Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 May	6 May >

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VAV (Band)

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

I don't believe this boy band is notable per WP:BAND. They debuted in October 2015 and have one mini-album (EP), which was not successful. All news articles look like routine coverage of their debut and music show appearances. The article was apparently created by the band's agency, AQ Entertainment. Random86 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now, newly started and nothing else convincing to keep and improve. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the little coverage this article has gotten appears to be local and a few quick searches didn't convince me that the band meets GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 12:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 18:52, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MetaProp NYC

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

I don't think the company meets WP:GNG, or WP:CORP. I found one possibly reliable source that qualifies, here. Everything else I found is in passing or a blurb about an announcement by the company, or someone from the company talking about the company himself. Largoplazo (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, which is shown by paucity of sources. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author noted on the article's Talk page that he has added more sources to the article that may help. Largoplazo (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon, not convincing yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unanimous. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceasar Mestre

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

Fails WP:NPOL (Vice Mayor of a town of only 30,000) and WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources). Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Bishonen | talk 10:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per everyone else Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A town of 30K people isn't large enough to get its mayors over WP:NPOL just for being mayors, let alone its city councillors, deputy mayors or non-winning mayoral candidates — so even if he wins the mayoral election he's still not guaranteed to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. Plus this was the creator's first-ever contribution to Wikipedia, which is a situation that past experience has taught me to interpret as "assume conflict of interest by his own campaign staff until proven otherwise" (especially when, as is the case here, they just create the one article in isolation rather than trying to simultaneously create articles about the whole city council.) Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Boris Malagurski. The consensus is that redirecting to Malagurski is sufficient - the cinema does not have independent notability PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malagurski Cinema

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

The article is essentially a fork of Boris Malagurski, whose films are the only output of Malagurski Cinema. The article cites no independent sources, relying solely on Malagurski.com for it's claims. As far as I can see, there are no independent RS writing about the production company as such, merely occasional mentions in film festival 'listings', thus the article falls foul of WP:ORG and specifically WP:ORGDEPTH.

I Prodded the article, which was opposed here and here by User:UrbanVillager. IMO UV's arguments are contradicted by WP:INHERITORG and WP:ORGSIG: 'it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable … … No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it.'

The article should be deleted IMO as any RS 'factual' info (that his films are produced by his own production company 'Malagurski Cinema'), is easily merged into the filmaker's page. Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, per reasons I gave on Talk:Malagurski Cinema. --UrbanVillager (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing claimed or sourced here constitutes a compelling reason why the company needs a separate article from the one about Boris Malagurski as an individual. Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which every company in the world automatically gets to have its own article just because it exists — it takes reliable source coverage about the company, verifying a claim of notability that would pass WP:CORP, for it to earn one. And UrbanVillager's arguments on the talk page basically boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid keep rationale in and of itself. The company can certainly be mentioned in Boris Malagurski's main article, but nothing written or sourced here suggests a reason why he and his company would need two separate articles. Redirect to Boris Malagurski. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the best target, nothing for the needed independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boris Malagurski - nothing to indicate independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ballard

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

Non-notable postdoc in astronomy based on the WP:ACADEMIC criteria. She has written 7 first-authored papers, and, while being a solid publication rate, this is not particularly unusual for an early-career scientist. Her discovery of 4 extrasolar planets is also not sufficiently noteworthy, given that thousands of extrasolar planets have been discovered. Her postdoctoral-fellowship awards mentioned in the article, while nice on her CV, are not particularly important information to include in Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OtterAM (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good GS citation record in very highly cited field. Large author lists of papers make it difficult to assess extent of independent achievement. Off to a good start but as yet WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Looks like she's on track for eventually passing WP:PROF but WP:TOOSOON to be there yet (by citation counts or any other of the WP:PROF criteria). Note that the kind of named postdoctorate that she has is very different from the kind of named full professorship that WP:PROF#C5 would count as notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With very few exceptions, post-docs are WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
~~Delete~~, per above. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought this AfD would be a snow, but it has been suggested that coverage in local media and mention of the work in a space.com source equate to notability under GNG. I wish to challenge this, because GNG requires reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Certainly, local media can be used to confirm the existence of the work, and the existence of the subject. But they are not useful for ascertaining the notability of the scientist or her work, in terms of long-standing encyclopedic impact. News media often fails to be a reliable secondary source on matters like these. In many cases, it is based purely on interviews with the subject. So it clearly and directly fails the independence requirement of WP:GNG. Also, it fails WP:PSTS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thor Dockweiler, under WP:GNG rather than WP:ACADEMIC. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ACADEMIC states that it is "an alternative" to WP:GNG and independent of it. So a subject is notable if it meets either criterion. As Ballard has been shown to be the subject of substantial independent coverage at space.com, KIRO Radio, Public Radio International, CSNE and elsewhere, she passes the GNG notability test. Each delete argument above only considers the criteria of ACADEMIC and is therefore invalid and the article should be kept.

As a separate statement I find the willingness of the delete !voters to take this ill-considered action in the face of well-known systemic bias issues regarding Wikipedia coverage, in this case women scientists, to be dismaying. The article happens to have been created by me at a University of Washington/Cascadia Wikimedians sponsored event specifically set up to increase Wikipedia's coverage of women in the sciences. If only discovering a planet had the same automatic-notability feature as playing in one professional baseball game. - Brianhe (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As one who has first-hand experience with sexism (having been passed-over in a job application because of it), I can assure you that I am very well in tune with the effect of which you speak...So, you can rightly assume some resentment on my part for a comment such as yours. My observations agree pretty-well with Bialy's: the WP push to create a politically-correct "balance" of the sexes has resulted in a spate of substandard articles on women who do not meet long-established notability guidelines. For example, the ill-fated Art+Feminism Regina Meetup on obscure female artists from that region a few months ago was a disaster! Some of the articles have been deleted, but many have resisted deletion, basically because of special pleading. If this dynamic continues (as it is likewise for other groups – this is basically a larger issue of boosterism), WP will eventually be reduced to an inclusive list of all people. Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Slippery slope much? FUD that in the future "Wikipedia will devolve into _______" is not an argument. Editors are always shouting that the future of Wikipedia is at stake if they don't get their way. Thousands of bad decisions have not brought Wikipedia crashing down, and this one (one way or the other) will not either. Whether or not a meetup created biographies that fail notability is not a reason to keep or delete this article. Labeling something "politically correct" is meaningless, since nobody agrees what is or isn't politically correct; it's just a redundant way of saying "I don't like it." Red herrings, all. It is not a red herring to remind editors that systemic bias is a real thing that exists, and therefore we should all should exercise due care before making drive-by !votes. Bias or not, nobody should cite WP:ACADEMIC, or any other all-caps shortcut, if they obviously haven't actually read it. It does not say what most of these guys think it says. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would surely help the cause if the countering systemic bias folks could more reliably write articles that meet our notability guidelines. So far, I have not been impressed. All of the deletion discussions here that have arisen from the putsch over the last few month have involved lots of special pleading. If BLP articles written about women should be held to a lower standard than those of men, then I think the appropriate place to suggest that is at a policy page, not introduced by stealth into individual AfDs (I am paraphrasing Xxanthippe). Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"All involved special pleading" is quite a claim. Are you including this deletion debate in that? Because WP:GNG, which I have pinned notability on in this case, starts with the word "general", the very opposite of "special". - Brianhe (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sentence: "As a separate statement I find the willingness of the delete !voters to take this ill-considered action in the face of well-known systemic bias issues regarding Wikipedia coverage, in this case women scientists, to be dismaying" is special pleading. It is asking that criteria should be applied asymmetrically in the light of the fact that the subject is a woman rather than a man. If this had been an article about a male scientist, most likely it would close as a SNOW delete. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The nominator's argument that discovery of several X is unimportant if counting all X is large, is bizarre and untenable. It's like saying Albert Hofmann is unimportant because he only discovered one of many psychoactive compounds, or Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran is unimportant because there are so many known pathogens. To reduce it to numbers it would be more reasonable to ask how many discoverers of X exist. Or more to the point in this case, how many have introduced a new method of discovering X (transit-timing variation)? The special pleading here seems to be coming from the side downplaying a scientific discovery. - Brianhe (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good examples! Those people are notable because the discoveries that they made were of a lasting, substantial scientific and cultural impact, as evidenced by discussion in scholarly sources of the highest quality. For example, Hoffman was the subject of an entire book. Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran won the Nobel Prize for his discovery. If the suggestion here is that the subject under discussion made, not just one, but four scientific discoveries of equivalent lasting scientific scientific import, then it should be a trivial matter to find high quality scholastic sources attesting this individual's impact. If such sources are presented, I will happily change my vote. However, if you are suggesting as you appear that every minor scientific discovery made by a post-doctoral researcher should be elevated to the level of a Nobel Prize on the basis of the gender of the researcher, I hope you appreciate why I see this as problematic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find your stance problematic as it is a case of moving the goal-posts. If a scientist is notable for discovering a new compound, then another scientist should be notable for discovering a new way to find exoplanets. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who invited a comparison to Nobel Prize winners, but you are for some reason perpetuating it. Charles Louis Alphonse Laveran was the winner of the Nobel Prize in 1907, the subject of a centennial article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine as well as entire chapters in books on the history of medicine. There are reliable secondary sources of the highest quality attesting Laveran's notability. Are there reliable secondary sources concerning Sarah Ballard's work? If, as you attest, the discovery of the exoplanet is as significant as the Nobel Prize work, it should be a trivial matter to find such sources. WP:ITEXISTS is not the same as notability. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my sources below. It was very easy to find them. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you found are in no way comparable to a centennial article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, book chapters, and a Nobel Prize. Quite apart from the obvious difference in quality of the sources, the latter are independent of the subject. In the sources you have found, the subject is quoted, but there is no independent assessment of the subject's individual impact on the field. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 08:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My understanding is that WP:PROF is more relevant than WP:GNG because Sarah Ballard is not a figure with "significant coverage" as required for GNG. As the expression goes, everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, which seems to have generated a few brief mentions of Sarah Ballard on some news stations and blogs. (This is not atypical for postdocs, since public outreach is often a requirement for positions like Carl Sagan postdoctoral fellowships.) However, none of these mentions suggests that she is generally well known. Instead, she seems to be a typical postdoc, making good, incremental scientific progress in an interesting field. Although I didn't specifically mention it in the nomination above, I agree with the others that WP:TOOSOON applies in this case. OtterAM (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @OtterAM: Just remember "15-minutes of fame" is still notability as notability is not temporary nor does it degrade over time (see WP:NTEMP and WP:DEGRADE). Davidbuddy9 Talk 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "15 minutes of fame" I mean the idea that almost everyone (in the US at least) finds themselves in the news at least once in their lives. But, being mentioned by a newspaper/website does not necessarily imply notability. OtterAM (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her most highly cited paper has roughly 80 authors, the second around 100 (you do the counting) so it is not clear if her contribution to it stood out from the rest. Time will tell. That is why I cited WP:Too soon. For a seriously notable woman astronomer take a look at Virginia Trimble. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: It might be useful to note that per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (people subsection) that articles on academics below the level of professor (like the subject of the WP article) are generally not kept, while even articles on professors are kept or deleted in roughly equal numbers. OtterAM (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discovered Kepler 61b, a billion year + planet about twice the diameter of Earth that is considered a good candidate for the detection of extra-terrestrial life. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

She did not discover it single-handedly. There were 79 other authors on the paper. Are they all notable too, or not? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The other authors must not have been notable or we would have media coverage. The coverage is solely about Ballard, which indicates her notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even our own article on Kepler 61b says "The planet was discovered by the Kepler team". WoS shows that the highly-cited papers on which Ballard is an author have fairly large author lists (>50). These kinds of "big science" projects make it difficult to assign credit and the "keeps" are erroneously assigning the credit to one person. I'll say again that post-docs (which Ballard is) are almost always WP:TOOSOON. It is very typical for a post-doc to be a first author on a group paper, but one has to remember that that person is working under the supervision of a senior scientist, project leader, or professor. Ballard very likely will be notable in the future, but an article will have to wait until she has accomplishments that can more clearly be attributed to her own work/leadership/research. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

