, proves the impact of this incident. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the entirely standard WP:EVENT failure. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Come back in two years and see if anyone is still talking about this, because I'm not seeing any significant discussion of this from a week later. The sources clearly indicate that the crackdown on stone-throwing was already in the works before this happened. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Today's news: "The issue took on additional urgency this month when an Israeli man, Alexander Levlovich, 64, was killed during the Rosh Hashana holiday after Palestinians hurling stones at passing cars caused him to lose control and crash into a pole." New York Times, 24 September, 2015 [40].E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, exactly what I said - no new significant coverage, and documentation of the fact that this did not precipitate a policy change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Netanyahu introduced this measure last week at a media event held at the site of the attack on Levlovich.[41] Not unusual for dramatic killing to spur lawmakers to actually pass long muted proposals, as in this case, which is why it is back in the news today, and will continue to be mentioned in the future - whatever the impact of today's new rules of engagement between Israeli security forces and rock-throwers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Although tragic, this incident is not noteworthy enough to warrant its own article. WikiMania76 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Palestinian rock throwing Breathing can fight tears (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Palestinian rock throwing. In any event, the POV title needs to be changed. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it cannot be merged because that article prohibits the addition of the death of Jews by rock-throwing except for instances that already have stand-alone articles. the editor who created that rule is, not surprisingly, voting to delete this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV title? Debresser (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up until some hours ago the title was an example of WP:CRYSTAL. Now that the police have arrested and formally charged 4 suspects, and leaked to the press the confessions at least one of them gave (the boy who threw that particular rock which caused Levlovitch's death), the title is 'vindicated', even if for a week it was a policy violation to frame it that way. Dovid, this is elementary.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, as somebody said here or on a related page: it doesn't matter if you die from the stone smashing your skull, the heart attack it gave you, or the car crash you went into because of it. In all these scenarios is would by murder by stone throwing. So I repeat, where is the POV? Debresser (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake! If you are going to comment on anything Dovid, study it for Chrissake. Some notable reports initially said the car may have crashed from either rock throwing or from a heart attack. The gag rule came in, and several newspapers then said, 'rock=heart atytack = crash'. No one knew till yesterday. The title therefore is not POV now, as it was until yesterday. Jeezus, this is kindergarten ABC stuff!Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roosh Hashanah rock attack is what the newspapers are calling it. Here is a google search on: "rosh hashanah" + rock + attack [42].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the arrests get national and international coverage [43], [44] and with the new legal measures enacted, I hope that some of the earlier editors who claimed lack of impact will rethink opinions that have proven to be unsupported. Here is today's short Washington Post/AP take on incident's impact: [45]..E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating your points does not make it any more convincing. The law was already being debated, and the proposal goes way back - since at least last November (see my first comment). There was a similar law passed in July, which increased maximum sentences. This increased the minimum sentence. Simply linking to newspaper reports on the followup (one for the crime, one for the arrests) does not make it any less WP:NOTNEWS. If you want to talk about the impact: increased penalties for rock throwing, there already exists an article. This article is purely created as a WP:MEMORIAL for a context-free discussion, without any serious discussion of the Al-Aqsa troubles, or the rock-throwing history. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it convincing, to an objective reader, is the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks to new reports we can learn that the perpetrators were arrested and admited so this is indeed a confirmed terrorist attack. As for how important this attack is? Well, in Israel's reality, pretty much every terrorist attack from both sides that kill someone has deep impact on both sides. There are also many attacks that are not too big and they don't need to have an article for them selves, most attacks this year doesn't need an article but this one is a distinct one because it had a siginificant impact on both sides. --Bolter21 19:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best merge into Palestinian stone-throwing. NOTNEWS. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure)--Staberinde (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kulwant Singh Gill

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

No Sufficient Sources KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Withdrawn by nominator .Air Marshal is a notable person KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An Air Marshal is notable under WP:MILPEOPLE #3, and clicking on the "Find sources" links above show plenty of sources available. Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE. JohnCD (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Eklund-Ward

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

Delete: notable just for being the mother of Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund? I don't think so. Notability is not inherited, which is an established Wikipedia principle. Quis separabit? 14:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep passes WP:GNG . she was a boxing promotor and coach. a subject in a movie, a number of articles and a documentary. 173.52.89.236 (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most coverage is in obituaries and all claims of notability come from being related to her sons. Notability is not inherited and coverage does not meet GNG. Being portrayed in a movie about her sons is inherited notability which is not accepted by WP. Astudent0 (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete or redirect to Dicky Eklund instead as there's not much to suggest separate notability and improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supporting character in a docu movie about her sons is the closest she comes to notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Nothing on the searches showed she meets the notability requirements on her own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to duckie ward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:E9A:510D:0:48:EBBF:E701 (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmaine Arnaiz

