Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 May	8 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Lightfoot

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

Doesn't meet CSD A7, but I don't see any established notability through a Google search and all of the references are primary sources. In veritas (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NMUSIC. --bonadea contributions talk 05:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. I know the subject of the page personally, and he is well liked, but definitely not famous. I can verify that he has put a lot of work into his art, but it is not notable.Andrew Feikema (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He's only 16 years old, and just released his first album. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 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) 12:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Internet BBS

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books search or searches of other major databases. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 21:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 21:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No further details apparent at zh:香港網站_(BBS) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There are plenty of results in a Google search, especially in Chinese, but they're all look like social networking, such as Facebook. If there are Chinese-language reliable sources – perhaps documenting the censorship – the article can be recreated. Wikia might be a better place to document these BBSes. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as the current article is still questionable and I'm not finding anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 14 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 Mode effect. MBisanz ^talk 11:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump effect

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

This is a neologism. There are three references on the article. None of them contain the string "Trump effect". So where does this name come from? When I search Google News for this string I see a lot of people using the phrase and, so far as I can see, none of them are using it in the way defined here. Even if I missed a few that are, there is clearly no settled view that it means what this article says it does. I am sure that there is an effect where people shy away from telling pollsters that they intend to vote for socially disreputable choices but this is not called the "Trump effect" by the sources which discuss this. So basically this fails on verifiability, never mind notability. DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference cited does talk about "Trump mode effect". See here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-embarrassment-of-supporting-donald-trump/421365/

I'll edit the article a little bit more to include "Trump mode effect" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrh168 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that I am convinced but I have added an extra "find sources" line above for "Trump mode effect" so that people can check it out. I don't see the phrase "Trump mode effect" being used much in reliable sources (two hits in Google News and none in Google Newspapers) but it is being used a bit by non-RS sources and it does mean what the article says, so, if the article is kept, it would need to be renamed to Trump mode effect as clearly that is what the neologism the article defines is actually called. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence at all that this use of the expression "Trump effect" is a recognised usage. Those two words are used together in various places, in various contexts, but not with the meaning attributed to them in this article. The expression "Trump mode effect" is used once by one person, in a meaning close to what this article refers to, but I see no evidence that it is a notable or generally recognised expression. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mode effect or delete. The Atlantic explains the phenomenon as an example of "mode effect". To extrapolate from that into a "Trump Effect" is original research. Like JamesBWatson above, I see lots of results for journalists who have labeled various things the "Trump Effect", but there does not seem to be any unifying definition of what this is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another very poor Trump-related article. Basically non-existent sourcing. Unquestionably fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that the question is not what is now in the article, but, rather, Is the topic notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, this needs to be renamed since "Trump effect" is so commonly used as a phrase in articles discussing the impact of Trump's unusual campaign on the policy positions taken by other candidates, on down ballot candidates, on the GOP, on turnout, and so forth [1].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or , Possibly rename and keep an article on Trump campaign and polling, since there is significant, serious discussion in newspapers of this topic. As here [2], and more broadly in the massive coverage of the fact that polling has consistently under-predicted the actual vote Trump receives. Frankly, I see this as yet another instance of what a poor job Wikipedia is doing in covering Trump. I know that none of us is paid, and most of us edit more on the candidates we love, but as a group we documentably skew left and demonstrably have a hard time being evenhanded on this election. Nevertheless, rather than delete this, we need to take this and the rest of the Trump phenom seriously and redirecting this to a Polling section on Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. imo, part of the reason for Trump's rise is the failure of the (joke alert) Adlei Stevenson backers to take Trump seriously. Wikipedia is as guilty of this as the rest of the media. And the editors who reflexively rush to delete Trump pages or hold themselves aloof from serious editing on Trump pages are probably helping Trump by convincing voters that the "media" are part of a giant anti-Trump conspiracy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to Trump mode effect. Thank you all for your efforts at staying impartial. There is a lot of press coverage for the rise of candidate Trump. A lot of those news articles talks about how wrong the polls have been. This article is highly relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrh168 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mode effect as there is not very much coverage of this phenomenon as it specifically relates to Trump, and this coverage seems insufficient to necessitate or justify a separate article on the effect specifically regarding Trump. But there is some coverage aside from the aforementioned Atlantic piece (e.g. [3] [4] [5]), which is why I am not voting delete. Everymorning (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect perhaps at best and I would've nearly closed this myself, there's nothing suggesting its own solid article. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated again and again above, this is merely one specific form of a general concept that's, by far, not unique to Trump. What one's own person feelings are about the man aren't relevant. It's a matter of sourcing. I don't object to a possible future redirect over to mode effect, but this article here should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added more examples and more citation of the trump mode effect. The new citation talk a lot more about how and why white voters do not want to publicly support Donald Trump. Zrh168 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mode effect. There does appear to be some mentions of this term, so I think a redirect couldn't hurt. However, I'm not convinced that the term has had enough coverage for it's own article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:50, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Grayfell (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata K. Sen

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

Completely lacks independent sources and doesn't clearly meet notability guidelines. A PROD was contested by an IP at Sen's alma matter, citing WP:ACADEMIC. This seems like trying to squeak by on a technicality to me, since the status and significance of the "Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Professor of Organization, Management, and Marketing" (named after tobacco exec Joseph Cullman) has not been established. It looks like this is one of at least two Yale positions named after Cullman, the other being in ecology, and I could find very little about the position. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at GScholar, we see that his articles have been cited thousands of times, that's highly quoted and a clear meet of WP:ACADEMIC#1. Also, he wrote many books.--Rajendra Tuli (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (six publications with over 100 cites each at Google scholar) and even more clear pass of WP:PROF#C5 (named professorship at Yale). The nomination statement seems to boil down to the nominator not understanding what a named professorship means rather than any failure of notability on the part of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As David Eppstein cogently points out, the subject clearly meets WP:PROF. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:29, 9 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 Zac Goldsmith. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Miranda Rothschild

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

Does not appear to be separately notable. There is a proposal to merge to her husband Zac Goldsmith which hasn't gone anywhere since March. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her husband's article where she is mentioned. Nothing notable about her. PamD 21:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge content When she appears in the news, it's as the wife of Zac. Her content is sourced, so I think it should be added as needed to the husband's article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would treat as a stub, and seek to improve. The fact she manages the hugely important Rothschild Archive (https://www.rothschildarchive.org) makes her somewhat notable. Engleham (talk) 04:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take that at face value. We have no information as to her academic qualifications and it seems unlikely that she really works for a living. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Redirect as this is not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Although she has received significant independent coverage from reliable sources, it's usually due to her husband. As such, this isn't independently notable and I think redirecting to Zac Goldsmith's article would be appropriate here. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 09:34, 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 Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moira de leon