We can't use Wikipedia as a source in these arguments. The editors writing about Kepler 61b may have made an error. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep She is clearly the important person in the discovery of the exoplanet. If she wasn't, her name would not keep coming up. Nature [1] lists her name, not the others. She is the lead author of the publication (the others must not be notable, or they would be mentioned by name in the news.) Again, Ballard is mentioned (not any other scientists) in different articles about astronomy and exoplanets here: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Source says she discovered 4 planets: [7]. Entire article about her and her planet-finding method: [8]. All of this coverage shows her passing GNG easily and not just by "local" sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is the lead author on only one of the five science articles on the discovery. Proof is needed that lead authorship on one paper with >50 authors is significant. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Again, my proof that she is significant is that she is the only one being talked about in the media. If the others were significant, media would cover them as well. Can you explain why the media is not covering the others? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires independent, reliable, secondary sources. "The media" is not a source. The source is interviews with the subject herself; thus primary, not secondary, and not independent. An independent would be an official statement by a scientific body, an award, or even a secondary source in the scientific literature discussing the significance of Ballard's contribution. These secondary sources of course can be repeated in "the media". Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you examples in my Keep argument which include an article from Nature, several news sources and others. (Some sources require a subscription, but you should be able to read the abstract.) Newspapers are reliable sources as are journals. Please see notability guidelines. These guidelines do not say anything about official statements by scientific bodies for a secondardy source to be considered reliable and independent. And by definition, "the media" (if we define it as newspapers, radio, journals and magazines) are a secondary source which would, by definition, report on the information they have been given by the primary sources. My sources pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing what I would consider to be a reliable, independent, secondary source indicating notability. Even something small, like an interview with an independent scientific authority attesting the significance of Ballard's contribution to this work. Independence is the key requirement. Just because her name was mentioned in a press release, or she is quoted in the article does not mean she is notable. For example, it is very possible that she is the press liaison for this project? So, if you have a quotation that you feel would help to support your case in a substantive way, please post it. But argumentum ad googlium seems a rather poor basis for a nuanced discussion about notability. Also, I cannot view your links to assess them. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing from Google. I carefully selected sources to present. If you don't have database access like I do, you can still see the source and abstract. You are dabbling in original research when you say we don't know why Ballard is named and in speculation that she is the press liaison. It is more correct to say she is in the press because she was the study's lead. Not all of my sources are behind subscriptions either. Also, I'm pretty sure Nature is reliable, independent and science-backed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature link is broken for me, and seems like a search engine. That's not what we call a reliable source. A reliable source is something that we can reference to make some specific statement, with specific attribution. For example: "According to Professor X of the Royal Astronomical Society, Ballard's has made significant contributions to the study of exoplanets through the introduction of transit timing variations." That is what is missing here. An independent assessment that Ballard personally made significant contributions to this area, and that it is noteworthy enough to have an encyclopedia article about it. Another example is the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryna Viazovska. Note that there, I had initially voted to delete, until someone quoted Peter Sarnak's independent assessment of the subject's work. That is what a secondary source is: it is a reliable authority making an evaluative claim about the primary source, which is Ballard's work in this area. News media are reliable on Wikipedia typically as primary sources: they can repeat what others say in an area, they can be used to verify facts, in this case the existence of a person called Sarah Ballard, her work, etc. But they cannot generally be used in this way as secondary sources for making evaluative claims, particularly in the sciences, such as notability of the subject of this BLP. Indeed, what I and others have seen does not sufficiently distinguish Ballard from the other members of the research group, in a way that is directly supported by secondary research in the area.

I find it very telling that you are as yet unable to find a quotation that clearly and directly supports your contention that the subject is notable. That suggests that the subject does not pass GNG. I think it should be easy enough to find such an independent assessment if the subject is notable under that guideline. After all WP:PROF is actually supposed to be a weaker guideline for academics than GNG. It is extremely unusual that an academic will meet GNG but not PROF. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First of all, EBSCO is not a search engine: it's a database which indexes newspapers and journals. The link is to an abstract for the article to Nature. If you have database access, like I do, you may read the article. In the article, only Ballard is referenced by name--no one else. One quote is: "Sarah Ballard at the University of Washington in Seattle and her colleagues estimated the planet's diameter at about 18,8000 km..." I understand what a secondary source is, thank you: you are indicating that not all secondary sources are independent or reliable. Each must be evaluated on its own merits. I agree. In this example, Nature is a secondary source talking about Ballard's work on the exoplanet. The paper at Astrophysics is the primary source. Nature is one of the most cited scientific journals in the world. Ballard is not the press liaison. She is clearly listed as the lead in the study: [9], [10], [11]. She is the one who discusses the possible find here before it was confirmed: [12] And anyone can meet GNG and not something else. It's way easier to show GNG. She passes GNG already clearly. However many people here are trying to argue something else. I can only try to describe the argument being made as something like this: Ballard is only "part of a team" and therefore not able to pass GNG. This argument is problematic since it is Ballard that is mentioned in all of the articles: not anyone else on the team. She has significant coverage--enough to pass GNG as I have shown with my finds and with what is inside of the article already. I find it a problem that I have backed up all of my claims, but all those !voting delete have to show are negative arguments trying to move goal posts. If you feel you need database access, you can request it like I did from the Wiki Library. I am also going to ping @Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, and Sadads: since they are very familiar with PROF and can do justice to that part of the argument. My position is that she meets GNG and no other standard needs to be met here. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fixing my broken ping: @Dr. Blofeld, Ipigott, and Sadads:

Notability of one scientist on a team of a hundred or so is not inherited. In my estimation, and that of others here, identification of Ballard's team of researchers by name does not confer notability onto the subject. Her individual contribution must be assessed by a secondary source, and cannot be inferred from quotations such as the one you provided. Furthermore, I motion that all inaccessible deep links to databases be discarded from consideration, unless they can be properly formatted as proper references, or quotations given to secondary sources giving an independent assessment of Ballard's contributions to these studies. I am not even convinced that the alleged Nature article that you have presented as a secondary source even exists.Sławomir
Biały 15:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me as if you are accusing me of bad faith, Slawekb. I do not appreciate that. I have been civil in this discussion. I do not agree with you, but I don't need to fabricate an article. Please strike your comments above. That's a serious allegation: to accuse another editor of faking an article. We also do not discard sources just because an editor does not have access to databases. Please read WP:PAYWALL. If you want access, you can get it like I did through the Wiki library. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a red herring. I am assuming good faith on your part, but if you don't know how to format references in a way that others can look them up and verify their contents, and you can't be bothered to supply direct, attributed statement to independent reliable secondary sources, then there's really nothing to discuss. This is just WP:VAGUEWAVE hiding behind a paywall. I've asked you for references to imdependent seconday spurces on several occassions, as well as their specific attestation of notability. But nothing has been forthcoming. This is a standard trick on Wikipedia: lose an argument, accuse the other party of assuming bad faith. I would admonish you to focus on the matter at hand as I have repeatedly requested. If you feel there is anything actionable in the above post, you can either raise it at WP:ANI, but it seems like it should be simpler just to prove me wrong. There's no need to take it personally, but if you actually have nothing to say, then I think we should consider the matter closed, rather than engage in petty sniping as above. Sławomir
Biały 17:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a red herring. It's offensive to accuse editors of fabricating sources and I am not the one who took the conversation in such a direction. I can't just "give" you access to database articles: there are copyvio restrictions. I gave you a link to the relevant article. I gave you a quote showing she is the media-covered person in the study. Just because you are not satisfied with what I have given you, does not give you the right to accuse me of fabricating something. Please strike your accusation. It is in bad faith and does not help this discussion or your argument. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No accusation of bad faith. Just a reasonable request for citations, and the facts that those citations support. Sławomir
Biały 18:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about presuming notability from media coverage. One of the arguments advanced earlier is that if the media fails to cover the co-authors on a paper, their contributions must have been non-notable. However, as a general matter, I don't think that the mass media is capable of making a reliable determination as to the relative contributions of each co-author to a complex, highly collaborative research project. Just this week, I read a press release by a major university which really trumped up the role of one of its graduate students in a recent research paper -- without even acknowledging that someone unaffiliated with the school was the lead author. Moreover, in observational astronomical research, some co-authors might contribute crucial observational data, offer insightful interpretations of data, or write parts of the final paper. The fact that observational astronomy is a collaborative endeavor doesn't diminish the achievements of the lead author, but it does make it somewhat unrealistic to assign one person the sole credit for the outcome of a research collaboration. To the extent that the contributions of Dr. Ballard's co-authors are relevant here, they shouldn't be assumed to be trivial simply because of the lack of media coverage. Put another way, Dr. Ballard has been a co-author on several papers, and her contributions to those works should not be presumed negligible simply because the media might not have paid attention to them. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you're are asking for Wiki editors to do is original research. If the person involved in the study, who is also the lead, is in the media they are the notable person involved. Your example above may show a mistake that has happened with one person, but Ballard is different in that she is not only the person the media covered after the exoplanet Kepler was discovered, but she has also been in the media before the discovery. Unless we are assuming multiple mistaken press releases (unlikely), then it's pretty clear we are dealing with a person who is notable on the project, more so than the others. No press coverage usually indicates no notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I wouldn't want editors to engage in original research; my point is simply that media coverage is not a reliable method of assessing someone's contribution to a research project, and we should avoid trying to draw inferences along those lines. However, I think that this is a bit of a tangent, given the GNG argument. I finally decided to vote keep on GNG grounds (below). Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I understand the point you're making now, Astro4686. Thanks for clearing it up for me and replying. I think since there were two different arguments going on at the same time, it muddied things a bit, and I misunderstood you. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"No press coverage usually indicates no notability." Often this is not true for academics, see WP:PROF. The flip side of this is that being quoted in the media also does not make one notable. Notability requires reliable secondary sources. Examples of reliable secondary sources can be found at WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:PSTS. Sławomir
Biały 17:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rich and Megalibrarygirl. Meets GNG. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft at best - The best parts here are the exoplanets findings, the article is still questionable overall at best. SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to regrettably observe that this article is another case in which boosters (in this case for articles on women) are misdirecting the discussion. For those who do not know or who are willfully looking past the way in which the dynamics of "big science projects" work...this case is entirely typical: a post-doc is lead author on a paper that represents a team effort of dozens (sometimes hundreds) of people, all of whose names are on the paper, and an excited but not terribly informed media contact the first author for talking points. The philosophical error of some of the above arguments, which basically amount to "there are sources, so GNG!", is that PROF was developed because a very large fraction of academics would otherwise qualify exactly in this way. (One might view this from the perspective of statistics in that academics, as a cohort, are not a random sampling of the population. Rather, they are highly biased toward notability....hence the need for PROF.) So, we judge academics (which Ballard is) against a different standard. However, in Ballard's case there's more because of the "big science" aspect ... the media could have contacted anyone else, for example the senior author, or her supervisor David Charbonneau (the 2nd author). The internal decision-making process on author order is a major issue within academia (why was Charbonneau not the first author?), but usually a good supervisor will put a grad student or postdoc first because they know how the dynamics of publicity work. Consequently, it's extremely disingenuous to make the claim (as some panelists do above), that these are Ballard's discoveries and that is why there are sources and these sources are why she is notable. It comes down to something that has been observed numerous times before: it is close to impossible to separate out a grad student or post-doc's contributions from her advisor's/lab's/research team's because mere appearances from author list (and it's accumulated benefits) can be deceiving – that is why WP:TOOSOON (in the absence of conclusive demonstration of notability) is the judicious interpretation of all such cases. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I concur with Agricola44's description of the nature of modern scientific collaboration and how it complicates efforts to award credit for a research group's achievements. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Could have" chosen the supervisor isn't an argument. The facts are it is Ballard who is talked about in the majority of the articles. Yes, it is hard to separate and find who did what on a project... such an endeavor, however, would be "original research." We already have RS that show that Ballard is notable in this project. We do not need to do original research in order to make sure journalists haven't already done their due diligence in this process. There is no need for PROF here. And this has nothing to do with her "being a woman." I personally devote my time to women's articles, but I would argue that if Ballard was male, the same GNG bar has been passed. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need more articles like this one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Why not just add to the article folks? Interesting responses, some stretching though on both sides (especially the deletionists who just can't stand not having the last word). I have changed the lede (still keeping the original one below it for the moment during discussion). Ballard qualifies alone as any 1 of the 3 Fellows. Sagan and especially L'Oreal stand out. She qualifies again independently because of TTV. She qualifies for having discovered 4 planets. She qualifies further with the Marcy situation. The Marcy case is the strongest of the 6 and is GNG. In light of Marcy, I trust this AfD was not exercised as payback. I am tired right now -- we astrobats need rest in daylight -- and will return in about 9 hours to fill in referencing, etc. The article is now definitely keepable. Brianhe is to be commended for selecting this appropriate biography article. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She more than meets GNG in her case showing bias in the workplace: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Add to that multiple sources showing she has been discussed as the lead researcher on a variety of projects, in multiple RS [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. SusunW (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, those that are making the argument that Prof or any other "career" standard is the bar, fail to understand that the reason GNG is the standard and that all other standards are secondary is that people are not one-dimensional. A person doesn't have to set the bar individually in multiple categories to be notable. SusunW (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per SusunW, Thor Dockweiler and others above, clearly passes WP:GNG. Davidbuddy9 Talk 20:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note 1 in WP:ACADEMIC emphasizes that WP:ACADEMIC, like all subject-specific notability guidelines, is not a substitute for GNG notability. My interpretation of policy is that academics aren't held to a higher standard of notability; rather, WP:ACADEMIC is there for academics who are notable in spite of their failure to satisfy GNG. As others have pointed out, Dr. Ballard has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the attention that she's received as a voice against harassment in astronomy seals the deal for me. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to point out that keeping articles like this is very unusual for Wikipedia. Most people are not considered noteworthy until they do something significantly new and path-breaking or are widely known. Sarah Ballard neither leads the Kepler mission, nor invented the methods she used to find the planets, nor found a considerable number of planets (compared to the many other people who have found planets). Instead, she is a member of the Kepler team with access to the data, applied methods developed by others (the transit timing method invented by David Charbonneau), and discovered several planets in the super-Earth, sub-Neptune range (incrementally expanding the population of known planets for statistical analysis). We need more people doing good incremental work like her, but there are already many research assistants at universities like her doing similar work. Articles like this make Wikipedia more resemble a resume service, like Linkedin, and less resemble an encyclopedia. OtterAM (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From usertalk:Thor Dockweiler: Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Deplorable