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

Delete: as non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 10:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found coverage on Lexis Nexus. Will add. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - numerous secondary sources attest to notability. @Quis separabit?. DO google for sourcing first before nominating something. Read WP:NEXIST. You do not determine notability by the sources used in our articles. You determine it by finding what sources can be used.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search -- the only three reliable sources I came across were ([46], [47] and [48]). The first two are in Tagalog but apparently refer, respectively, to her longing to work with her idol (Vilma Santos) and to her being thankful for donations and support for her niece's illness (Friedrichs ataxia). The last, in English, is a couple of paragraphs detailing how she replaced another actress in a film role. Quis separabit? 12:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She was notable since I was high school. The nominator is not Filipino is not ~~familia~~familiar with the Filipino media.--Jondel (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"She was notable since I was high school. The nominator is not Filipino is not familia[r] with the Filipino media" is not a valid argument or rationale and should be stricken. It is an absurd argument. Quis separabit? 12:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roselle Nava

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

Delete: as non-notable entertainer and councillor. Quis separabit? 10:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep:- sources available to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. Award winning, multi-platinum singer. To the nominator, stop trolling in Philippine-related articles. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely as I haven't even searched yet but it's imaginable sourcing is going to be Filipino. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malavika Mohanan

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

I tried to redirect this to Pattam Pole, but was reverted I'm nominating per WP:BRD. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 10:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Perfectly acceptable sources, meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (WP:INDAFD Malavika Mohanan) Subject have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which ultimately passes the WP:GNG and makes the article notable. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although this is not to say this can be improved as who knows what the article's future is but I suppose coverage for two films is acceptable for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G11. I have no true opposition to someone wanting to try to create an article that establishes notability if they can provide the sources (this was also a borderline A7 candidate), but this article was far too promotional. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winster.com

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

Not enough sourcing to meet the notability guidelines for websites. Kelly ^hi! 09:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's certainly pretty unambiguously promotional, enough to where I'd speedy it under that criteria. It also doesn't help that the paper doesn't mention the site and the CM post only mentions the site briefly. Unless I can find a ton of coverage I'm going to likely speedy delete this as a promotional article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were some sources in the article history, namely this ABC link that looks to be a rehashed press release and this post which only mentions the site briefly. There's this SF Gate story that says the site was being shut down, but that's really not even remotely enough to warrant an article. If by some chance there are sources out there, this article would need to be TNT'd first. A search in Highbeam doesn't bring up much either, as the only mentions I can find are brief passing things that would make it a trivial source at best. The article has a definite problem with promotional speak and wording that might have been somewhat OK back in 2010, but is considered inappropriate nowadays. It's not bells and whistles and sparklers in your face promotional, but there are several weasel words interspersed throughout the article. This might have been unintentional, but it's still problematic. The sentence "At Winster.com, the more that players work together, the more they win" is probably one of the best examples of this. If no one objects, I'll delete it as WP:G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go for the G11 – czar 16:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're endorsing it and no one has posted here for its inclusion, I'll go ahead and speedy this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Louis

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Signing onto a development organization says nothing towards notability. No real coverage. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article needs to be expanded, but this development organization has a international TV show which airs in over 40 countries, probably more coverage than the #2 and the #3 American wrestling companies. Louis has appeared on said TV show and even wrestled the organization's champion last month. starship.paint ~ KO 08:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've added over 10 secondary sources to the article, most of which are from WP:PW/RS or newspapers, so yes, coverage! starship.paint ~ KO 03:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PRehse and MPJ-DK: - would you like to comment on the improved state of the article? Note that more expansion is possible. starship.paint ~ KO 03:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose yes it is a stub right now but he is honorable , not just working for tlWWE.but one of the feature storylines on a NXT TakeOver as well. MPJ-US 08:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And two days after creation it is AFD'ed? Can i vote Super Oppose due to impatience? MPJ-US 08:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage. Routine sports reporting is not enough to show notability. Participating in a development organization is not competing at the highest level. Jakejr (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Jakejr. AfD isn't based on timing or someone's view of eligibility, but on notability and suitability. Searches turned up nothing to show that this individual currently meets the notability criteria. Perhaps Userfy, since this might by a case of WP:TOOSOON, but definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of routine sports reporting but that doesn't meet GNG. Applying the sports notability criteria (possibly a stretch for pro wrestling), he's not competing at the highest level. Astudent0 (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chei Mi Lane