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

unsourced vanity page for non-notable bit-player. Having a notable husband doesn't make her notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, and notability isn't inherited. GAB^Hello! 20:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From IMDB all I can find are very minor roles under the name Moira Kaye. The interesting thing is that IMDB has Moira Kaye listed as being born Moira McKeown in Glasgow, Scotland and living 1925–2011 which so totally disagrees with what we see in this article that I wonder if we are even talking about the same person, although the list of credits looks pretty much the same. It is not unknown for an actress to "update" her birth year as she ages but it is very unlikely that even the most skilful of actors can edit Wikipedia posthumously. So either IMDB is wrong or the article is substantially untrue. I am not finding anything on "Claude de Leon" in either Wikipedia or IMDB so I am now wondering whether the whole thing is a hoax or prank given that so little of it seems to check out. Anyway, even if it isn't a hoax it needs to go. It is unreferenced, unverifiable and fails to demonstrate notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the person who died in 2011: [6]. There is a comment underneath (obviously not RS but unlikely to be false) which refers to her acting on stage and TV but not in A Taste Of Honey. It might or might not be the same person, or maybe either the article or IMDB is mixing up two different people who were both actresses. I doubt it is possible to unpick this given the lack of sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for the needed notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched for sources to confirm almost all of the claims made in the article, and found nothing. (The one and only fact in the whole article which is verifiable is that an actress called "Moira Kaye" once existed, and as explained above that appears to be a different person.) Even if she were a very minor actress, if she and her husband had done all or even most of the things listed in the article I would expect at least some of its content to be mentioned somewhere that I could find, so the total failure to verify anything at all encourages me to believe that it is probably a hoax. If it isn't a hoax then she is extremely non-notable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 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) 12:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vyle

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

Autobiography or COI biography of a musician which lacks any chart positions or other convincing demonstration of notability. Allmusic has heard of him but only lists the one album, not any of the other stuff. I can't tell what label any of his recordings are on, so I can't say that that they are self published, only that I can't be sure that they are not. There seems to be a dependence on his association with other artists but notability is not inherited and some of the linked artists look borderline for notability themselves. The better references show some minor local media interest in him in the past (and I know that notability is not temporary) but it doesn't seem to add up to enough for the article. The other references are mostly his own social media accounts. DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence of notability. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing actually applicably convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 14 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 DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arysio Nunes dos Santos

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

Not enough references to establish notability or warrant an entire article for this person. Appears to me a minor fringe author who proposed a location for Atlantis HealthyGirl (talk) 19:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. HealthyGirl (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This author is referred in the Location hypotheses of Atlantis. People would like to know his details.Dhani irwanto (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)Dhani irwanto (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Article was just created and is probably not expanded at all. The Author is dead for ten years but the theme of "Atlantis in Indonesia" is greatly revived with recent findings of Gunung Padang that is told to be the oldest aritificial pyramid in the world, found in Indonesia.

Article needs better references and need to be checked for consistency, however, this Author maintained a largely accessed website on the theme of Atlantis. His site is claimed to be the most visited site about Atlantis. He got well known in the sect with the articles he published. His theory is more popular in Indonesia, because it could bring interest in Tourism and it may be that he never had space in the occident.

Santos is the only one said to have ever proposed one really "scientific" theory on the matter of Plato's Atlantis. He is cited in the page Location hypotheses of Atlantis as the "main Advocate" of such theory. He probably never had the space some novelists and some disruptive Authors have due to the more scientific nature of his work.

Authors on the theme of pseudoarchaeology and pseudoscience, and novelists like Graham Hancock and others indeed borrow from unkown authors such as this one, who usually do all the real scientific research, and end up with no credit neither in the field of "parascientific", nor in Academia, which usually abominates theme...

Atl@ntisfowl^talk 20:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. The references include a blog, a book by Arysio Nunes dos Santos, web sites of fringe organisations, and so on. Searching for information about him I found more of the same. There does not seem to be any significant coverage in any reliable independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. His only book is self-published and as Atl@ntisfowl points out, the reason that this has gotten any attention at all is because of a hope for tourism… Sorry. giso6150 (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a self-published book, no evidence he meets WP:PROF. As for Gunung Padang Megalithic Site, an article which makes some very dubious claims about its age, the West Java Tourist Board only dates it to 1500 BCE, nothing that special although fascinating.[7] Doug Weller talk 14:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is overall still questionable for the needed notability aside from the apparent "Atlantis" claims, nothing else convincing. Notifying DGG who wishes to be notified of such subjects and I also welcome his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 14 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. Thanks to the expansion and referencing done by MichaelQSchmidt. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Living Loaded

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

No general notability. Living Loaded is actually an unsold pilot for Fox, not a television film. [8] [9] snαp • snαp ^(talk) 18:10, 7 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

(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)

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

Keep. Pilot or not, the production has the coverage to meet WP:NF: Deadline (1), Deadline (2), Deadline (3), Hollywood Reporter, The Wrap, TV Guide, Huffington Post, Indiewire, and others. Needs to be improved through adding the many available sources, not deleted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: In following my own suggestion, the unsourced stub first brought to AFD, has now been expanded and sourced. More can be done, but I believe WP:GNG is shown. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the recent expansion and addition of credible and reliable sources, this page definitely meets the standards of notability. It still needs a lot of work, but it should be kept. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I nearly would've closed it myself, convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 14 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) 12:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ed's Amazing Liquid Light

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

Unreferenced page, with no notability (at least not when searching on the internet). Also, the page has been written by a user who possibly has a COI - with the page reading as quite promotional. My opinion is that the subject is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Seagull123 Φ 18:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable without some reliable sources and with article author that has a COI. —Prhart com♥ 14:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply too soon, nothing currently convincing for solid notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only found primary sources, so no notability here. In veritas (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like an open-and-shut case. Where is the notability? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:14, 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. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sabino

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

I can't find any reason that this woman is notable for anything in tennis. She is not notable per Tennis Project Guidelines or WP:NSPORT Guidelines. I checked the WTA website... no playing at all on the WTA tour. No minor league victory in an 50,000+ ITF event. No Fed Cup, no jrs championship. All she has done in singles or doubles is play the lowest level of minor league (the minor minor league) and only won a few of them. Perhaps she makes GNG notabiity in some manner I can't see, but she has done nothing notable in tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking over the athlete's records, it would appear she does not meet WP:NTENNIS, as she hasn't met any of those standards in playing in a GS event, or a major international competition, or winning a significant event. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cursory Google search yields several references to reinforce WP:GNG, including (but not limited to): 1 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Article is also on Germany, Italian, Polish and Arabic wikis. Article needs expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not she meets GNG with local newspapers is up for debate. She is not notable for anything tennis-related by playing in minor-minor-league tennis. But what other wiki's standards are has no bearing on this English Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as considering where this AfD is going regarding attention, it's enough for me to suggest keeping, certainly not a delete needed article. Delete and Draft for now as this is still questionable then for better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if this !vote is based only upon sources in the article, or if it included additional source searches, such as those available using the Find sources template atop, among others. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Seems to have enough basis for notability. There are enough references available to back up this point. NikolaiHo 21:31, 9 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 11:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Felipe