I strongly deplore your suggestion that the Ballard AfD was related to Marcy, who is not even mentioned in the article. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. In the last few days I've seen a number of academics deleted from wikipedia, including some with long track records in their fields and discoveries to their name. (But, not quite enough for them to be considered notable.) In my view, WP should not be turned into the next linked in. OtterAM (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I have absolutely no idea how you would not know how Ballard was not notable to begin with. By how you worded the AfD nomination I know you had the skill to determine quickly that the article could be kept. You took the route of technicality. Please note that I did very little to the lede to make it sufficiently notable. Could you not have done something similar, or contacted someone who might be able to so? Nothing changed in this AfD until I put in Marcy. I think you were capable of doing the same and had the ability to know this before AfD'ing. So, frankly, I do not know what to believe with all the stuff I have seen in Wikipedia. I assume good faith, but I have certainly seen good faith used as a crutch to hide behind against perfectly decent editors who were just trying. In these cases it causes me to question because it may be a definite possibility (but not necessarily true). You point out that several academics recently have been deleted. I again have to question. Did you do something positive to save any of them? Or did you AfD them? I have no way of knowing unless I really start checking. Look at the people's time, not to mention your own, that was eaten up by this AfD and the frustration you caused them. Impressive. I can truly say I think you angered some of the female editors. Why? My impression, which may not be in fact, is like someone who steps on an anthill and watches the ensuing havoc, perhaps with delight. Maybe you may have a liking for astronomy. Fantastic. I think I have seen your username recently on something. Good if you are positively contributing. I can think of several W items in astronomy that would be nice to have, or even RCW's. There are thousands of NGC items that are needed. Wikipedia needs lots of filling of its knowledge holes. I look forward to your positive contributions. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)"[reply]

This is Wikipedia:Libel pure and simple. I might note that User talk:Thor Dockweiler has recently been accused of disruption for violation of the 3-reverts rule on a completely different article and was also criticized recently by another user (again on a different article) for not assuming Wikipedia:Assume_Good_Faith. I strongly suggest that Thor take back his previous comment. OtterAM (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, I thought we were done with everything. You did delete the entry, which I reverted once; I just want the record to reflect the exchange. You make it sound like I am a bad dude. In all of my active years on Wikipedia since 2008 I have had only 1 situation. I spent one full year (all of 2015) doing pre-work and then contributing from June into late December to a small randomly selected stub article on an archeological site in Ancient Egypt. Then someone did vandalism slow style over the holidays trying to Nazify a person therein and promote the sale of their book. I reverted the vandalism and defended the victim. The other person lost. I was given a warning for the proper reverting. Warnings or sanctions are given to all parties regardless of whether it is proper or just. I have spent over 9,000 hours of my time on WP. I should not feel this way, but I am proud I defended that person. If I have to go down defending a woman astronomer on WP, so be it. By the way, I am a male. People can always go to my talk page to explore the truth (a waste of your time in my case). Any relation to Ten Pound Hammer and his various otters on WP? I can always leave and never come back. My opinions are my own. My response is no to you. Rather, I am "taken aback". I bet a college class on AfD would be downright fascinating. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Brianhe and User:Astro4686. It meets GNG as there is quite a bit of reliable coverage on a variety of topics. I assume the closing admin will note that 'delete' !votes citing only WP:ACADEMIC without mentioning GNG are incomplete. Being an academic does not imply one has to meet WP:ACADEMIC in order to be notable, as others have mentioned. Meeting GNG suffices. Gap9551 (talk) 00:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As referred to above many times, I think that the coverage of her as a person makes her notable on those general grounds. The discussion about the exact nature of her academic qualifications and her role in collaborative enterprises is interesting, but that's its own matter. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Consensus seems to be that the subject does not pass WP:Prof, despite the finding that she is the Principal Investigator of the project.[22] This term seems to have been translated by journalists into "leader", but Principal Investigator is essentially an administrative position having responsibility for dealing with grant donors, telescope administrators, report writing, publicity etc. There is nothing to preclude a Principal Investigator from being an intellectual leader of a project but nothing to require it either. GNG is difficult to establish because there is not any in-depth independent source, just interviews with the subject giving her own words-in other words primary sources The sexual harassment matter is a WP:BLP1E. I am sorry to see so many editors barrel-scraping a sub-marginal BLP when there issues involving really notable women calling for attention. Xxanthippe (talk).

Comment. I don't know how many of the "keep" eds here are familiar with academic procedure, but I gather it's not too many. Post-docs work under the supervision of an advisor. It is just as correct, if not more, to say that these are Charbonneau's discoveries – he's been detecting exoplanets for more than 20 years. In the low-awareness media world, Ballard was the beneficiary of author order and we are indeed doing WP:OR by reading sole credit for discovery into that (as many have done). This article, which seems certain to be kept, is another step in the listification of WP. We might as well start adding all postdocs that have said a few words in the media. Agricola44 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

To clarify, many postdocs, especially those working on a fellowship, do independent work. This typically happens in collaboration with their 'supervisor', the person who hosts or hired them, as well as with others. That is the point of being a postdoc, becoming an independent academic. It's true that some are more like assistants with little original input, but that has to be judged in each case individually. Gap9551 (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ballard does not need to pass WP:PROF. She only needs to pass GNG, which she does based on all of the reliable sources which have been presented here and in the article. These include the Macy incident (which would only be WP:BLP1E if that was all the article was about), her contribution to the Mauna Kea Observatory controversy and her lead in the discovery of exoplanets. Since Ballard is the one mentioned as lead and in all the articles about the exoplanets (see my comments above about that), it is in fact WP:OR for any Wiki editor to try to guess who "really" deserves the attention. The argument that Wikipedia will be somehow degraded by including a person who has been noted in the media over time with significant coverage is a strange one. If editors here are worried about "listification," I might suggest that they look to rules about inclusion of sports figures on Wiki instead of of trying to delete an article that clearly passes GNG. And as always, if any editors here are concerned about writing notable women's bios, I suggest they do so. I have noticed that Agricola44 has added to women's redlists on WikiProject Women Scientists, so I have to thank you for that. I hope he continues to help out and hope you all add some useful content here so we can build together. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: "it is in fact WP:OR for any Wiki editor to try to guess who 'really' deserves the attention" and yet that is precisely what the ignorant media has done and you have taken it up as your basis of argument. Given that Ballard is the beneficiary of author list position, why should the other people on those papers not have WP articles, as well? Is that fair? Re: "I hope he continues" – thanks for the sexist assumption – I'm saddened that such attitudes still exist here – sitting out the rest of this discussion. Best. Agricola44 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry I assumed you were male: I thought I'd seen that you were a male Wikpedian. I was excited to have you onboard contributing to the redlist. I should never assume and I deserve a trout for that, Agricola44. I disagree with you here but I'm not trying to be a jerk or make anything personal. I'm sorry. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Dr. Tony Phillips of NASA states: "A team led by Sarah Ballard..." Phillips, Tony (August 18, 2014). "Exoplanet Measured with Remarkable Precision". Science Springs. NASA Science. Caltech's funding application for use of the Spitzer Telescope identifies Ballard as "principal investigator" "Spitzer Space Telescope - Directors Discretionary Time Proposal #541". Spitzer Science Center. Retrieved 16 May 2016. You can argue about whether that's citable or not under Wiki guidelines, but it certainly seems to answer the question of who lead the team. Multiple papers list her as the first author. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Sarah Ballard has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources.

This is a very easy decision. The fact that we are even wasting our time on this suggests some editors have a bone to pick about something else, perhaps feeling threatened by the efforts of a few to correct Wikipedia's gender imbalance? WP:Notability says right at the top that we will keep an article if "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Anything that meets GNG has no need to pass WP:ACADEMIC or any other subject-specific guideline. It would be like trying to delete Hedy Lamarr because her scientific discoveries aren't significant enough to pass WP:SCHOLAR. A subject can be notable for any number of reasons, and the subject-specific guidelines only supply additional paths to notability. They in no way preclude notability for other reasons because a subject happens to fall under one of them.

The large number of editors who glance at the article and post a 'delete' !vote, sloppily citing WP:ACADEMIC on their way out the door, are behaving irresponsibly in a way that borders on disruptive editing. Must we take so much of our time away from building an encyclopedia in order to shout in their ears the words they should have read and understood before taking advantage of convenience of shortcuts like WP:ACADEMIC: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." There is burden expected to read WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BLP1E or whatever all-caps shortcut, before you dash off a quick "delete per WP:BLAH !vote". As that crass reality-TV creep running for President would tweet, Lazy!

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be rude to editors who you disagree with. I direct your attention to a really important matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If you're going to be a civility scold, please do not overlook the rudeness of those you agree with. Why have you continued to beat this WP:PROF dead horse even after several editors painstakingly spelled out for you that both WP:Notability and WP:PROF explicitly, unmistakably, say that academic guidelines are only one path to notability, and failing those criteria does not preclude notability by other criteria, most importantly, GNG. They say that because this is a core principle of notability, with uncontested consensus by an overwhelming number of editors. We're not going to delete Michael Jordan because as professional motorcycle racer he never achieved anything of note, and so fails WP:ATHLETE. People only have to pass one of the notability hurdles, not all of them, and especially not one particular hurdle chosen by a particular group of editors. After being told this, having it pointed out to you, carefully quoted for you multiple times, you guys are instead condescendingly sniffing that those !voting keep 'just aren't too familiar with academic publishing'. That's not rude? Please.

Instead of scolding, you need to spend your time trying to better understand the fundamental notability rules. This is an absurd waste of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article has been edited extensively (dif) since it was nominated. Keep, for her role as PI on the project, her role as spokesperson, and for her role in talking about sexual harassment in science, all discussed extensively in reliable sources. Passes GNG by a mile. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hatted a bunch of this. See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My personal impression is that this just manages to pass GNG (although not as comfortably as a movie star would). But this is a problem with people in science who get noticeably less press attention. To be honest here, I knew Sarah Ballard only as the person who publicly complained about Marcy's sexual harassment. I was frankly not aware of her contributions to discovering exoplanets (but that is due to my non-interest in astronomy I guess). If I include the Marcy case and her contributions, I think she passes GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's clear that this article will be kept. Though I disagree, I would like only to illustrate here the shoddiness that inevitably results: the article is mostly supported by blogs (with trivial mention), YouTube videos, Ballard's own CV and personal website, Arxiv manuscripts, institutional PR, and various other webcruft. Most of the 2 dozen source are like this and I'm saddened if this is what all of you take as acceptable WP:RS. The Guardian piece is obviously RS, though it only has a trivial mention of Ballard in the context of the Marcy incident. The boston.com source is somewhat better, but that again is Marcy-related. I would urge the "keeps" to find proper sourcing, because the article, as it now stands, does not satisfy requirements of BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Currently the article has 441 words of readable prose, barely more than a stub. The minimum standards for general notability has been met; whether on top of that there are many other sources cited which don't contribute to notability, but which are useful for other citation purposes, is irrelevant. Questionable sources, self-published, press releases, etc. are sometimes acceptable depending on what kinds of facts they're supporting: generally they're OK for background information, undisputed claims, and non-extraordinary claims. That's a matter for discussion elsewhere, perhaps if or when this article reaches a significant size and is a Good Article candidate. Keeping or deleting the article is a question of whether the minimum number of sources are present, not whether a new stub article, barely 6 months old, is shoddy. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress has some excellent commentary on how articles grow from being terrible, to less terrible, to barely tolerable, on up to Featured Article. It's how Wikipedia works. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "OK with an article"? I'm not "OK" with articles in need of improvement. I think they should be improved, rather then left in a poor state. That's why I edit Wikipedia, because I like to improve articles. But -- do I need to link to this? -- AfD is not cleanup. Your assertion that the notability is "supported almost entirely" by non-RS is false. The notability of the article is not dependent on all 24 citations in the footnotes. We would not delete an article because 22 of them are non-RS and only 2 are reliable. We decide to keep an article simply because the minimum number of sources exist. If 2 (or 3 or 4 as in this case) reliable sources meet the notability minimum, then the article should be kept. Whether or not the other twenty-some sources are reliable or not is of no consequence at AfD. If you are "not OK" with the use of sources that you think fail RS, then you should WP:FIXIT yourself. Go and delete the source cited. Or, perhaps more diplomatically, discuss the merits of the source or sources at Talk:Sarah Ballard or the RS noticeboard.
Put another way -- and several editors have tried to convey this in various levels of detail and with different wording -- the ratio of RS to non-RS in an article is not a matter for AfD. Having 1,000 non-RS along with 3 RS which meet the notability guidelines is not a reason for deletion. AfD is not interested in whether or not an article is sandbagged with 1,000 non-RS, only in the 3 which get the article over the notability hurdle.
All of this is another way of saying that if you're not OK with the quality of an article, go improve it, or make suggestions at the talk page, but do not nominate it for deletion. At this point I think I've run out of ways to explain this, so I have to stop. Maybe someone else knows a better way to convey the point. I also recommend to any editor to go back and carefully re-read the relevant policies and guidelines. Careful reading will often revel that the guideline does not say what the edtior thought it said. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In fact, snow keep. Clearly notable as both an academic and a public figure, more than adequate third party coverage and once again, we must not confuse article quality (which appears to be much improved anyway) with notability. Two. Different. Things. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article. quality. different. from. quality. of. sources. (the latter of which underpin notability ... sorry, I quickly grow tired of halted speech.) Please close this as keep. The community has clearly reached a consensus here. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement of 1916