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable person / non-notable author - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Previous AFD in 2006 closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found a few links at Books and Highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches did not turn up enough to show they meet the notability requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. She wrote a book. That's about it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, even her book on Wong probably wouldn't squeak over the line.Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doctrine of the Church of Sweden as to the Holy Ministry and the Constitution of the Church 1909

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

WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a mirror host. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete here -- If it should be anywhere, it should be in wikisource, but I am not sure even of that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Veneration of the dead. None of the !voters recommends salting. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grave worshiping

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

There is already an article present, veneration of dead, which deals extensively with practices like this. A standalone article is not required. I would like to propose a deletion and perhaps salting so that we don't have to go through this again and again. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per @FreeatlastChitchat. Quis separabit? 14:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to Veneration of the dead per nom — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but I'm not entirely vehement about the salting as there's no apparent malice and such here but protecting it may be acceptable I suppose. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. See CSD A9. — Earwig ^talk 18:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fog Lights (song)

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

This user is a part of this band and is making articles for his non-notable bands. The article in question makes no claims of credibility. JTtheOG (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete spam promotion by SPI with a COI. non notable song by non notable band. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A9: "Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist", as the band's article has now been deleted itself. Crow^Caw 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

René Saldaña, Jr.

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Asst professor whose works mostly show very low WorldCat holdings. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for now as I found nothing better than his books at Books. SwisterTwister talk
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOLAR. His highest citation count was 19. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as blatant hoax. Peridon (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

George O. Rca

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

Fails Google test, while also claiming significance. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10/G3 Already have David Sarnoff, and this name has zero mentions anywhere. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 03:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship of the iTunes Store

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

Not notable enough as an independent article. There is already enough coverd in the article about the iTunes Store itself. --Proud User (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the countries listed as doing the censoring. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on a quick look at Censorship of YouTube upon which this article was based, there is tremendous potential for quality improvement of an educational and encyclopedic nature on this topic. — Cirt (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree, I can think of very many reasons why one might need to look directly for this kind of information whether you be a publisher, artist, student, or even an avid fan. I also think that their is no better place to put this other than here as such information might exist but would not exist together in one repository. Andrdema (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely Keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Cirt makes a very compelling argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. --Rubbish computer 17:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus; no need to relist DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonethics

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

Article of limited interest and notability. I'm putting it up here at AfD as I don't think it passes WP:GNG, and appears to violate WP:PROMOTION. Article's original creator appears to be the subject. Recent edits are about new contracts... New Media Theorist (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best results I found was this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Would you care to comment? SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EMRG Media

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

unable to find reliable citations for WP:NOTABILITY and existing links are broken, no content updates since initial creation in 2008, original author contested speedy deletion on creation but has been inactive since 2009. Anyone else have better luck? - Alaynestone (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alaynestone (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Alaynestone (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable event planning company. Ref search comes up with, predictably, links to event sites. No secondary sources found in quick search.New Media Theorist (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although Books, News and Highbeam found several links, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches returned some hits, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Catherine

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

At first I wasn't convinced he actually existed but then I found these links that confirm he existed but not that this can be better notable and improved (this has existed since December 2004 when it was started by an IP). SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and reliant on a single event. I would change my vote if more information can be found to back up the claim he was the world's best lightweight kickboxer. Right now I have no idea if he meets WP:KICK, certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: he may exist but is not sufficiently notable as a martial artist for Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 14:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no significant independent coverage of him. No evidence he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough coverage found on the search engines to establish either WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. And if he were the "world's best lightweight kickboxer", wouldn't you think there would be more coverage? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 06:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ingalls

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or merge with Laura Ingalls Wilder or Little House on the Prairie -- 2nd nomination but there is simply no non-derivative notability in her own right. Sorry. Quis separabit? 01:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was an actual person, not just a character in a TV show. The article includes several reliable sources with substantial coverage of her life, satisfying WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include characterization. Although it seems to be WP:INHERENT, she passes WP:BIO and shows high significance in the novelization.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with others above. Passes WP:BIO. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