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Sources are almost exclusively press releases or performance schedules, with a couple of local pieces thrown in. Nothing recent indicate any increase in notability since it was tagged six years ago. Scr★pIron^IV 19:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches also found nothing outstandingly convincing better, the article seems at least minimally acceptable at first but examining still found it questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage I found is mostly restricted to local sources "Miami New Times (blog)" and "New Times Broward-Palm Beach (blog)". I have doubts about the independence of the local sources as well and they seem to be WP:SPS. Most coverage is anyway related to reporting performance dates. Doesn't fulfil any criteria of WP:BAND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass WP:GNG [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first three links are local, promotional listings of upcoming events. The last is a filler piece by a freelance author in the Miami music scene who only mentions the subject's name. None of these contribute to notablility. Scr★pIron^IV 13:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage, from reliable, independent sources to show that they pass either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:12, 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. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

54321

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, as far as I can find. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found these sources for what they are worth. There are no reviews because the film is not released until June 2016 (according to IMDB) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik, Janani (22 July 2015). "'54321' is a two-hour psychological thriller". The Times of India.
Subramanian, Anupama (16 July 2015). "54321 has a multiple narrative format". Deccan Chronicle.
Express feature (22 May 2015). "Writing Codes of a Suspense Flick". The New Indian Express.
Subramanian, Anupama (10 January 2016). "Karthik Subbaraj's assistant turns independent". Deccan Chronicle.

Keep perhaps as I was watching this along with all of my other AfDs, seems enough. Draft at best for now until it's set for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking further:

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

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)

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

lead:(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) Mainstream Production

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

WP:INDAFD: 54321 Movie Ragavendra Prasad G.V. Kannan Shabeer Arvin Pavithra Mainstream Production

Keep. Being a completed film with production receiving coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3) even as it awaits its June release. Time to continue improvements over time and through regular editing, not delete. Sorry Boleyn, it just meets WP:NF IMHO. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: to Boleyn, SwisterTwister and Malcolmxl5 et.al.... The unsourced 3 sentence stub first brought to AFD has benefited by the diligence of others and is now a decently sourced start class article which IMHO now obviously meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3) through having more-than-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Change to keep based on work put in and improvements. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what is essentially a withdrawal. Your return here is appreciated. . Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As article has been significantly improved since nomination, now clearly meets GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I think it needs to have it's title changed to 54321 (film) to avoid confusion. NikolaiHo 19:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikolaiho: done. Now at 54321 (film).

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:52, 9 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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadab Restaurant

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

Article does not cite any notable references and should be removed.--Account2235 (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without action. Nominator also edits as User:Account2234, and their pattern of generic usernames suggests they may well be a sock of the prolific, long banned sockmaster User:E4024, who also showed an interest in this article. Clearly not a new editor, and if not that user's sock, somebody else's. No constructive intent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I created an account with a similar username so that you would know that the same person is behind the account.Please do assume good faith wp:agf. Also note that there are no notable references available for this place as per the notability guidelines. Moreover see wp:not.--Account2235 (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the broader sock allegations, I will just note that both users are brand new, single purpose account users whose only activity here has been to attempt to get the article Shadab Restaurant deleted. Account2235 actually admits here that the two accounts are the same person. If we are to assume good faith, maybe we could ask them to explain why they created a new (2235) account instead of continuing to edit as 2234? --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user explained on their talk page that they lost the password to Account2234, so they created Account2235, fully intending it to be recognized as the same person. The editing pattern supports this explanation. I have now blocked Account2234 at their request. Clearly there was never any intent to use the two accounts deceptively, and now they have only a single account. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best actualy as there's nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability improvements and my searches have found nothing outstandingly convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what were your searches? At least your editing history shows that you might have spent a couple of minutes on this article, rather than the seconds that you usually use to form an opinion, but without telling us what your searches were your opinion here is very uninformative, and pretty useless in the process of forming a consensus, which is supposed to be what we are doing here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The best, somewhat reliable references I found are [14] and [15] which are unfortunately not enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any references in other languages, please post them here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per SwisterTwister & Lemongirl1492. The news posts available were mainly passing mentions and there is a paucity of those. I even found a mention in a novel which turned out to refer to a place next to the Charminar in Hyderabad, not Jeddah, so no joy there. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:11, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Amer Dabbas

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

No evidence of notability. Only one of the sources is substantially about him, and that is just a report of one incident, in a doubtfully significant source. I think the article arguably qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion A7, but it has previously been deleted twice, once under A7 and once via PROD, so I thought it better to enable it to be discussed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That the user has previously attempted to create an autobiography (and not done anything useful on wp) means we should be getting harder on them, not softer. DexDor^(talk) 19:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that there are media articles about this person I don't think A7 would be appropriate, but the available third-party sources are basically limited to some coverage of threats to kill him, which hardly gets past WP:NOTNEWS. Hut 8.5 21:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing actually convincing, including minimally, for keeping with the applicable notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not adequate.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 14:21, 15 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Paolinelli

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources in the article are either WP:PRIMARY (meaning that they're by Paolinelli or some place directly affiliated with him) or they're actually inappropriate to have on Wikipedia, like the link to Amazon. (I've removed this link.) A search brought up nothing else that could establish notability for this author. I also have to express concern about a possible COI, as the original editor's username is very similar to one of the author's handles. I've blocked them for this and for some other problematic behavior, so full disclosure on that end. The author has worked for various publications, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the author having worked for notable newspapers or because he wrote some books. These things make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's never a guarantee and there have been journalists that have worked for some of the world's most notable publications for years and wrote some fairly well received news stories, yet never gained enough coverage to justify them passing WP:CREATIVE. I'm sorry, but Paolinelli just doesn't pass notability guidelines. This is no slight against him - it's just that it's very, very difficult to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing from the current article is convincingly better for the needed notability and improvements, delete at best until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 14 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) 12:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Wife's Secret