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

No sources, other than wikipedia mirrors, appear to exist for this agreement. Either completely non-notable or a hoax regentspark (comment) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as either hoax or non-notable, nothing comes up for any of my searches. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Ganga Mahasabha. Nothing notable on its own. The dates in this article are all over the place and are contradictory.--Dmol (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dmol. The primary result in Google for Agreement of 1916 refers to Sykes–Picot Agreement. Per this source, the work on the canal was done in the late 19th Century, so nothing of note happened in 1916. This website appears to be the source of this language about agreement. The content itself came from this coatrack in 2015. None of this notable nor is it properly sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole content has an improbable feel about it. It talks about events of the 1840s and a 1905 Hindu campaign, leading to a 1916 agreement, of whose terms nothing is said. It deserves TNT. Merging to Ganga Mahasabha would not be a good idea, because that article is little more than a stub, referring to a 1905 association and a 2012 Act. Proby Cautley died in 1871 having completed the Ganges Canal in about 1854. The more I look the more it is obvious that the whole thing is unlikely to be correct. Peterkingiron (talk)@
Delete as nothing convincing for its needed solidity. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Friedrich Speer

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable in his own right. Nor does he derive notability for being the father of Albert Speer, although merging the articles is appropriate. Quis separabit? 19:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in his own right. Notability is not inherited. Just a typical architect working with the styles of the day. --Dmol (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The German wikipedia has an article on him, they aren't slack on notability over there. I note also this book on his works.[23] It could be the article just needs improvement, ideally from an editor who can read German better than me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He designed a number of listed buildings (ref some of the German wikilinks). As a body of work, that may meet WP:ANYBIO#2, between the book on A.F. Speer and content in books about his son, it looks like there's enough out there to write a sufficiently comprehensive article, and on the assumption that the listed buildings are notable enough to appear in wikipedia (either individually or in aggregate), the article could/should function to link them. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes GNG [24], [25], and [26] the nominator also nominated clearly notable 9/11 victims such as Madeline Amy Sweeney for deletion. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not just notable for his son, the subject was a major architect of his day. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in his own right as an architect of significant works. That said, the article needs to be expanded. Engleham (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. German article has further citations, including a book on the father, that appear to establish notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian media organizations

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

The page, despite being several years old, is still largely blank and not likely to be topped up soon. As well as a lot of blank sections, it's also a list of links to other lists. Dmol (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Dmol: The article is not largely blank at all. You just have to click/select on the "show" links buttons in the sections. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is true, but very strange. I am guessing this will end up being kept, and if so, I suggest reformatting. LadyofShalott 23:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Christian media and subcategories therein, and is also a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. @Northamerica1000: Thanks for pointing out the "show" button. (On my old computer, I had to refresh to get the page to work). That certainly changes things. As nominator, can I withdraw the AFD nomination, or do we just have to let it run its course. --Dmol (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yura Hinata

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

Voice actress with some supporting roles in anime and video games. Kareha is a supporting character in Shuffle! Kotori is a main character in DC Da Capo PC game. VADB shows 88 roles, although a large number of them are adult video games [27] but it is unclear if they are major leads in major video games or anime or whether she would have news articles outside her resume and cast listing. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per rationale by nom. Quis separabit? 19:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--十八 20:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is her VNDB page, which shows she's had a decent number of roles in eroge. Unfortunately, almost all of these are at most supporting characters, and I'm not sure if those are enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: due to lack of notable roles. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is a clear consensus. The one and only reason given for keeping, that Google search results show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", is of little value, as merely stating that there are sources without saying what or where they are does provide verifiable evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tevfik Arif

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

For wikipedia article, subject must have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show notability. The dated references of two 2014 articles on business rumours and a 2011 Guardian article that has since been debunked does not define significant coverage. Nor does past business association with Donald Trump define significant coverage or notability. Donald Trump has business associations with thousands of non-notable individuals. Singhaarav52 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note (Attn: @Checkingfax:@Sainsf:@Cullen328:) I've rewritten this entire article and added more sources. This articles subject is a former official of the Soviet Union who is now a billionaire and major company founder and who has partnered with Donald Trump on many building projects and was arrested in 2010 for running an international prostitution ring. As to WP guidelines and policies relating to the deletion of an article that could reflect badly on a presidential candidate during an election season, or provide a reasoning as to why Trump appears to not have major problems with Russia, I'd need more information about before deciding if this article should be kept or not. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Pinging editors who you have reason to believe may support your view actually in the deletion discussion is one of the most blatant ways of canvassing that I have ever seen. 80.168.175.26 (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Picomtn expressed no opinion here about whether or not the article should be deleted, so your accusation lacks merit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person fails WP:POLITICIAN as a vaguely described "former Soviet official" and the current references provide no information about his office. The information about prostitution related criminal charges that he was acquitted of violate our biographies of living people policy and also the guideline WP:PERP. The sources are sensationalistic and tabloid in nature, fail to provide significant coverage of the biographical details of his life, and this brief article in its current form seems to be a coatrack to advance the argument (which may well be true but does not belong here) that Donald Trump associates with sleazy people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cullen328: Thank you very much for your very insightful, and documented, reasoning about this article that, in essence, says everything one needs to know about it. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A more careful reading of the sources reveals that he was involved with "hotel management" for a Soviet ministry. Not a notable government job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Even a cursory glance at the Google search results shows "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". WP:BEFORE applies here. Edwardx (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might be kind enough to provide links to what you see as the best of those sources, Edwardx? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have removed this text in the article according to the requirements of WP:BLP. MPS1992 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for the needed solid independent notability, current article has nothing else keepable. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-New Wolverine

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

Page should be redirected to X-23#All-New Wolverine. While sources do exist for the topic, the information can easily be housed at X-23 as per WP:CONTENTFORK. TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The article is about a notable new Marvel Comic series. I feel an on going, continuing series is worthy of it's own Wikipedia entry. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is covered by many sources, and I agree with User:Neptune's Trident, an ongoing, popular series is worth keeping. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now, this is enough for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N3rgul

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

Lots of references, but I don't think any show that this person passes WP:GNG. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do to improve the article? If this went well, I was going to create more articles for artists with some involvement in Slimepunk, but it appears to have not. His album, Slime City, is one of the top things to come up for the genre -Nickoftheturks (talk)

Based on User:Nickoftheturks contributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nickoftheturks, I'm pretty sure he and N3rgul are the same person. At least he's pretty interested in promoting N3rgul. William Spaetzel (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the same person, though I wanted to create an article for a slimepunk artist and his album was the one which came up. I am pretty interested in creating said article, hence, its creation. -Nickoftheturks (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing how either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO is being met here. Also not seeing the reliability of the article's sources (the one's I checked are either primary or user-generated). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)". He has music on Illuminated Paths, which releases vaporwave artists such as Saint-Pepsi~~

There has to be a Wikipedia article about the record label before the record label can count as notable enough to get its artists over that NMUSIC criterion. And even if the record label had an article, an NMUSIC criterion still can't be passed just by asserting that the subject satisfies it — passing or failing WP:NMUSIC is a question of the quality of reliable source coverage that can be provided to verify that they pass it. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing here is excessively reliant on blogs and primary sources like the promotional profiles of his work on his record labels' own websites, and not enough on coverage that would count as reliable. Possibly just WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when better sourcing can be provided to support it. Bearcat (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is not at all convincing yet, the coverage is certainly not. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miley somehow

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

Non notable film GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Miley Somehow Vikram Yoganand Smart Screen Productions UTV Motion Pictures

Keep per meeting WP:NF through New Indian Express, Daily News & Analysis, Times of India, Online Cinema Talkies, Bangalore Mirror. The article can definitely merit through a little editorial attention. Use WP:BEFORE nominator, please. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: In following my own advice, I went ahead and did some work to improve the poor stub which was sent to AFD just 17 minutes after contribution by an inexperienced new editor. Pardon GigglesnortHotel, but this seems just a bit rushed to me, specially when issues were quite easy to address, and being poorly written or sourced are not deletion rationales. Sure, the contributor would benefit from studying MOS:FILM, but we do not delete notable film topics for being poorly written or sourced. I believe to best serves the project when WE instead fix them. Hmmm? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article could be better but this may simply be enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quinoline Yellow (musician)

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

Subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSIC. The reference in the article goes to a 404 page of the record label. The coverage I find is limited and nothing from reliable sources or in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Mesplay

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

Deleted twice previously, I can find no evidence that notabiltity has been established since the last Afd discussion. Per WP:NPOL, he is not inherently notable just for being a candidate. Nor is he otherwise notable by the standards of WP:GNG or WP:42. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate landing page, such as Green Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates -- Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016#Candidates per nom. No prejudice against re-creation should the subject receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in the future.--JayJasper (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Besides the two independent, reliable sources already on the page, this, this from Wikinews, this from Pravda report, this from wwlp.com all indicate widespread media coverage sufficient for notability.--TM 11:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Green Party presidential primaries, 2016. No notability established per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Coverage consists of primary or non-WP:RS citations, and WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Fails WP:POLITICIAN quite resoundingly. I support keeping biographies of any minor party presidential candidate who is on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency in theory. He doesn't meet that threshold. He is a very minor candidate in a minor party. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he'd actually won a Green Party primary, thus becoming the party's actual candidate for president in an actual presidential election, then there'd be a valid case for inclusion. But merely being a non-winning candidate in party primaries is not, in and of itself, a valid reason for a standalone WP:BLP. And the sourcing here doesn't cut it under WP:GNG either — two are primary sources that cannot support notability at all; two are blurbs on a site whose entire raison d'être is news summaries of primary contests, thus constituting WP:ROUTINE coverage that fails to distinguish him as more notable than the norm; and the last is a non-notable local blog. And TM's additional sources noted above don't assist either: WikiNews is a user-generated content site to which anybody can publish any news they want, and because it's part of the Wikimedia family it also gets clobbered as circular sourcing to ourselves (which we're not allowed to do). WWLP is a press release from his own campaign, thus failing our rules against hitching notability to the subject's own self-published content about himself. Pravda is simply his responses to a pro forma "candidate positions on the issues" questionnaire that was offered to every candidate, thus ROUTINE coverage that fails to single him out as special. And while Indian Country Today is actually by a few dozen country miles the strongest and most GNG-worthy source of anything that's been shown here, it's a source that would be perfectly acceptable within a mix of solid sourcing, but is not prominent enough to carry GNG by itself as the article's only acceptable source. Otherwise, the path to getting a non-winning electoral candidate into Wikipedia is to demonstrate and source that they have preexisting notability for something other than the candidacy itself — but nothing claimed or sourced here shows that at all. So no, nothing shown here gets him an automatic inclusion freebie, and the sourcing that has been shown is not solid enough to get through the "notable because media coverage exists" loophole. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect as this is enough, not independently notable for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 18:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Hugh II