·Keep:- sources provided to attest notability.--Jondel (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep simply because this seems acceptable and older subjects such as these can be considered notable if verified and sourced. Pinging past commenters Canuckle and Clarityfiend. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That the New York Times ran a piece on the cause of her blindness pretty much ends the notability debate for me. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I ignored the !vote by J McCal, which boiled down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Nemer

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

Non-notable academic. The article is chock-full of citations, but few if any are independent sources of significant coverage that actually verify the facts at hand. Many of the citations are generic links to website front pages, rather than to any actual article about Nemer, and many are broken links. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just came across Nemer's book and I thought he deserved a space on Wikipedia, we have way less notable academics and people on this platform. Which links were broken? So I was able to find the pdfs about his news: http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerColumn.pdf

http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerATribuna2013.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerATribuna2010.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerAGazeta2013.pdf http://homes.soic.indiana.edu/dnemer/news/DavidNemerAGazeta2006.pdf

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more evidence (pdf of news articles) on the wiki page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DavidNemerATribuna2015.pdf

I also added another source: David Nemer's research was the cover and main news of the magazine SIM. http://issuu.com/revistaredesim/docs/ed70issuu

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Nemer has been to two talk shows in Brazil to talk about his research (Both links with video embedded):

Hi Lisamoore1313. I've taken a look at several of these references via google translate. Some of them only mention Nemer in passing and aren't helpful. As to the rest.... I've found it to be a useful exercise to write a new article such that every sentence has a citation that supports what is in that sentence, and only use third-party, reliable sources (as you're finding above). If you were to rewrite the article that way, it would be a lot shorter and the emphasis would probably be on what Nemer did to get the news coverage. Would you consider rewriting the article that way? You can knock that out in your "sandbox" (drop me note if you don't know what that means). Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: Hi and thanks for your help. Yes, I'd be willing to re-write the article and make it shorter. This is my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and I really thought that Nemer would be "an easy sell" for the platform. I guess he still is, but I just did not do a good job with his description. I think I will need some help with the sandbox thing... is that supposed to be a draft / sketch ? Thanks once again. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lisamoore1313: The "official" description of sandboxes is here: WP:ABOUTSAND. The shorter version is that you can have as many pages as you like in your userspace, and by convention those pages are put into the "sandbox" directory. For example, my sandbox is here: User:Lesser Cartographies/sandbox. Yours will be here: User:Lisamoore1313/sandbox. Just click on that link and start editing. It's a nice way to write and polish articles until they're ready to be moved into the main encyclopedia. (There are a few other ways as well, but this is the simplest.) Keep in mind that I am still not convinced that Nemer is "notable". If you haven't already, take a look at WP:BIO. That contains the general notability guidelines. If you can fulfill those, your subject is notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lesser Cartographies: Thanks LC! I will work on that tomorrow and I'll get back to you. Cheers!

~~ULTRA SPEEDY~~ Delete Possibly the most self-serving and nauseating article I have seen on Wikipedia, at least recently. He's a mid-level computer scientist with a new professor gig. Not notable. Page reads like a resume written for prospective parents of the bride. I removed over a dozen reference links to his own web page. The page as a whole seems to be a very coordinated 'effort'. His Google scholar citations profile has him cited eighteen times in total, with an H-index of 3. An H-Index of 3 means, well a) you are not notable for your research and do not meet WP:PROF(at least yet), and b) you are not marrying my daughter. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@New Media Theorist: I got most of the information on the wiki page from his own webpage, hence it may sound like a resume. However, if you read the news articles, his book, and watch the interviews, you will see that his page is way more than a "self-serving and nauseating article". He has done something that academics, specially new media theorists, fail to do, which is going beyond academia and making a difference in people's lives, especially those who suffer socioeconomic marginalization. You are referring to that article as if he is writing it... but it is me, you can refer directly to me! African american female writers can also contribute to wikipedia. Keep that in mind. You got rid of the Awards and Education sections, which is fine with me.. but before I wrote this article I looked at some other new media theorists' articles, and most of them have these sections. I'm not interested in your daughter by the way. I smell bias here! Lisamoore1313 (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hello Lisamoore1313! Welcome to Wikipedia. Don't take what I said about the page personally: it was about the page and not about you. I'm not sure what you mean by bias, if you have evidence, pony it up. Otherwise please go and read Wikipedia:Civility. Also you need to sign your posts with the four tildes at the end of the text. Instructions here:WP:SIGHOW. This discussion is based on consensus and arguments. Over the course of about a week, more editors will add their appraisal of his notability. Once there are enough votes (you should vote, by putting your vote in bold, as I did for mine), an administrator will look at the votes and the arguments and determine what the consensus of the discussion was. The admin will then close the AfD, and wither delete, keep or redirect the page ads appropriate. You need not argue with me as I have made my decision regarding voting, but you can always argue with the other editors who come along.