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Prod removed, reason given that prod had been in place 7 days but not yet deleted. It had only just reached the 7 days - I've no idea if the remover felt the topic was notable. Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It also seems to be known as El secreto de una esposa. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches by the the director's name and stars turn up no reviews, and results are mostly porn sites and torrents. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for the needed films notability, delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not established. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:59, 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 deleted by RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1-2-Fly

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

I can't verify that this airline exists...I get some hits, but they are in German (which I do not read) & appear to be a travel agency rather than an airline. TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a very basic understanding of German, so I'll see what I can do. If you want a user who hasn't been learning German for only 2 years and is a native speaker of German, notify Sandstein. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one or 2 possible RS's, but I'm not sure how reliable this source is (http://www.presseportal.de/pm/31717/3281981). So, deletion is the best option. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 15:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very short article, prone to spam. KGirlTrucker87 (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely delete unless the article can be expanded. Currently has almost no content. Also ,instead of the (more to come) thing, consider using {{under construction}}.
comment FWIW, article creat0or's only other edit was to create a bogus article purporting to be about a less than trivial aviation incident.TheLongTone (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I would've also pursued speedy deletion at best, there's nothing including minimally better for keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 14 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marwood Marchant

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep But appears to pass WP:FOOTBALL.TheLongTone (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How? I couldn't find anything to establish notability. Adam9007 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playing for Cardiff City.TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you wouldn't mind adding some sources to corroborate notability? Adam9007 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of notability, I can't verify the existence of Marchant. Probably the best bet for doing that would be the archives of the South Wales Echo from ~1949-51 (when he seems to have been active, according to our article here). Unfortunately, I don't have access to those, and the Times and Sunday Times archives I do have access to don't turn up anything from searching... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not deserve an article since no verifiable sources pop up on a simple google search.--Account2235 (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. If you can'r google it, it does not exist. I've added a couple of refs. Since I think that football is one of the least interesting things on this or any other planet I've no idea how reliable they are.TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I've added some references and a basic infobox to cleanup the article somewhat. Definitely passes WP:FOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL with >50 appearances in the Football League. Number 5 7 12:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Subject played for several years and two different teams in the Football League, a league listed as fully professional, so passes the criteria outlined in the subject-specific notability guideline. This brings with it a presumption of general notability.
Although I'm not surprised that a basic Google search doesn't provide clear evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources of a person whose notable career ended more than 60 years ago, I am surprised that some of you failed to find evidence of Mr Marchant's existence: all three web references currently present in the article come from the first 17 results of the Google search linked above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. What are we to gain by deleting articles that satisfy our subject specific criteria? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 14 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Square the Circle (Mami Kawada album)

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

Album does not appear to be genuinely notable. References lack independence, and existence does not equate to notability. No awards, no significant non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 09:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this count as reliable coverage? There's also this I guess. Also, I think there might have been an interview with her regarding the album's making, will see in the next few days if I can find it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first link looks like it is a link to an interview with the artist. The English translation I was able to read was pretty disjointed. The interview never indicates who conducted or wrote it, which brings it into doubt. Also, it might only contribute to a notability argument for the artist, not necessarily this particular album (although it looks like the website, "Natalie", does have editorial oversight). Rather than guess what the other references are, can you tell me if they have named authors, if this album is indeed a significant focus of the interview/ article, and if the publisher is one that has paid editorial oversight? That would help a lot! Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 08:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KDS4444: The first link is indeed a link to an interview with Kawada, including a part on the making of the album. The second link is a link from LisAni (a reputable Japanese website which is widely used as a source for anime-related news) announcing the album. While neither article has a byline, as far as I know it's relatively uncommon for Japanese news websites to have bylines. I'm still looking for an interview she did with a website regarding the actual making of the album. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are on the right track here! If you can find appropriate ways to include these references in the article on the album, please do so as soon as you can. This deletion nomination is very likely to end in a "Keep" outcome, which is absolutely fine with me at this point, but there are no guarantees that another editor won't step in and offer a "Delete" vote until those references are added and support the notability claim. There is still time, so act soon! Good luck! KDS4444^Talk 15:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The album reached a peak position of 22 on the Oricon Albums Chart, which is a national or significant music or sales charts in Japan. A source for the chart placement can be found here. This and @Narutolovehinata5:'s addition of a couple reliable sources about the album makes this seem more notable than I originally thought. Aoba47 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oricon specific to the album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I vote weak keep due to its placement on a major chart and @Narutolovehinata5:'s contribution of some reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm inclined to think that top 30 album chart placement is notable and impressive in and of itself. The release is indeed on the official Oricon website, as referred to above, which I think is a reliable source (albeit a primary one). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, album meets the criterion in notability guideline for recordings by having charted on the WP:GOODCHARTS-listed Oricon, and by being referenced with citations to reliable, secondary sources. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:06, 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. Nakon 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battery Cage

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - Metropolis is a proper label, buuuuut there are indeed no sources at all on this article - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference provided to back up anything written here. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 14 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 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numerai

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

Article about a six month old hedge fund. The Financial Times source seems to be the only available independent source. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finished Adding more independent resources Rolly Jodger (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references. Just read that these references do not necessarily need to be added to the article to establish notability, so feel free to remove spurious references. The Financial Times and CrunchBase are editorial, clearly trustworthy, and should be enough? If AFD-requester or anyone can restate their notability concerns then please post them here or on my talk page. If there is anything else I can do to make the article better, please post that too. Rolly Jodger (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep User:Rolly Jodger, User:MrX, I'm not completely convinced that it's notable, but it seems notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The article needs work, the writing isn't very good. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON, I think. I'm fine with it being moved into Draft: or User: space: It's possible that substantial coverage will appear in reliable sources independent of the FT, but who knows? WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Cheers! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 12:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon, not nearly a year old and there's not enough imaginably of course. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are something on the order of 10,000 hedge funds in existence. The truly notable ones have been around a long time and hold assets measuring well in excess of $1 billion. Here, the subject holds 1.5 million (not billion), which the article says was raised just last month. The modeling contests that they sponsor do seem interesting, but I don't see it as enough to get the subject past the notability criteria. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:52, 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 04:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Voidstar Productions

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a custom Google search of reliable music sources. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 14:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 14:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - needs sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:CORP. Unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 14 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 04:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandra Minor

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

Non notability. I know that if I speedy this somebody will remove the speedy in the fond belief that being the "African-American woman in Mississippi to serve as certified orthodontist" is a credible claim of notability, so I'm going the long route. TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a notable and significant accomplishment. I've seen wiki entries for things way less. Out of the millions of African-American females that have lived in Mississippi since the inception of the country, she's the first to serve as an orthodontist .... you're being irrational. Please explain how that's not notable? Only a racist would find that offensive or "non notable".Broadmoor (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a very offensive remark. IMO this article speaks volumes about the primitive social development of the United States, but this does not make the woman notable.TheLongTone (talk)