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

No apparent notability. About a boat that was briefly the "smallest ever created." Only one source provided, and a Google search indicates that there's not much room for improvement. Amccann421 (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I too can't find anything for this that would support more than an entry in a list, but I also can't find a list it would be suitable for. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumiko Shibata

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

Only notable role I'm seeing on ANN is for Maki in Burn Up. All other roles are either non-notable or are for non-notable anime. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she has a number of other major roles (meaning the main or a main character). I've updated her page to indicate this. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now shows she's had a number of prominent roles passing WP:NACTOR, more refs would be very helpful. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 18:58, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Latham

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

Delete: as non-notable actor; fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 17:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually convincing, his list of works says it all. SwisterTwister talk 04:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shiho Hisajima

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

Anime VA whose most significant role, according to ANN, was a supporting character Megumi Odashima in Petopeto-san, with other roles being guest or minor characters. VADB shows about 39 roles. [28] Okay, she voices Wendy in Gravity Falls' Japanese dub. Is that enough to keep her around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The jawiki page inddicates her only major role (indicated by the bolding of the role) is "サファイア" (Sapphire) from "トロールズ☆" (Trolls☆). I've never heard of the show. Looks like she does mostly background characters, based on her jawiki page. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The minor roles aren't enough to pass WP:ENT, and a lack of sources keeps it below WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 19:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ringo Aoba

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

She voiced Ibuki Hinata (main heroine character) in A Bridge to the Starry Skies and Batai (supporting character) in Shin Koihime Muso. She's in a ton of adult video game titles (like 200+), [29] just that hardly any of them are individually that notable. Is it worth keeping her around? I could limit her listings to just the ones she puts on her resume as Ai Kitano but it's really limited [30]. The JA wikipedia article is promising though, has lots of references, but focuses on her listings in the video game itself rather than details about her. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That lead role might just be enough to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. That and that her Japanese page has enough references to verify her roles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there seems to be enough, the Japanese Wiki has enough to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 19:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Singewald

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No notability. No references in the article which says "lone success as a writer was the publishing of his dissertation in pursuit of his PhD from Johns Hopkins University". Very few references and none seem to be third party. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 17:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently imaginably better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Modelling

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

Non-notable academic journal. The article was deprodded by Mark viking with 2 sources added that don't prove notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This journal has an impact factor and is indexed in JCR and Scopus. It thus satisfies notability criteria #2 and #3 per WP:NJournals. --Mark viking (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate journal in statistics, containing some highly cited papers. OtterAM (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: unfortunately, neither being legitimate nor containing highly-cited papers makes a journal notable. --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indexed in SCI, Scopus, and other selective databases, clear meet of WP:NJournals. Article needs cleanup per WP:JWG. (perhaps I'll have time for that later today or tomorrow). --Randykitty (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NJournals DeVerm (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 19:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers N3rds, or The (Almost) All-Girl Math Challenge

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

Non-notable musical. I can find no secondary sources whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This articular cannot be verified as there are no sources to indicate that it even exists. The theatre's own website [[31]] does not even indicate it's existence. I would go so far as to consider this a hoax and G3 it or A7 it because even if something can be found to show that it exists, the lack of information truly indicates its lack of notability! - Pmedema (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any reason to believe this musical is a hoax, but it doesn't look like it's notable yet. The festival in which it is to get a workshop production won't occur for another three months. No independent reliable sources have been provided, nor could I find any. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for lack of significant coverage in any secondary sources. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago's theater scene in the third biggest in the United States. Perhaps it's just too soon. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 18:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing else actually convincing for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as this is suggesting enough (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Me: A Decade of Darkness, a Life Reclaimed

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

I looked round for sources, and despite all the media around this case, I don't think the book is notable. The articles that mention it - including the ones that were added to this article at the time the notability tag I added was removed - are almost exclusively about the sensational details it reveals about the case, rather than about it as a book per se - or they're straight-up about the case and just mention the book in passing. As a result, the article is unlikely to ever be able to expand beyond a stub. This seems like something that should redirect to the article on the Castro case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Surely the fact that an article is not likely to be expanded beyond a stub is not, per se, a reason for deletion? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some other points and refs to the article including the fact that upon the books publication it debuted in the number two spot on the New York times Best Sellers list. Thereby it meets the criteria in WP:NOTBOOK #3 bestseller lists (NY Times Best Seller list)

An excerpt, " A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." Also the book has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so therefore it meets WP:GNG Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, a new york times bestseller, is the basis of a notable film as stated in the article, WorldCat shows it is held by over 1500 libraries[32], here are some reviews: "In Finding Me, we get a rare glimpse into the mind's slow descent into helplessness – what is called "learned helplessness" Finding Me is a short read, written in English that's plain and concise as there is no flowery language worthy of depicting the horror that Knight, DeJesus and Berry went through at 2207 Seymour Avenue." in fz.com[33], "But Knight’s book, penned with celebrity ghostwriter Michelle Burford, lacks nuance. It is a rape-by-degradation story that simply satisfies our addiction to know the worst." in The Globe and Mail[34], "Michelle's story, told in her own words, is heart-breaking and harrowing but the book left me stunned at her courage, her ability to endure such severe trauma for so long." as an Auckland Libraries staff pick[35], oh, and it was also a Canadian bestseller[36] and an NPR bestseller[37]. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the sources Coolabahapple found, the book and the author are the cover story in People [38], part of a story about the kidnapped girls in People [39] and in Marie Claire [40]. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Bam

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

Non-notable person. As a musician, he has released two EPs on his own label with little sign of any success; and as an entrepreneur, he had an appearance on the Canadian version of Dragon's Den. (The show has not yet aired, so no disclosure as to whether he received the $3MM he is seeking.) None of this rises to the level of notability required for this autobiography to be kept. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with WikiDan61 It does not meet WP:MUSBIO and there is not enough in depth coverage from independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines. Since it seems to be written by the subject himself it also violates what Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:NOTPROMOTION (self-promotion).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A Google search for secondary sources turned up squat. Non-notable, in other words. Kolbasz (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed, non-notable at this time. --Drm310 (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

313 (film)

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

Fails WP:NF. Only 78 votes on IMDb EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. I found an archive of the film's website but as a spiritual drama it does not seem to have much of a mark anywhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)delsort[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Logan Sama

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TimothyJosephWood 14:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTE TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subject appears to be a UK radio host.

Was mentioned in The Guardian, but the article is basically a promotional list of youtube videos.
Was mentioned in The Fader, but only reason is because of a Tweet.
Was the basis of an article in Dazed Digital, pretty promotional.

The lion's share of internet coverage seems to revolve around social media.
Article links:

Kiss (UK radio station): An unsourced promotional section - "a vital source of new music from the British grime scene"
Grime music: Unsourced single sentence marked with CN since 2011
Brentwood, Essex, as a notable person
Otherwise seems to be mentioned in passing on a number of artist pages.

Tagged with NOTE since 2009.
Basically unsourced
If subject does meets notability, the article needs essentially a 100% blank/rewrite.

15:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — Logan's a huge figure in the grime scene. He's frequently name-dropped in famous MCs' tracks, he provides a platform for new music to get heard, and was even acknowledged by Drake! You can't possibly question his notability what with such a wealth of media coverage being available. I'm a bit too busy to rehaul the page but here are a few credible sources found after a quick Google:

--ItsLuke (contribs) 10:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I don't know what a grime scene is. I'll withdraw, follow and try to get around to it. TimothyJosephWood 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nakon 19:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Kers

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

Businessman who happens to be CEO of a notable company. Nothing on google suggest e is WP:notable in his own right. noq (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I found and added to the article some secondary sources focusing on Kers over significant periods of time in connection with significant and notable events surrounding milk products and milk production/marketing in the UK. The article can use more work and more sources, but it meets the notability threshold. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Euros "billions" are still leveling at American billions (searches show $5 billion listed for American dollars too), thus billion dollar company CEOs are acceptable for notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic notability is an issue for deletion, article quality is not. I would encourage the creator to create slightly better supported biog articles though: this is one of several that have either been contested for deletion, or deleted. The way to avoid that is clearer notability and better sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tons of results on Google so can easily pass GNG, Plus it's been expanded since nomination so closing as keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Body Gossip

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

Subject does not have significant coverage (although as has been noted has had some press 'mentions'). Fails WP:GNG Rayman60 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE applies here. A search on Google finds plenty of sources to meet the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article a little already and there are certainly many stubs that don't have as many references, from different sources, as this one. JezGrove (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether to merge, and where to merge to, can be discussed elsewhere. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absalon of Caesarea

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

Notablity. Can find zero internet sources other than those which have copied what this stub mentions. Seems unusual considering a saint. The Holweck, F. G. book I do not have access to, but it seems to be the only reference to this saint, but was published over 90 years ago. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Best I can find is this, but I have no idea how reliable catholicsaints.info is (and it doesn't appear to have an about page which might clarify who is writing it...) I don't have access to Holweck either, so I can't help you there... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The 2015 Book of Saints edited by Basil Watkins lists the trio of Lucius, Absalon, and Lorgius, stating "The old Roman Martyrology listed these as having been martyred at Caesarea in Cappadocia (Asia Minor)" but then notes (without further detail) that they have been "deleted" from the Roman Martyrology. [41] The trio shows up in a variety of older lists, but I didn't come across anything more informative.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he was once acknowledged as a saint by a major church then I think he passes the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In principle Merge but I am not sure where -- Catholic tradition seems to indicate that Lucius (a bishop), Absalom and Lorgius were martyred at Caesarea, though it is not even known when. It would seem that they must be recorded together in some ancient list: [42]. We certainly do not need more than one article on them all. I was expecting to find an article of bishop Lucius, but I cannot. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least and then consider Merging afterwards as a different path, this seems to need familiar attention and if not found independent for its own article, merge as needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since this issue seemed unclear, I went ahead and created the article "Martyrs of Caesarea". I propose, then, that this article be remade by being turned into a retarget over to that page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also going to comment that 'Absalom of Caesarea', 'Absalon of Caesarea', 'Absolom of Caesarea', and 'Absolucius of Caesarea' all appear to be used, which is admittedly rather irritating although I guess not uncommon for people's names pre-10th century. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any particular need to delete the existing page and thus eliminate the edit history; a redirect should take care of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was a mistake. Meant to word it differently. Fixed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on past practice. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 19:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Real Dope Thing

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

Can find few (0) sources other than those made by band themself. Seems to fail WP:NMG EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GARAGE, the band has not been mentioned by any reliable sources, and has no notable songs. -SpinkZeroZero

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm simply not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karnan (Malayalam film)

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

Quoting WP:NFF: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Kailash29792 (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. The topic has lots of sourcability, but as the article itself tells us "filming is scheduled to begin in September, 2016", it is simply premature. We can certainly allow it back the moment filming is confirmed. If the author wishes it sent to a userspace as we wait, that'd be fine just so long as he realizes that we need to confirm actual filming, not just pre-production. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon clearly, not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cait

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

The article doesn't really do anything to establish whether or not this person is notable. All it says is "He voiced *insert name here*" ad nauseum, followed by a list of the characters he voiced, which is entirely unsourced. There is literally nothing else about him in the article. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 12:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:Bio for voice actors. No 'significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions,' no 'large fan base or a significant "cult" following' and no 'unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment'. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The mere having of roles, even a lot of roles, does not in and of itself confer an automatic WP:NACTOR pass on an actor who cannot be reliably sourced — but the only "reference" here is to the closing credits of one of his works (a primary source that cannot demonstrate notability per se). And on a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, I can't add anything else to improve the sourcing besides glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of Married Life — and that's just not enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all suggesting any applicable notability, I would've also considered PROD.. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 19:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal (EDM Artist)

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

Non notable musician; references are self published or trivial. User:Adam9007 removed my speedy, appatantly under the misapprehension that "Article credibly asserts significance". I assume that would be that the guy produces music, slightly less trivial than being American but not by much. TheLongTone (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently suggesting any solid independent notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vedas (Indian Restaurant)

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

This fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The only reliable and independent source discussing this restaurant in any detail is this. Note that the original article contained more references which I have since removed as they were not WP:RS. As of now there are 3 references in the article of which 2 contain trivial mentions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG with one unreferenced non notable award, previously sourced to a blog. Theroadislong (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator and Theroadislong. Fails WP:GNG EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even those references which remain are passing at best. Interesting that gNews search turns up restaurant of same name in California, but nothing about the Shanghai version. Could be a Northern hemisphere bias, but even so, establishments meeting the WP:GNG criteria will still have sufficient WP:RS mentions to qualify. And this does not. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP, should have been speedy deleted. STSC (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with STSC this would have been a valid g11 speedy delete. Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe this could be speedied under g5; this was created by a banned sockpuppet of the paid editor, Boskit190 (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Boskit190/Archive. Even without that, the article is clearly not worthy for Wikipedia. I'd speedy it myself, but meh. --Yamla (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nakon 19:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Bedacarratz