Argument-wise, I would add the argument that he does not meet WP:Author for one book with a few run-of-the-mill speaking engagements and reviews. Let's hear what others have to say. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I got rid of his awards section because it listed, and I kid you not, a $1500 scholarship and teaching assistantships. The whole section covered about five awards that were worth a total of $8600. These are standard awards that every graduate student gets. That is material for a resumé, and not a global encyclopedia. pages with a proper awards section have notable and significant awards.New Media Theorist (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but not a speedy delete after NMT's cleanups). It's too early in his career for academic notability to be likely, and his Google scholar profile shows only single-digit citations, nowhere near the impact that would be needed to be notable for highly-cited academic works. So the better shot is through our notability guidelines for authors and his recent book Favela Digital. But amid blogs and other unreliable sources, I found only one published academic review of the book [49] and in any case there are also issues with being notable only for one thing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree. I may have overreacted to the previous bloated version of the page. Changing to just plain delete, with the note that it is likely WP:TOOSOON.New Media Theorist (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: curriculum vitae (resume) -- belongs on LinkedIn, not here. Quis separabit? 11:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Don't have an !vote yet, as sources offered by Lisamoore1313 are in Portuguese and will take some time to get through. But I'm glad that New Media Theorist owned up to his/her overreaction. Using words like "the most self-serving and nauseating article I have seen" in an Afd is not a good idea, per WP:AFDEQ .and Wikipedia:Civility. Unfortunately, with so many "self serving" spam articles being foisted daily on Wikipedia, we probably all have a tendency to forget to assume good faith. WP:GF ABF99 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABF99, I hear what you are saying, which revolves around WP:BITE. That said, I was talking about the article and of course not about the editor, to whom I was very helpful if you read my reply. My overreaction was voting speeding delete instead of delete. An article with a section on tiny student awards is certainly bloated. New Media Theorist (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABF99, thanks for considering going through the references I have provided. A Tribuna and A Gazeta are the two largest newspapers in Vitória and in the state of Espírito Santo (where Nemer is from and did his research). Also, his research was the cover of Revista SIM, which is published by Record, the second largest news media conglomerate in Brazil (the largest is Globo). If you read the news articles you will see the actual impact that he, as an activist and scholar, has made there. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABF99 New Media Theorist David Eppstein here's more evidence about the impact of Nemer's research - one of the first ethnographies of technology use in Favelas: http://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=20426 Also bare in mind that Nemer's field is ICT4D and Community Informatics, which are fields that have a larger impact among practitioners than theorists Lisamoore1313 (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another Article from Rio on Watch where Nemer's work is cited: http://www.rioonwatch.org/?p=21887 Lisamoore1313 (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lisamoore1313, have a look at WP:RS as it may help you to identify the sources that are the strongest among what you have found. New Media Theorist (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New Media Theorist Thanks for pointing it out, but I believe I have provided all kinds of reliable sources. As I have mentioned, the newspapers, magazine, and other websites (like Rio On Watch) have an editorial oversight. Could you let me know which sources you don't think are reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisamoore1313 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nemer was invited to write columns in the local newspaper A Tribuna to talk about his research and technology and society, here's one of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DavidNemerColumn.pdf I have provided with reliable sources, as defined at WP:RS, to support his article: News, Newspapers, Book, Scholarly work, and although he doesn't have any work on JStor, he has his work in the ACM digital library, Taylor & Francis, and other online repositories. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just like Lisamoore1313, I’m new to Wikipedia and since I have just returned backpacking through South America, I decided to contribute to Wikipedia by adding some accurate information I came across during my visits. I edited the wiki article about Vitoria, and by browsing around I found Nemer’s article – and to my surprise there’s a debate on whether of not an article about him should be included in Wikipedia. Here’s the explanation for my surprise. I spent 5 days in the city of Vitoria, and as every student traveling on shoestring, I was constantly after cheap and free services for 5 days. One of the free services I found was free access to the Internet and computer in the Telecenters of the city. Basically the Telecenters are free computer rooms with Internet that promote digital literacy programs in order to digitally include the poor population in Vitoria – the City Government funds them. The Telecenters are mostly located in poor neighborhoods, but I was using the one in the downtown area. The people that work in the Telecenters are really nice, and I was thanking them for their services and also mentioning that the Telecenter project is a really