"Only a racist would find that offensive or non-notable". What a silly comment. Grow up. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If being the first black woman orthodontist in Mississippi is a notable achievement, there should be enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Please remember to base arguments on Wikipedia policy. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not a very strong one. There's this piece dedicated to her in a local newspaper. It contains significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject, but I'm not sure if the localness of the newspaper abrogates that. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a single article in a local paper???? Not nearly good enough.TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as all of this is still questionable at best, we can certainly wait for better if ever available, the current article is simply not convincing. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm willing to accept first Afro-American woman in the US to be a dentist; I might be hesitant over first in Mississippi to be a dentist, or first in the US to be an orthodontist. But first in one particular state to be in one particular specialty is absurd as a claim of notability. The nearest rule is NOT TABLOID--this sort of pseudo-importance is for local newspapers, which will print essentially anything about local people. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is said to be the 1st African-American, female (note that modifier) Orthodontist in Mississippi. However considering this is from a publication of her Alma Mater and written with the intent to give a positive spin to that institution of higher education, I am a bit skeptical if that claim is true. However first in a state who is female African-American in a specific specialty is just too fine to be notable, especially considering how it is sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above ad hominen langauge by some would be helped if we had a better grasp of 1-how many orthodontists there are in Mississippi now, 2- what % of them are female, 3- how many orthodontists there were in Mississippi in 1950, 3-how many of them were female. 5- how many people joined the civil rights movement because they were tired of always having to go to a white orthodontist. Somehow I think African-Americans aspiring to help through professions in 1970 would generally pick to be doctors more than dentists, and if dentists to choose to work to keep people's oral health high as regular dentists, instead of entering the orthodontic profession which to many would seem as a truly upper class field involving helping high income people pay to have their children look even better. Plus even those who chose to be orthodontists would probably more gravitate to Atlanta, Chicago, New York City, LA and the San Francisco Area than Mississippi.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, for some of the factors you mention, if she had become a dentist in the 1950s, I would not have !voted for deletion; if it had been even in the 1970s, possibly not. But she became a dentist in 2012. The significance is not the same. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 15 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 04:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Promised Land: The Movement and the Myth

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

Fails WP:NB Vi Dwell (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator): No signs of notability. Vi Dwell (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and-or Redirect to author if needed as I searched and simply found nothing better, there's regardless nothing else to suggest an improved separate article. Notifying DGG for his literature analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Worldcat shows only 134 libraries, and it's not from a major publisher. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not every book by a notable author necessarily gets automatic inclusion rights on Wikipedia just because it exists — the notability of the book still has to be supported by reliable sources about the book, and notability is not inherited just because of the name on the cover. And who blurbs the book isn't a claim of notability in and of itself, either, so the fact that you can throw the name Noam Chomsky into the article isn't an automatic freebie — especially if your only source for the fact is the publication details of the book itself. But once you discount that, all we've got left for sourcing is a user-generated discussion forum and a non-notable blog — which is not the type of sourcing it takes. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 15 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 Deletion - Article has been deleted as a blatant hoax MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 6

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

WP:NOTNEWS Entirely non-notable incident. TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable aviation incident, barely newsworthy Seasider91 (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, so fails WP:GNG and even with proper sources is entirely non-notable. Just because some TV station has a slow news day and reports some non-incident doesn't mean we have to have an article on it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:Hoax. A google news search shows nothing in the news for an incident as described in the article. The article is totally unreferenced also. Even if the incident happened, delete as not notable aviation incident....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - article claims incident happened next Monday. "Pepper" @ 14:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This article describes an incident that purportedly took place "May 16,2016". That's nine days in the future from now. Nor have I found evidence that this is a real incident that was misdated in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is an obvious hoax, even if I ignore the improbable date (16 May, 2016). I found this link which talks about a "United Airlines Flight 6", but this happened way back in 1934 and the details do not match the description in the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:24, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Dupont (painter)

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

The page appears to be a long-lived hoax. No legitimate Google references exist for the supposed artistic career of the subject of this page, created in 2012 by a single-purpose account. It appears that a PDF document, listed as a reference, was created around the same time to support this page. The work "Silver Ghost of Our Time," the imaginary publisher "New Maryland University Press," and the supposed individual "Charles Cecoix" generate absolutely no Google references apart from this article and mirrors. All indications point to a hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax: In addition to the above, the journal A.R.T. Quarterly does not appear to exist outside of this article and its mirrors, nor does Dominique Boudreau, the collector it claims owned all of DuPont's known works. The pdf to the A.R.T Quarterly paper is hosted on tastykinky.com, which claims to be "online real-estate for web-based art projects". In fact, there doesn't appear to be a single person in the ART Quarterly paper who I can confirm to have existed... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax - as per above. I'm astounded this has hung around so long. GAB^Hello! 18:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also found nothing at all. I would even tag it myself but it may be removed. FoCuSandLeArN may be interested to know about this as that user accepted this at AfC. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: FoCuSandLeArN already knows about this issue. I posted on their talk page, and got a reply, a day before I brought Pierre Dupont (painter) to wider attention by posting in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts. Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax for the reasons given at Talk:Pierre Dupont (painter). Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per research by Narky Blert. Thanks for bringing this up and having the time to investigate. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 9 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 04:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24K (radio show)

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

Previously deleted via prod. From its existence in March 2008 through October 2011, and since its recreation in July 2012, no sources have been cited to verify the claims made in the article. This radio show does not appear to be notable. — ξ ^xplicit 13:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reliable sources are impossible to find anyway. Sixth o f March 09:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any better applicable notability, it's only a local show with nothing to actually suggest minimal improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 23:23, 14 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Also note that the nominator (diff) withdrew in a later comment in the discussion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ch'ang Ming

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

Not a single reference or external link is independent, all written by a Chee Soo. The article states: "Ch'ang Ming is practised by groups who... were students of Chee Soo."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references included in this article are published by an independent and reputable publisher namely Harpercollins. Wikipedia recommendations state that references can be included if they are from reliable sources, these sources are not self published but from an internationally known and respected publisher. This book was published in several languages by several other well known international publishers. I have amended the article with a reference to the earlier first edition paperback version.