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

This person is only notable for his participation in WP:ONEEVENT. KDS4444 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to add about this individual. I think the Royal Navy may have found his activities not unnotable. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this appears to be a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the applicable notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONEEVENT is a requirement to be cautious, not a blanket ban. I would also suggest that this particular event is seen as more important to British editors than those outside. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Andy Dingley of historical relevance. W C M_email 19:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's worth looking at the Italian article too: [43] Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xplo5ion

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

Search for this band on Google turns up Facebook, Twitter, Youtube videos, and this article, plus several press releases and self-composed "profile" pages. Coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources appears to be lacking. KDS4444 (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. No independent coverage seems to exist. The article could even be speedied under WP:A7 (EDIT: again), since an uncredited "they have received recognition" is its only claim of significance. Kolbasz (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage in news or on web.--Dmol (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete considering their own links are only listed, too soon and thus simply nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their songs and events can be seen on other websites (comes up on Google Search) which have been posted independently and not by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.25.8 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Torres (author)

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

No evidence of notability given in references. References are mostly primary links to papers by the subject. Third-party links fail to substantiate notability. Some links look like third-party coverage but are first-party or mere indiscriminate directory site listings (e.g. the MTV link). No actual biographical details in references, which is the telling one. This guy could have an article, but a BLP needs actual substantial verifiable third-party content and this article just doesn't have it - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and also WP:MUSBIO. Although their is coverage of author, no third-party and not significant. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the entire article is still questionable overall, none of this is imaginably better for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Issues have been resolved. Nominator requests speedy keep and only delete vote has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Siriwardhana

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

By now more then a year tagged for possible copyvio but nothing happend The Banner talk 10:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Why not rewrite it then? The winner of Miss Sri Lanka Universe is going to be notable, this is not really a small country.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - If the copyright violations are removed then there is no article. That does not stop an editor recreating the article and establishing notability, provided it is not copying and pasting material directly from other sources (as is currently the case). Copyright issue has been addressed. Dan arndt (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not hard to rewrite a poorly written article to moot the alleged copyright violation, if she is notable, the project should want to have coverage of the subject. And she appears to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote and added more sources. The amount of national coverage she has received in Sri Lanka is significant. This was another bad nomination by Banner, sadly, I have never ever "lost" to Banner when he makes a bad nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the tone of User:Milowent is plain disgusting, belittling and combative, it is a fact that finally somebody took care of the copyright issue. So I request speedy close as keep as nominator, as the issues are solved. The Banner talk 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am so horrible. Listen, Banner, you and I have been thru this a few times already. I know you do good work ferreting out ridiculous non-notable pageants like Miss Asia World Beauty International Campbell Soup 2009 or what have you. But from time to time you go ahead and nominate winners of top pageants that are clearly notable. There is no evidence of you following WP:BEFORE in these cases, and you "lose" these AfDs. When someone like me doesn't show up, occasionally one gets deleted, and I see it gets recreated again (in worse shape) when you don't notice. This is not helpful to the project, and makes your good work less immediately trustworthy. I like to improve articles, you have a talent for finding non-notable articles in this niche and cleaning out cruft, let's get together and make beautiful Wikipedia content together!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively, by the way you work you are supporting undeclared paid editors, sockpuppets, meatpuppets and other nasty things. It is nice what you do, but you fail to see the consequences. And still, I go for WP:IAR as I do not think it is realistic to improve bad quality articles as even the original author does not care about them. The Banner talk 18:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are paid editors all over this place. Some of them actually do good work, amazingly, writing in areas that no one cares about. In the pageant area they aren't so accomplished. AFD is not for clean-up, so if something is notable, that's not the way to combat evil.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The version of this article that I nominated did show copyvio issues, not any notability. The Banner talk 19:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 (see AfD talk page) JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie World

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

Not notable. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. No notable personnel. ubiquity (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that article fails WP:NFILM. Can't find any good sources.EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per this amateur short film having no coverage in reliable sources and thus failing WP:NF. Sorry 19jduryea (filmmaker Joe Duryea with WP:COI?), but existence is not notability. Please go read WP:NAU and then visit WP:NF, WP:RS and MOS:FILM.Getthis thing reviewed in some reliable sources and then ask to have it returned. And next time you shoot a film with toy guns as the props, paint that orange tip black. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinister

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

Minor character from the Transformers universe. No reliable third-party sources cited, no evidence of notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There a pretty detailed write-up in this book published by IDW, but it's not independent. Outside of that, I just see the usual fan sites, price guides, and novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without proper sources, there is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nightstick (Transformers)

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

Minor Transformers character. No evidence of notability and no third-party reliable sources cited. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is sourced to fan sites, and I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are just more fan sites and a few trivial mentions, and Google Books results are price guides and novels. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such in-depth details are better left to Wikia. The series has a large number of character lists able to handle appropriately brief summaries. TTN (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Long Ashton arson

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

WP:NOTNEWS, no suggestion that the event had any enduring significance or coverage. Randykitty (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No apparent significance beyond one day of minor news coverage. --McGeddon (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. A local news story that lasted about a day with references back for a few weeks if that. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing else for actual Wikipedia notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to State flags of Mexico. And merge as appropriate from history. Sandstein 19:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Quintana Roo

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

No sources, no claim of notability, fails GNG. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to State flags of Mexico. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as still questionable for a solid separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to State flags of Mexico. Pursuant to a discussion held at one of the other concurrently-nominated flag articles (here), I'm striking my "merge" recommendation and changing it to "redirect". Any discussion of coats of arms is better placed in the article on the state itself, and not on a flag article. The only other pertinent fact in the instant article is the date of official adoption, which already appears in the target article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NYA. The statement that touristic flags in the form of the Mexican tricolor with the respective state coat of arms exist (which appears in two other AfD'ed state flag articles without ref) may be worth merging, but the applicability and reliability of the given source cannot be checked since it is currently down due to maintenance. SiBr₄ (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to State flags of Mexico as per SwisterTwister. Do not think this article needs seperate article, so do not agree with redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Concerning the question of 'merge and delete' vs. 'redirect', consider the following -- a reader can search for Flag of (any U.S. state) or Flag of (any Canadian province) and be taken to an article. But what happens if the reader searches for Flag of (a Mexican state)? For the most part, they'll simply be told that the page doesn't exist. But with a redirect to State flags of Mexico, the reader will learn, in the target article's first sentence, that most Mexican states do not have official flags. This in itself is encyclopedic knowledge that would not be provided by a generic "page does not exist" message. I also note that there is a broad benefit in treating the Mexican states in a manner that is consistent with our treatment of U.S. states and Canadian provinces. And there is no downside to giving Mexico that consistent treatment -- as the saying goes, "redirects are cheap". NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or userfy until a better article can be created. I think it's notable -- many Americans probably have been here and saw the flag, but didn't know what it was - but right now there's no context needed for an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a comprehensive article on Spanish Wikipedia that needs translation into English. I suggest adding the article to the Articles needing translation list Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False, on Spanish wikipedia there is an article of the same size most of which is about the flag of the defunct republic of Yucatan. The part about the flag of quintana roo has no sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlisted Owner

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

Contested prod-a film with basically no notability to be found at all. Wgolf (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on a ref search, this article should be about companies with hidden ownership rather than about a film. One extremely minor news ref found; page seems to be promotional copy for a WP:TOOSOON Film maker who is also at AfD.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep for WP:NF is just met through multiple independent coverage. After due diligence it was easy to improve the article... and while the title might be changed to Unlisted Owner (film) to address confused opinions that the title ""should be about companies with hidden ownership rather than about a film", I'd say write THAT article about such companies first and then we could change per WP:NCF. I am really sorry that the author did not understand MOS:FILM before making his contribution, but WP:UGLY was easy to fix. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as there could be better but this may be enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Tree

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

Not notable. 6m30s vietnamese short film with one award (which was not notable) Rayman60 (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggesting better for the films notability, no signs of needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Commernt There is no English language coverage for this Vietnamese film released only in Vietnnam. So what, SwisterTwister? In looking for Vietnamese sourcing it appears the film, studio, filmmaker and cast have non-English coverage... and if determinable as notable only in and to Vietnam, that's just fine. Time to translate what's available. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Basically the article contains nothing else better acceptable and then there's nothing else to actually suggest better. This is still best deleted for now until a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon County Technology Center

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

This like similar institutions (I've seen articles only of them in Texas &Oklahoma, though they may be elsewhere also) is a specialized teaching facility, not a degree granting high school. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this at NPP and found nothing to actually suggest better solid independent notability for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:V in its current state. Assuming it does exist, I'd redirect to Dillon,_South_Carolina#Education.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to mention that the IP that has made a lot of edits recently is probably under a conflict of interest. This is just my gut instinct, but I traced the IP. The IP editor in question is from Dillon, NC and the IP appears to be registered to "SC Budget and Control Board Dillon SC #3". I thought about taking this to WP:AN/I, but I thought i should mention it here first. --Saltedcake (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take to ANI, its quite common for editors to create articles on their schools or other local things.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We keep articles on high schools. Although this is not quite a traditional high school, it is a secondary level public educational institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does exist (it isn't a school but a venture between several schools), but doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No citations and lacking any kind of comprehensible content. Maybe it will be recreated later with better sourcing, but for now I say we should just delete. Besides, the only notable contributions came from an IP copy-pasting from a PDF among other things. --Saltedcake (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am a very strong supporter of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - but this isn't a school. It fails WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Jungle Book (2016 film). A selective merge should be performed. The majority consensus of the discussion below is that this actor has received substantial coverage due to his leading role in The Jungle Book, but he has not achieved notability beyond WP:BLP1E and WP:NACTOR yet. Re-creation of article is possible if he receives substantial coverage in connection to another film or cause in the future. Der yck C. 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neel Sethi

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

Does not fulfill WP:NACTOR. Fastester (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline (WP:NACTOR) seems very not clear. How many "significant roles"? How many notable films etc. is "multiple notable films etc."? How many people make a "large fan base"? Are these requirements all needed or only one of them? --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear enough in this case that one film is not "multiple films". Of course if you want the WP:NACTOR to be changed to mention a certain number of films, you can discuss that on its talk page.--Fastester (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And are these requirements all needed or only one of them? I just find it ridiculous to base a decision on such a vague guideline. --SuperJew (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This movie is no doubt going to be huge. If you do a small Google Search on the News he is all over the place. If this gets deleted now it will just come back sooner or later anyways. I have added some sources. That is my 2 cents anyways! --TheDomain (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that this actor is notable enough to have an article. --mpen320 (hit me up) 0:04, 27 April 2016.

Delete. WP:NACTOR isn't being met here. As for significant coverage in multiple sources? The article doesn't give us anything of the sort (all we are really told about the subject himself is that he did his own stunts and studied some martial arts). NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now at best as there's simply nothing else better to suggest the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I feel this actor is notable enough to have an article. This is a blockbuster movie, and he is the ONLY actor in it. [[44]] Preetikapoor0 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He is the only actor appearing. There are other (and very prestigious too) voice actors in the film. --SuperJew (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he has starred in only one movie, it's a significant recognition on the account of a huge blockbluster film. Passes WP:NOT in my opinion. Coderzombie (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As said, it does not meet WP:NACTOR. Also the article is quite short, and currently, there is nothing more that can be done to expand it, either.--Babar Suhail (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it may be a stub article that needs some more expansion and cites, but the movie is big enough to warrant an article for the lead actor in the film. It may be his first major motion picture, but the popularity of the film, as well as numerous articles that mention him, fulfill WP:NACTOR. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to The Jungle Book (2016 film). Failing WP:NACTOR doesn't mean the subject is non-notable, because NACTOR is intended to be a complementary standard to WP:GNG and only indicates that a subject is likely to be notable. People who fail NACTOR can still be notable if they pass the GNG. While this person has only appeared in one film, that role is a prominent one in a major blockbuster and he has got quite a lot of media coverage as a result. It isn't hard to find plenty of news articles that are mainly about the subject, some of which are cited. The only question is as to whether this material should be in the article about the film until he gets another significant film role, but that can be decided at editorial discretion. Hut 8.5 21:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Jungle Book has earned him enough attention to be mentioned in it's article but there is nothing more that can be done for him to have his own article. NikolaiHo 19:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Jungle Book. At the moment fails WP:ACTOR; article can be recreated if he has a further career.TheLongTone (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - simply WP:TOOSOON at this point. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and the current coverage would all fall under WP:BLP1E. If coverage becomes lasting, at that point an article would be warranted. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per the above, given that following the spirit of the rules if not the letter seem to indicate that it's just 'too soon' for him to have his own page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 19:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Garrett