useful idea. The lady, who works there, mentioned that the current city government had decided to cancel the project and shut down the centers, which would have left the poor population pretty much with no Internet. But because of Nemer’s engagement, research, and willingness to speak in front of the local congress, he was able to convince local politicians to vote for the maintenance of the Telecenter project. I also came across his book Favela Digital, which there’s a copy of it in every Telecenter of the city – for his book, he recruited slum residents, trained them, and included them in the book project. These slum residents took most of the photos in the book, and after the book was done, they were able to get jobs in local communication agencies. I can’t seem to find a news article about it right now, but I’m sure there is something in the news about Nemer’s speech at the local congress. From what I have read here, yes, he is a young scholar and in the beginning of his academic career, but his civic engagements show us how relevant and notable his research and profile are. I don’t mean to compare him with anyone else, but Wikipedia has articles about Swedish porn stars (who have been to only 1 movie, by the way), and really young scholars. To my understanding, Nemer is not only a young scholar, but also civic activist and book writer, who has impacted not only people’s lives but general policies in Vitoria (and also affected my life a French woman backpacking through South America) - which is enough to be considered notable. I can read Portuguese, although I don’t consider myself fluent, but the articles provided by lisamoore1313 clearly state Nemer’s notability. I highly recommend you guys to take a look at the articles and hopefully reconsider your vote. J McCal (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ABF99 since the others have voted already, my experience might help you make a decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J McCal (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with J McCal and thanks for sharing your story, although I contributed to Nemer's article I did not know some of the things you described. I believe Nemer fulfills the general notability guideline. He may be a young scholar, but he has been an activist for digital rights for quite some time. References that are present allow for enough information to be eligible for wikipedia. Verifiable objective evidence is included through the sources that are provided. The news articles, from the main newspapers in Vitoria, Brazil, show that he has been a person of public interest since 2006, thus he is just not an ephemeral person. I've been trying to address each comment here by providing more references and more proof of his notability. Nemer was also invited to do a showcase and exhibit (about his book) at the respected International Center of Photography (ICP) in New York (https://twitter.com/davidnemer/status/562601608840613888). Only renowned people like Sebastiao Salgado (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebasti%C3%A3o_Salgado) have done it. Again, the sources presented here do not leave any doubt about Nemer's notability. I'm insisting about the sources because I really had to do some research to find the PDFs for printed newspapers. Lisamoore1313 (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply David Eppstein I did some research and the LSE Reviews of Books, and from what I gathered their reviews have the same quality as the reviews published in journals. Their reviews have editorial oversight (http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/about-lserb/). Lisamoore1313 (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep under WP:GNG due to sources listed or Possible redirect to his book Favela Digital, which barely squeaks by on WP:NBOOK with the two reviews mentioned, one of them being a very small online publication. As mentioned, there is not enough significant coverage yet to make Nemen notable as an academic. J McCal brought in some interesting original research but unfortunately none of it is verifiable. ABF99 (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Definitely fails WP:ACADEMIC. WP:AUTHOR is plausible given the two solid reviews, but the only two cites google knows about to that book are self-cites. I'm not comfortable hanging notability on two reviews, so let's call this WP:TOOSOON and see where we are in a few years. (update: no objections to ABF99's suggestion of a redirect to the book.) Lesser Cartographies (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to where? There is no book article, nor should there be. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are two solid book reviews. If there was a third I think the notability of the book would be uncontroversial. If somebody wanted to make an argument that two reviews + many passing references is sufficient for an academic work, it's an argument I would listen to. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree with your assessment, but in any case it has no bearing over this article's deletion discussion. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 02:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per New Media Theorist. Clearly fails WP:PROF, as already stated. This would never have made it past AfC. There is nothing else to it. Note keep !votes by the creator and 2 other meatpuppets. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And you FoCuS , certainly fail Wikipedia:Civility Lisamoore1313 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FoCuS what is wrong with you FoCuS? Meatpuppets? Please show some respect here. This is unacceptable behavior! J McCal (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/energizerr-and-grammy-winning-rap-artist-chamillionaire-reward-fresh-hip-hop-talent-58355937.html

[2] ttp://www.swisscharts.com/album/DJ-Swissivory/Real-Dreams-272220

[3] ttp://www.mtv.com/videos/swissivory/1082383/how-we-roll-feat-papoose-c-tru-spits-nelson.jhtml

[1]

[2]

[3]