"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

"Books published by respected publishing houses"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Chuangzu (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make other Wikipedians aware that you are the creator of the page. Thanks for your reply. However, only 1 reference was published by Harpercollins (originally by an Aquarian Press). The others were all published by "Seahorse Books", which appears non-independent. Who are the "several other well known international publishers" that you speak of? Timmyshin (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These references are from "The Tao of Long Life" which was originally published by Gordon & Cremonesi of London and New York in 1979 (ISBN 0860330680) and reprinted in 1982 in paperback by Aquarian Press (ISBN 0850303206) an imprint of Harpercollins. After the death of the author the license was transferred to Seahorse Books who reprinted it in 2008 with a different cover hence the new ISBN number. This is the edition that is currently in print and is the one Wikipedia readers are most likely to encounter today for example on Amazon, but it remains unchanged from the original. Harpercollins licensed it out in 1983 as "Le Tao de Longue Vie" ISBN 2890441539 published by Le Jour, Éditeur, Division de Sogides Ltée and distributed in Canada by Agence de distribution populaire inc, in France and Africa by Inter-forum, and in Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal and les pays de l'est (Eastern Europe) by S.A.Vander, in 1985 as "Il Tao di Lunga Vita" ISBN 8844300575 published by Siad Editoni in Milan, Italy, in 1986 as "El Tao de la Salud" ISBN 8472451631 published by Editorial Kairos in Barcelona, Spain, and in 1996 as "Hidup sehat menurut Tao" ISBN 9796053624 published in Indonesia by Penerbit PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama of Jakarta. There is also a chapter devoted to Ch'ang Ming in "Taoistisches Heilen" published in 1989 in Germany by Kösel (ISBN 3466342287). There are various other books and website articles referring to Ch'ang Ming on the internet but I thought it better to limit the scope of the article and confine the references to the better known publication by Chee Soo. Chuangzu (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find sources others than those attributed to Chee Soo as author. For a truly notable diet, I would have expected to find numerous secondary sources, but I find none. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve in that case. Delete at best as the current article including the listed sources are not convincing for the needed notability improvements. Asking DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought Chang Ming diet was a general term for a Taoist diet. At the moment, Wikipedia seems to have a page named Chang Ming which redirects to Taoist diet. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I found a series of columns from The Straits Times issues of 1984-85 talking about the Chang Ming diet. [16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23]. All of them have been written by the same columnist. This says "Chang Ming diet, formulated by ancient Taoists" while this mentions a book by Chee Soo in the bibliography. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you're saying that this diet was published in Britain, America, Canada, France, Belgium, Africa, Switzerland, Portugal, Eastern Europe, Italy, Spain, and Indonesia over a period of over ten years and was a best seller with numerous reprints for one of the top five major international publishers, it's still in print today thirty seven years later and yet it's not notable? I added some extra links to the section on websites advocating Ch'ang Ming diet I found on Google [24],[25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31], and I changed that redirect from Chang Ming which is a Pinyin style spelling of Ch'ang Ming the more common term still in use because "Chang Ming" is not a generic name for any Taoist Diet. By the way most of those 34 The Straits Times articles [32] directly relate to "The Tao of Long Life" and so does Aileen Yeoh's book published in 2004. Is there a problem with space on Wikipedia or something, how big is the text file that makes up this page I wonder? Chuangzu (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. but trim. There's enough evidence that it's notable, though it is notoriously difficult to show it precisely according to our usual standards for this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I am still undecided. I'm not sure if using the Aileen Yeoh links (I posted above) as references would be appropriate, since this report by the Singapore Medical Association has actually questioned some of her claims. I will have a look at this article in detail later to ensure that there are no contentious claims in this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the full article you have posted above you will see that there is some question about the SMA article taking some statements out of context, after all it's just another column in the same newspaper not a clinical evaluation, and she has written a response. It looks to me like they are splitting hairs. Whatever the case this is only one of thirty four articles, isn't Wikipedia meant to be informative not interpretive? I suggest we keep these references and let people make their own minds up about the context of the information. Doctors and alternative medicine practitioners do not necessarily share the same methodology, or analysis, so there's always going to be some debate. In Chinese medicine in particular the diagnosis and classification of disease is completely different to the Western medical corpus. I have tried to research Aileen Yeoh but she seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth after she wrote these articles, are you in Singapore @Lemongirl942:, any ideas? Chuangzu (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to answer in detail later. A bit short of time right now so I will put my !vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim certain content. Notable as can be seen from the Straits Times references. However the article needs to be trimmed of certain content, particularly the section Advocates of the Ch'ang Ming diet, some of which relies on primary sources/non-reliable sources and part of which may be original research as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as nominator User:Chuangzu and User:lemongirl942 have provided many independent links. Timmyshin (talk) 20:55, 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. Nakon 04:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunde Sleek

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

non-notable musician that fails WP:MUSBIO —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 11:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 11:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

he is not notable. he dosent have any impact in the nigerian music industry with no album or mixtape. this is a joke. Vivace tomcat (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This userOluwaCurtis always putting up artist that don't pay him for deletion and he also uses his secondary account Vivace tomcat to comment in discussions to have them deleted,I just saw the artist video on national tv that's why I decided to search more info about him on Wikipedia but didn't see so I created,I advice admin to google him as he is properly cited ,I advice you investigate him and that second account he uses Vivace tomcat (Newmusiclisting (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- I also noticed that on every page he puts an afp ,the user Vivace always comments, Also I Googled Olatunde sleek to get his citation and it wasn't difficult to get — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmusiclisting (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Newmusiclisting You must learn to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. I know Vivace tomcat in real life and I am 100% certain that I am the only one he knows on Wikipedia. You need to apologize for your wrong assertions on a newbie. Darreg (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OluwaCurtis. Artist fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Carefully looking at the sources, they seem neither in-depth nor reliable. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know ho this works though but ive seen his video on hip tv,if that counts,i think he deserves to have a page here ,plus his references on google are blogs with wikipedia pages too (154.118.28.228 (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as simply nothing else applicable for solid acceptability yet, delete for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 14 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 04:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HKN Music

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The record label has not been discussed in significant detail to warrant a stand alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 11:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HKN music has not recieved significant coverage in reliable sources in itself. All its sources are centered on Davido. It's inclusion on Wikipedia adds no encyclopaedic benefit to knowledge, Nigerian music or Wikipedia. As long as there is no guideline like "If a record label has at least one notable artist, it is automatically notable", this article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. It should be Deleted. Darreg (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also as it's only somewhat newly started, simply nothing else convincing and unlikely anything else existingly convincing for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 14 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 04:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Conspiracy (Animorphs)

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

This books doesn't have any sources to establish notability. There do not seem to be any critical reviews of the work. TTN (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. No reason presented for deletion. If the nomination statement is accurate, the rather obvious appropriate action is to redirect to Animorphs. The nom's practice of bringing simple content issues like this to AFD is disruptive and time-wasting. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Animorphs as I have not found anything else better for improvements and it's imaginably best connected to the series. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 14 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. - Sources provided, No valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Elias