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

Unsourced biography for an actor who fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Has not had "multiple significant roles," does not have a "cult following" and there is no evidence of "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" in the field of entertainment. Scr★pIron^IV 21:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had some prominent roles, such as Asher Pike in 91 episodes of All My Children, and Austin Banks in Boost and other roles, passes WP:NACTOR, also a model. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306 has many notable roles on television and film.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 01:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Much of the credited "91 episodes" cited are, in fact, "credit only" in which the actor does appear. The role is a minor one. Even if it were granted that this was a "notable" role, the balance of the body of work is bit parts in minor films or series. WP:TOOSOON applies here. maybe some day, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia yet. Scr★pIron^IV 13:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as his list of works clearly shows nothing else convincing for the necessary notability improvements. At best, I would be willing to Redirecting to All my Children but that's it, no keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. Not a notable person. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it does have two sources now, so its no longer unsourced. Atlantic306 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, because of nomination withdrawn Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A. F. M. Rezaul Karim Siddique

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:1E, this article reads like a prose resume, this guy is notable only for a single event and can entirely be covered in Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh -- nafSadh did say 02:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, any non-involved editor may close it. --nafSadh did say 16:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 07:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see the nominator created Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. It's a fine article but its existence does not preclude the creation of separate biographies where warranted. The death of Siddique in particular received worldwide coverage that some of the deaths listed in the other article didn't get. In addition Siddique founded a music school (BBC) and was the founder editor of a literary magazine indicating that his significance was greater than just the manner of his death. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I largely agree with Philafrenzy's statement. Just because the there a larger article doesn't mean this individual article about the individual person should not be kept. I took a brief look through the article and it seems relevant enough. It helps at times to have smaller subarticles rather than lump it all together in the main one. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, Seems to meet GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Stefanomione (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A. F. M. Rezaul Karim Siddique ‍sir founded a music school (BBC) and was the founder editor of a literary magazine indicating that his significance was greater than just the manner of his death. --Nahid Hossain (talk) 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. Person is notable only for a single event and was not widely known before his death. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 04:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it should remain as it stands. Perhaps more work could go into it, sure, but I don't see any valid reason to merge it.

Oulipal (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Philafrenzy makes a strong case. Edwardx (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have given due diligence and tried to improve the article before I AFD'd it. He is a professor and obviously involved with some activities. But I couldn't find any material covering his works other than his death. We can create articles for every pageants and for every person claimed by ISIL. But that won't maintain the quality of an encyclopedia. When one reads A. F. M. Rezaul Karim Siddique, only thing reader gets other than his CV is that he was claimed by ISIL. --nafSadh did say 20:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nafsadh: +1 ~ Moheen ^(talk) 11:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh would be better Raihan Rana (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh.Is he notable for his death?because all the reference ons this article are news about his death.--Souravdgx (talk) 10:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge as the article itself is still questionable by itself, and there's no serious needs for deleting and but of course also nothing for independent improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. This is true that, he is a professor and Cultural activist but it doesn't mean This article is notable for keeping. So, it should be merged, because all of the references shows his death news coverage it doesn't establish notability guidelines.--Rafaell Russell (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reinstated the "not a ballot" box (originally added by another user then removed) as there does seem to be a fair amount of "me too" voting from Bangladeshi users. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True that. Some people are supporting this AfD just because they don't want to see coverage on these incidents. That is a different motive than what I have. Just saying 'merge to' without reason doesn't add much. I still don't see however, how this article still has nothing more than his death and yet convinces a lot of people of its standalone existence. I don't see any reason to keep forking pages for each person. If the main article becomes too long, we can always fork off Victims of attacks on secularists in Bangladesh or whatever. --nafSadh did say 04:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well one reason for splitting some of them out is to prevent them being known only as victims which actually is a double indignity. Not only have the terrorists killed the man but they have forever defined him as a victim rather than the rounded human being he really was. Is there are chance that he wouldn't be notable if he was a Harvard or Oxford professor? I don't think so. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most academics who gets to teach at top universities, already have to demonstrate substantial work, which often makes them notable. We can't just warrant standalone article based on what-if. I won't have AfDed if I found any way to add substantially more material. --nafSadh did say 20:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Philafrenzy. We lack depth in our coverage of non Western academics. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person dose not meet the WP:ACADEMIC criteria also. Where most of the users do not agree to merge. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice. Please strike one of your votes. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge makes the most sense, since the subject is not notable per PROF, but the article has some relevance. Note that many of the "keeps" seem to be of the WP:ILIKEIT type. Agricola44 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as the article already has very good references including the BBC and the Guardian and other newspapers and he was notable for establishing a college and an organisation before the violence of his death, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one, IMO, because this guy can only really be considered notable due to the unfortunate circumstances of his murder. That said, I think there is enough coverage to suggest that the murder itself is notable and therefore scope to suggest that the life of the person - who was directly targeted - was also notable in that it is part of the story. So I think I think (as it were) that this page would be instructive and encyclopedic if it could be fleshed out to explain what this guy did during that made him a target for the murderers, and there ought to be sufficient sources to write that. So on that basis I'm !voting keep as there is more of a notable life story here beyond being part of a cohort of people murdered in this way. JMWt (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it would be premature to merge, considering the ongoing demonstrations. He also seems not to have been a secularist, but simply a progressive professor and representative of Bengali culture. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, I have been meaning to raise exactly this point. It's more about a clash of cultures generally than his religious beliefs or lack thereof and therefore to include him only on a list of deaths of "secularists" may be misleading. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, really! He probably belongs to Victims of Islamic extremism in Bangladesh rather than Attacks on secularists in Bangladesh. Gotta withdraw AfD. --nafSadh did say 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomaž Soklič

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

A mountaineer. Does not pass the notability threshold: no significant coverage in third-party sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anže Šenk

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

A mountaineer. Does not pass the notability threshold; I've found only an interview with him at the Slovenian Mountaineering Association site [45] and no other significant coverage in third-party sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:SPORTCRIT. Never had a podium place. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently nothing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Žiga Karničar

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

A mountaineer. Does not pass the notability threshold; no significant coverage in third-party sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicably needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rimba Racer

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

Unsourced. Web search is only coming back with FB, tv schedules and primary source material. for (;;) (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NVG. No significant commentary, found very few news articles mentioning game, which only mentioned game in passing. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing currently suggesting any applicable notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no consensus on whether to create a redirect or DAB. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep sampling

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

Notability is not shown and could not be found. The article is created by author of the theory. Russian version was deleted. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some reference to using a technique called "deep sampling" in some research papers, e.g., [46] [47], but not even sure it is the same thing. Rlendog (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is confusing and does not seem to be grounded in any sort of research other than one article. Very vague. Not even sure what the subject actually is. Russian language version seems like a stub also, although can't read Russian. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or create a DAB. This article looks like it was created by the author of the papers cited, but the term has not gained wide use beyond his papers. It is just another name for call stack sampling, which is discussed a little at Call stack#Inspection. A DAB is probably a better long term solution, because deep sampling is a concept in multiple fields, such as geology, soil science, electrical engineering (logic analyzers) and as Rlendog found above, genomic sequencing. --Mark viking (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The paper is unnotable, and the article is promotion of it (and FWIW, "each sample contains much information. The samples are taken approximately uniformly over the resource of interest" is almost contradictory). I mostly agree with Mark viking's analysis, except that no redirect or DAB link should be left towards call stack sampling just because some guy used the term in an unnotable research paper.

I could not really understand what "deep sampling" is from the papers above but it seems to be a term in genomics, if someone understands it better I have no opposition to a suitable redirect (or an article recreation).

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sampling (statistics) as another method, section 3 of that article. DeVerm (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really? It could be the same as Sampling (statistics)#Systematic sampling. (The fact that we are not sure because the article is not clear is a reason not to merge). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me}

Yes it really is. And no, it is not systematic sampling. Systematic is per definition not random. DeVerm (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But is DS really "random" when "The samples are taken approximately uniformly over the resource of interest"? If you know what the whole thing is, please do tell, because I cannot understand the article as is. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would argue for a redirect into Sampling (statistics)#Systematic sampling, if I could be sure that's what it is - it somewhat sounds like systematic sampling that takes a multi-parameter (hence deep) snapshot at sparse time-points, or something like that; but the article fails to make that clear. In the absence of sources that unambiguously define this usage, replacement with a DAB for known uses of the term, as per Mark viking, might be best.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect - Still questionable for its own article at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Karničar

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

No significant coverage is third-party sources; he does not meet the notability criteria. Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Rancho Santa Fe Earthquake

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

An earthquake at magnitude of 0.6, if it even happened, would be unlikely to be notable, as even in the location it occurred, no one would know about it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 0.6 corresponds to energy between a large hand grenade and small construction blast according to Richter magnitude scale#Energy release equivalents. Millions of these a year, assuming it's even real. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A sentence about a non-notable earthquake is not worth keeping. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any coverage. It does not seem to have been noticed by anyone, understandable given how small it was. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing Wikipedia:WikiProject_Earthquakes/notability_guidelines by a landslide (huehuehue). I did not even bother to look for sources, to be honest. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. DeVerm (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promo Direct

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

specialized trade awards, no other reliable sources, and no reason to expect any for such a small niche company, DGG ( talk ) 04:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NCOMPANY and seems like puffed-up spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Blowing World

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The two references are a long way off from establishing notability: one is a press release by the company, the other one doesn't even mention it. Schwede 66 04:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you this - I think it's borderline, but there are both editors and administrators who would speedy delete it as spam, with such advertizy phrases as combined 40 years of experience and saying they support courageous and bold filmmaking. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is about notability. If it's notable, spammy phrases can easily be taken out. Schwede 66 04:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This could have been nominated for speedy deletion given its blatantly promotional tone. Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first of the given references is primary ("Mind Blowing World is delighted to announce") and the second is about Pawno rather than the firm, which does not inherit notability. Nor am I locating anything better: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 11:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nearly also speedy material if not for the "critical acclaim" claims, overall article is still questionable for the needed notability and there's nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G5) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Bradford

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

Issue: WP:ONEEVENT, where the event is the creation of a dating app for iOS. I can't find other things in the life of this person that meet notability guidelines. On the other hand, creating an article about the dating app may be advertising. Tadde0 (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : There doesn't seem anything notable about the person in the links other than focus on the app. I agree with issue that creation of dating app may be advertising. ~Mohammad Hossain~ 04:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From her LinkedIn page: one year as a programmer, four years in sales and/or para-sales, one year as an intern, and now a dating app. Honestly, I don't see notability. Gmacar (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Slutsky

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

Fails GNG. The current sources don't prove notability. A Google News search shows 91 results, all of which are another "Mark Slutsky" or a mention. None are exclusively about this Mark Slutsky. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing currently suggesting the needed solid independent notability, there's information and apparent links but there's nothing clearly solid at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Production assurance

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

Meaningless jargon, or, alternatively mere dicdef for a particular example of meaningless jargon. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable overall, there's information and sources but this is still questionable for solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your !vote comes across that it may be based only upon the sources within the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's a bit opaque I don't think "meaningless jargon" accurately or fairly describes what this is. Moreover, the concept of being able to assure that you can meet production and delivery targets seems to me to be a vital component of management. It is referenced. The nominator seems to be incapable of understanding the article, based on his description of it as "meaningless" to him -- but that hardly makes for persuasive rationale. Keep and improve. If a more informed argument to delete comes along, especially from someone with a business or management background, I would be open to changing my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep - References appear valid. "Production assurance" has 64,000 google hits. I wonder if there is a alternative more common term. Production quality assurance is mentioned in some articles, which I guess is a subset of 'Production assurance'. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is Quality assurance which covers some of the same ground, though doesn't cover 'quantity assurance'. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple WP:BEFORE search shows over 500 hits in GScholar, over 1,700 hits in GBooks, and the topic is the subject of at least two standards: the Norwegian NORSOK Z-016 from the 1990's, where the concept used to be called "regularity management" and the international standard ISO 20815:2008 that uses the more modern term "production assurance". The academic papers, books and standards show the concept is notable and that there are plenty of sources upon which to build an article. --Mark viking (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:GNG pass for a detailed topic. E.g. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Anestis

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. His work has been mentioned in reliable sources, but not to the extent it meets criteria for an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS h-index of 25 in high cited field gives reasonable pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C5 (named professorship at major research university) as well as the strong case for #C1 (e.g. 7 papers with over 100 cites each in Google scholar). Nominator's claim that the subject fails WP:PROF does not seem to have been grounded in any careful analysis, because the named professorship was already listed at the time of nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious pass of PROF c1,5. Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Withdrawn nomination - I have since found additional sources to support notability and wish to withdraw my nomination for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Varon Bonicos