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

Blank page with no history worth saving. The only thing done here is that a redirect to shoah (film) was created. Daniel kenneth (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Moot. Andrew D. (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Sources are now provided, notability established thanks to Andrew Davidson's quick efforts. Other sources are apparent in searches, such as [33][34][35][36][37][38][39] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per sources provided above by Arxiloxos. GAB^Hello! 18:17, 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. Meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Nakon 04:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Samaritan School - Jasola

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

Private school, search for source returned little more than directories, indexes, review sites, school's own site and social networking accounts, and the occasional article^[1], no evidence of significant coverage by anyone, fails WP:ORG. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 07:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself noticed this earlier and wanted to speedy but since it's still a school, delete at best and restart if needed. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Registration Code 1925346 (with additional info indicated as sourced from 2013-14 government data here). Associated charity is at http://www.friendsofthegoodsamaritans.org (note copyvio or COI cut-and-pastes). As a I-XII school (not senior only -- the charity site indicates the building is secondary school and there are two feeder primary sites) it meets WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (note also WP:INDAFD), therefore a weak keep for consistency until community agreement is reached that only schools proven (rather than assumed) to be notable should be kept. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:V and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Constant stream of Indian schools at AfD is tiring. No one nominates American secondary schools for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't strictly true - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randolph Southern Junior-Senior High School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Union City Community High School, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Good point, this and Hydronium Hydroxide's above. Would have withdrawn the nomination now, but if only I still could. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 06:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be there subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Passes WP:V. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo. And WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is of course no policy or proper argument to use here. It is just an in complete summery of earlier AfDs with no value or status at all. The Banner talk 09:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is supposed to reflect practice, and practice is that articles about secondary/high schools are kept. If the written policy doesn't say that then the problem is that it doesn't reflect the actual policy, which is precisely based on a summary of earlier AfDs and has more value and status than anything that isn't based on what is actually done here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Schooloutcomes is NOT a policy, not by far. And to keep a school because they are kept in the past, is a rather poor argument (especially as school are not always kept). The Banner talk 02:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.sooperarticles.com/education-articles/good-samaritan-school-jasola-south-delhi-440184.html

- Comment - This AfD suggests a better attentive consensus is needed and I'm asking DGG who asks to be notified of education subjects, I also welcome his analysis hence. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several ways of making guidelines. One of them is consistent practice. We make the rule by what we do here--they are not handed down to use00there is no legislative body or dictator or executive commitee making rules. What we normally do is a guideline for what we do. 99.99% of articles on secondary schools in the last 6 years have been kept, unless there was some special case like a doubt about real existence--or of course other factors such as copyvio. (that number isn't a random guess--we've had in that period about 50,000 such articles. fewer than 5 have been deleted --in a very few aberrant afds ) DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So you consider the summery Common Outcomes as a guideline? The Banner talk 08:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per long-term consensus as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools); secondary school articles are typically retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 14 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. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Beurmann

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

Warnings up here for 7 years with no sourcing. I looked around a bit on google and really found only other wiki's, blogs or self published works. If there are good sources that we can add to this, great! But if not, seven years is enough time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia page is much more extensive than our one-line stub. EdChem (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but we couldn't use that as a source and if we don't speak German we can't tell what it says. The sources don't really allow me to check either. English Google didn't tell me anything and this article shouldn't have been allowed to exist with no sources. I'm glad we found some sources but is everyone in the sikart source notable? Blofeld's source is really just a listing, not a bio, so we need to know that everyone in that book is 100% notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can make this at least stub-worthy with sources to show notability I'll withdraw this AfD. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is striking that more than ten people have contributed to the entry, but only one of them has added a (half) line of content. There seems to be an awful lot of fiddling round the edges, but a reluctance to add something useful. Are wiki contributors so overwhelmingly shy? Or is it just less trouble to fiddle round the edges?

As fas as the entry is concerned, there's an apparently usable entry in German wiki. It's not wonderful, but it's a lot better than what passes on English wiki as a "stub". I suspect someone attempting a translation from the German might have baulked at the idea that our man's father was a "Tapezierer" which to me has something to do with hanging wall-paper, but back in the nineteenth century probably meant something a bit different. Does anyone have any better ideas?

I've dug out an on-line potted biography and will happily adapt a few lines aided by German wiki. Maybe someone else would care to do a few more? The list of the guy's works alone indicates that he "deserves" a wiki entry.

Happy days Charles01 (talk) 09:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the language was a barrier? I'd have added something if I could find anything in English... but there really wasn't any. So I questioned if this dude was even notable after 7 years of zero sources. It looks like he accomplished much of his notability in the city of Basel also, so that helps out at the Basel article also. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Partly language, yes obviously. But you really can't rule out sources simply because they fail to use GOD'S OWN LANGUAGE. The Anglosphere has a long standing propensity to disappear up it's own linguistic monoculture, but you have to hope that wikipedia's eye watering stated ambitions for its own scope should trump (sorry...) at least the worst of of that. My other thought: with this guy - as with a lot of artists and writers - when you google, a lot of the online sources are from people trying to sell the art, which for those of us inherently mistrustful of salesmen is not the most inspiring of sources. Anyhow, I find the Basler University Library confers a bit more comfort than an art dealer's guff. I hope others agree. Otherwise, yes he's clearly of more direct interest if you live (or have lived) in Basel than if you don't (or haven't): I did try to restrict my "google hits" by including "Basel" alongside his name on the Google box. Maybe if I'd included Basle instead I'd have got a whole lot more in French or English. It's only in the last few decades that English language sources have switched (?back) from calling the city Basle to Basel, I think. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. Covered in SIKART, the Swiss biographical dictionary of artists, at a level of detail ("Bearbeitungstiefe") of 2 out of 5, which roughly corresponds to their assessment of notability. So that's not much. But together with the cited Basler Literaturarchiv entry that's probably enough material for borderline notability. Sandstein 09:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a bit and there seems to be a 10-page article about his life in a Basel historical journal: Steuri, Eduard. E. Beurmann, der Dichtermaler, 1862-1951. (Basler Jahrbuch 1952, S. 156 -165. Portr.), assuming that Portr. refers to Porträt, or "portrait", the German term used for long biographical articles. Then there are 13 works listed as literature about him in SIKART, mostly exposition catalogues, but also works that seem to be biographical or descriptive judging from the titles. According to de:, he also has an entry in de:Allgemeines Künstlerlexikon, a German biographical dictionary of artists, and in a book about personalities from Basel. Overall we do seem to have quite enough material for an article, it's just that it's mostly in pre-Internet Swiss and German books. Changing opinion to "keep". Sandstein 18:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I opened this discussion and am satisfied as to the worthiness of keeping this article. Could an administrator such as @Sandstein: please close it as keep? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may not close a discussion in which I offered an opinion, but another admin will come along eventually to close it. Sandstein 18:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, don't be so Swiss about things. The nominator has withdrawn and nobody else has called for deletion, so of course you can close this, whatever the rules might say. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:17, 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. Nakon 04:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adem (1912 car)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Page says "The car was not commercially successful, and it is possible none were sold" so not notable. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's in other encyclopedias (see references in de:Adem (Automobilhersteller)) - are they reliable sources? 82.132.186.32 (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commercial success of a product is not a WP:GNG requirement. The car brand existed and is listed in reliable sources, which do not need to be available on-line. DeVerm (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles)#"Types". Assuming the reference was not misrepresented, this car was "offered for commercial sale under a distinct brand name or classification"; that none was sold is, under that essay, irrelevant. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as this would especially need familiar attention with archives. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 14 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 04:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N V Abdussalam Moulavi