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

fails GNG. the notability flag has been there since 2013 and no sources have been added. The sources that are on the page are about "A Man's Story," a film he directed. The film already has its own Wikipedia page. A google news search for his name reports 20 results -- all 20 are about "A Man's Story" and mentioned him as the directory. No sources are about him. CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject directed a documentary called A Man's Story, which looks notable to me as there are plenty of reviews and interviews that could be used as sources. While the subject is mentioned and sometimes interviewed in those sources they all seem to discuss him in the context of the film and there's very little outside of that. A Man's Story doesn't have an article, and if it did I would suggest redirecting to it, but there's very little in this article which would be useful in constructing that one. Hut 8.5 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overall still questionable for the needed solid independent notability, current article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Aomata

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

Manga artist all of whose works are non-notable for EN Wikipedia. ANN shows very little for notability just a news announcement for Fight! Tenkaichi! which doesn't even have a page here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find anything in terms of sources, wiki Japan has two but that isn't enough to establish notability (tagged there as well). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks sources in either Japanese or English. Had the artist produced a manga which had an article here, this could have been redirected, but no. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Daraz Khan

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

Minor award for minor philanthropist. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself reviewed this afternoon, nothing St all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digipas Usa

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

This didn't even pass AfC but was moved to the mainspace by the original author. In any case, this fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources discussing the company in detail seem to be mostly WP:SPS. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would disagree that most of the sources are self published, I see a few that look to be broad coverage of events such as CES in which the company was featured, and others where people from the company are interviewed about something. One thing I would say is that few if any of the major sources are actually specifically about the company, and just mention or feature it. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have specified that sources which mention the company and talk about it in a bit of detail are self published sources (tech blogs). I have amended it accordingly in this edit. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~Keep~~ per GNG and NCORP. See my version updated of the article for comparison to current.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 01:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(How I arrive at this AfD)I guess I accidentally goofed up a TW concerning this AfD, sorry, looks like that has been fixed. Brings to my attention to the article itself and that the subject is notable. A substantive topic of the FOX News article, the main topic of Daily Mail article, the main topic of the Mashable article. The seven months of declines in AfC were likely because the topic is a corporation. COI is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON and there is nothing in the guidelines requiring that the article go through AfC.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You amended your !vote here to include a link to a draft in your userspace (not the original draft). That draft has the same fraudulent references and claims as the original draft. I am not going to point them out for the third time now (you also restored some of them after I removed them from this article) If you wish to un-amend your !vote to remove the link to a draft with fraudulent content I will not object to this comment being hatted. Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There, I updated my vote. Yes, there was a reference that didn't support an inconsequential passage, after 5 months in AfC, I wouldn't describe it as fraud. I went through everything, corrected a few of your mistakes and found a couple of new supporting references.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes now you changed it a second time. The fraudulent stuff from the original draft is still in that draft as of the time of this comment. you remain remarkably unconcerned about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

commentary Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In this Fox news article - was one among 8 products reviewed, the coverage of the company itself was restricted to one line. This daily mail article (a WP:PUS) and Mashable article (a blog) are regular product reviews. I am yet to see an article discussing the company in detail. (Please note that even if the product was notable, per WP:INHERITORG the company would not be) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per this edit you said COI is not a reason for deletion according to WP:DEL-REASON. I'm not sure where was COI mentioned in this deletion discussion. I would be glad if you point it out to me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added the COI tag to the article HERE and you are the nominating editor -- one plus one generally equals two. You also made note of the AfC declines on the article's talk page. WP:INHERITORG does not deal with products, but it does have a See also hat called WP:PRODUCT which states: If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In this case we have a company that is notable for its product (innovation, big surprise) would you rather have separate articles about their various (notable) products?
Finally, the GNG does not say anything about "discussing the company in detail," the GNG states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. I didn't notice any "original research" in the article and the level of detail is about the same as any corp article, because you get editors adding advocacy tags if you write in depth. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 11:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know the way you drew conclusions about COI was actually 1+1 equalling 3. This discussion was only concerned about the notability and not about the COI. While we do mention COI in discussions sometimes, you will notice that I did not mention it here. Also GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Fox news (while reliable) is still a trivial mention in a list of similar products. The other 2 links offer better coverage but the sources are not exactly reliable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you placed the COI tag, you own it. Unlike some people, I actually read the talk page and edit summaries before I comment in AfD or make article space changes, respecting WP:STEWARDSHIP. Sometimes tendentious editors will degrade the article first and then nominate it. Generally when they delete prose, they delete references too. In addition, you had already brought it to my attention that you are very active in WP:COIN.

I don't know why you've bolded the latter half of your GNG quote, but I've already provided the GNG definition for "Significant coverage" above. For the difference between trivial (a simple mention) and significant coverage I defer to WP:ANALYSIS:

A secondary source [...] contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.

The GNG also states: "a topic" and "...but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", the difference (not trivial) is the source author's analytic or evaluative claim. There is no WP:OR required to know that the product is the company's creative work. What you are saying is like evaluating a book article and saying, "This source is not about the book, it's about the writing inside the book." 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 17:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latter half of the GNG reliable sources that are independent of the subject is exactly my point. Unless the sources are independent and reliable, we do not count them (regardless of significant coverage). In this case, the latter 2 references (Dailymail and Mashable) are questionable sources. The problem here is you are only trying to argue for the significant coverage part while ignoring the "independent and reliable" part. The coverage in the fox news link is debatable (1 out of 8 similar products and 1 line about the company). And even if the Fox news article was focused on the company, it still wouldn't help pass GNG. We need more reliable and independent sources for that.

I placed the COI tag on the article because the COI was quacking loud and clear. Notice that I didn't mention it here in the deletion discussion. As for your second part about references, deletion discussion are not based on whether the article contains references. It is based on whether references exist out there for the topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail has a 138 world ranking on Alexis, Mashable is 376 in the world, both authors appear to staff writers. Wikipedia now allows sources like Southern Poverty Law Center and MediaMatters in BLPs, both of which are advocacy groups so I'm not worried about The Daily Mail or Mashable for non-controversial topics. We have these news articles connecting the company to the product [54][55][56] [57][58] and dozens of more articles about the product alone. Per WP:PRODUCT the product belongs in an article about the company. Notability is based upon sustained coverage, but as the moving party, feel free to ask about Daily Mail and Mashable in this context at RSN.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 06:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRODUCT Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result. The company is not notable simply because a product is notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you should be proposing a product article rather than a deletion, but I still think the Mashable and Daily News would pass RSN in this context. The company also appears to have a second product that is making waves, so we might wind up with two product articles. Time is also not on your side, the more these topics are searched, the more Google tends to find about them. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that 009o9, to his credit, discloses that he engages in paid editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, Lemongirl942 and I have a difference in ideology, I do take paid work and she is very active in COIN. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 05:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually appreciate that as well. But this is an AfD discussion, so we discuss the issue of notability as equal editors and for me any COI shouldn't have an effect on the notability of a subject (unless the article is overly promotional and qualifies for G11). The arguments (based on notability guidelines) are the only thing which matters here.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no signature on public facing maintenance tags (a pet peeve of mine when trying to figure out who posted legacy tags), it is not transparent that the AfD and the COI come from the same editor. I.e., a tag saying the article should be deleted and another saying the article should be reworked are not of the same opinion, this appears to be coming from two editors, and could be prejudicial on a quick read.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the company's products may meet notability guidelines, the company itself does not.

Delete This article was declined as a draft numerous times by numerous reviewers. Once conflict of interest concerns were pointed out, the creator of this article removed those comments and promoted the article into the main space themselve. The problems which were noted in AfC remain, lack of depth in coverage. This is an agressive attempt by an employee of this company to promote it via Wikipedia. RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more commentary Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment references where the award winning WP:PRODUCT is attributed to the company.

Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP regardless of the editor's COI and ~~AfD's~~ AfC's five months of mishandling the newbie with unhelpful canned declines. (No guidance on COI/PAID reqs.) Diff 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've opened a discussion (Here) in NCORP concerning the "inheritance" verbiage in WP:PRODUCTS. The sentence is in direct opposition to WP:ORGIN which states that the coverage on the organization or product are both applicable toward notability for organizations (which includes commercial and non-commercial entities). The unfortunate change to the PRODUCT guideline appears to be the work of one editor, I can't find any discussion, nor consensus evidence concerning the change.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great example where: a) there was a bunch of media hype about the proposed launch of the product (it was not even a real product yet, for pete's sake, when there was all that coverage in 2015.. and it appears that they are still refining and they demo'ed it again at CES2016) and with all that hype, there is no notability for the product at this time; and b) the parent company doesn't inherit that (non-)NOTABILITY in any case. If you want to use this as your test case it is terrible. Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The tone f the article is largely promotional. The good references revolve around a luggage lock. Does Wikipedia need a whole page describing a luggage lock company? I'm thinking it does not.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article had some fraud in it (sources that didn't support the content, at all) and most of it was about the new product. In this series of edits I wrote it to be about the company, condensed content about the new product. Jytdog (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually there aren't enough independent sources about the company to meet GNG. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yet more commentaryJytdog (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And I see that you are removing the notable cites. You are really going to not allow a CES, Tech for Better World Innovation award (Source USA Today and Daily Mail) and a FoxNews product feature back into the article? Source 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also see you've removed the TSA compliance fact,[59] opting instead for the ever more interesting, "pricing and availability were not announced", (perm) from the same source.009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 09:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments I left for you at the article Talk page, as well as my edit notes. This is not an article about the product, and we do not follow the hype around pre-release marketing. No one, not even the JSB employee, added details about the Group's other products, and it is clear their intention was to market their luggage lock. That is fine for them, but that isn't what we are about here. And please don't ever bring up the Daily Mail as a source in a discussion; that tabloid has been rejected over and over at RSN. It is a tabloid and we steer clear of the gutter. Jytdog (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CES innovation award needs to be seen in context and may not be as notable as it seems. Here's the list of awardees. There were multiple award categories, one of which was Tech for Better World. There were 15 winners in this category with eGeeTouch® Smart Luggage Lock being one of them. Note, that CES also has a more selective list "Best of 2015 Innovation Award Honorees" (see page 2). Digipas is not included in this list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem like notable properties to me per WP:DUE. There were 3600 exhibitors for the 2015 show.[60] FoxNews "8 best," were related to security products, but I'm not going to try to find out how many of the 3600 were related to security. I don't follow sports anymore, but do we mention how many "Bowl" games college football teams have won? How about how many times an NBA team makes it to the playoffs? Seems like each year there is a 50/50 chance of winning there. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Wikimedia Awards page.[61] I have no idea what they are, nor do I care, but they deserve to be there IMHO. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 10:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Organizations display awards to promote themselves; that is what WMF is doing with that page, so that is just a... weird example. And it is not what Wikipedia editors add to encyclopedia articles. We actually have a policy against promotion. As I noted above the person who wrote this, clearly wrote it to market their product. This article is not about the product and we are not marketing their product. You are putting too much WEIGHT on the hype. And nothing you are writing here has anything to do with sources that show the company is notable. Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The award page is on Wikimedia. Note that not all of the awards are included at the Wikipedia article Wikipedia#Awards. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this some kind of threat?diff What you've done with your edits is to remove all of the MSM sources that have the subject's name in the title.diff I believe your edits introduced more primary references than the original COI editor.diff 009o9^Disclosure(Talk)

009o9: that link is not a threat, it's a statement of fact and policy. People frequently get banned for an aggressively promotional editing stance. This is because Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, and those who edit with too much of a promotional tone are abusing the platform. There are plenty of other places on the web to host promotional content.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HappyValleyEditor The problem is that there is nothing in WP:PROMOTION that applies here. These references are facts and I'm not the person creating "...overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources" to push an agenda. The guidance in TEMPLATE:Advert states: "Don't add this tag simply because the material in the article shows a company or a product in an overall positive light or because it provides an encyclopedic summary of a product's features." If we don't want content about legitimate businesses and products, change the guidelines so people stop writing and submitting them. The discussion at NCORP is productive, the immaturity level here is ridiculous. In fact, you are the only delete vote that has come close to referencing a guideline or policy. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 21:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that's nice. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gee, I though only un-involved editors could hat conversations per WP:TPO. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 23:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLUDGEON. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability, clearly nothing acceptable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All that I'm seeing in terms of reliable sourcing is that one of this company's products is rather useful and recommended. That appears to be it; the firm itself isn't notable. Even calling the product itself notable is at least a bit of a leap. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many of the issues which prevented it from being accepted through the AfC process still remain. Which is most likely why the editor who moved it to mainspace decided to circumvent that process. Searches show it fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. blanked by editor, probable delete anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality architecture - an architectural research paper

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

Written as if it were a research paper - non encyclopedic content with no sources, limited content, and unknown importance Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 00:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page has been tagged for speedy deletion under CSD G7 (article creator blanked it). Everymorning (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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