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

Notability - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 09:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. If the schools he runs are to be considered major academic institutions (of which I'm skeptical) then we need evidence for this in the form of reliable independent in-depth sources saying so. If not, we need the same reliable independent in-depth sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Either way, we don't have them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per reasoning of the previous poster. Safiel (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've also considered deleting had I found it, nothing with minimal context for better notability and its improvements, delete and wait for a better article if available. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches have only provided one passing mention in a book source ([40]); does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 14 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Ahmed (cricketer)

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

Not notable doesn't passes WP:NCRIC GreenCricket (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry GC, but he does pass NCRIC ("has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above since 2007 as a player") - played in the Div 5 tournament in 2008. There could also be a case made that as the captain of a national cricket side (albeit Norway), he'd pass WP:GNG on that basis alone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's my bad. I suppose this Afd should close. GreenCricket (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:30, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crondall Petanque Club

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

Fails WP:CLUB. Google New Search brings 0 results. Only internet sites I found are own website and council site. Is self-promotion WP:SPIP. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - no references of note Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article with no evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Dcirovic (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for minimally better notability improvements, this could be kept and hoped to improve but.... we all know there's been enough time and it's best restarted of course. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 14 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#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lachie Barber

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

This is a hoax, he is not the captain of Melbourne Football Club. Grahame (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checked MFC website and isn't on team/rookie page [41]. No news articles. Also, by his age he should be in years 11 or 12. Agree it is hoax. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - no references of note Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:47, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saskia Maarleveld

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT Small roles in dubbed cartoons, and one video game. The audio book award is not notable. Sources are almost all credit lists, with one industry related article and a personal interview. Per WP:TOOSOON - needs major roles, or a major award, or significant coverage. Scr★pIron^IV 19:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Scr★pIron^IV 19:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only major role I've seen so far is Bloom in Winx Club, so I'm having trouble trying to show how this would meet WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The role is Tecna. And I can add more links. Is that a good deal?--Maxie1hoi (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Techna, whatever. Doesn't matter. That's just one starring role. That's not enough to keep her around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as her list is certainly not outstandingly convincing and there's nothing to suggest the better notability improvements, not for WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 04:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - no references of note Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notable roles. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my sweeps such as this one did not find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:09, 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. Michig (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIP (band)

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

Article that has not been sourced in its nearly decade long existence. Supposedly has released three albums, but only one listed at AllMusic. Clearly does not satisfy WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Band appears to have been defunct for quite some years now, so highly unlikely it will ever be notable. Results on Google are very sparse and many are just mirrors of this Wikipedia page. Safiel (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree fails WP:GNG. Can only find an Indonesian band with that name. Also is no Spanish page. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I originally PRODded this article, not realising that it had already been PRODded before, and Safiel, quite correctly, dePRODded it and put it up for AfD instead. The group, who mostly just make cover versions of old songs with a more modern electronic party feel, are in fact still going – see this article from last year in a regional Colombian newspaper. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is precious little information out there: the article above simply talks about their new single being a cover of a song from 1981; this and this from the same newspaper in 2011 and 2014 respectively are brief interviews in which they talk about their current single of the time. I have no idea where the quote in the article comes from and cannot trace it. The previous AfD was withdrawn because it was noted that the band had released more than two albums, but I believe this is a misreading of point 5 of WP:BAND which says a band MAY be notable if it has released two or more albums on a major record label, which I don't think BIP have done. The only criterion on this list the band have probably satisfied is number 11, but that still doesn't necessarily qualify them as being notable enough to have an article, particularly as we are struggling to find sources. Richard3120 (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete search found more info about another band with same name founded in 1996, only significant info from Wikipedia page itself or mirrors of said page, as found by User:EllsworthSchmittendorf - Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but still a definite WP:NBAND fail. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 05:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - no references of note Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've considered deleting including by PROD had I found it, nothing for at best minimally better notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 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 04:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love In Anjengo

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

Fails WP:NFF, also WP:TOOSOON. Charles Turing (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The shoot of the film will start in coming July"^[1], which fails WP:NFF. JW Noctis^{talk to me} 12:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/dulquer-salmaan-in-love-in-anjengo

Delete as nothing convincing for the needed notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF (The movie, which will start shoot by July this year, currently has a working title of 'Love in Anjengo'. [42]). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 14 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 04:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaderdogs for the Blind

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

Unreferenced for more than eight years. I can't find sources. Short entry in the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. I don't recall their music even selling well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also can't find any sources, unless it is about guide dogs. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 14 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 04:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A History of Violence (rap duo)

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

Not notable. Lots of primary sources to prove they exist, but no solid indication of notability. SummerPhD^v2.0 01:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for at least general notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above - not notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 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 delete. At no point in this discussion have sources been presented that give the subject notability, outside of routine coverage in a limited geographical area. Bearcat, and IamNotU are (as far as I can tell) 100% correct on their interpretation of those policies and their application to WP:NPOL; and perhaps the best way to illustrate this is from WP:GEOSCOPE "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group." (While this is obviously not an all encompassing guideline, it does provide some pretext for what we should be seeing in the coverage of this subject.) Therefore, the article's subject is found to lack the required notability for inclusion at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cohen

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

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot more written about her that's not referenced. Keep it with a banner. VanEman (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (creator). I've added a second source that is reliable and independent of the subject as well as expanded the article. This article passes WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."--TM 10:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a politician hasn't gotten an automatic WP:NPOL pass by virtue of her role, then it takes a lot more than just two articles in the local media to get her over WP:GNG. All local politicians always garner coverage in their local media, so such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, no in-depth coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the articles? There are two in-depth articles on Cohen. One even goes so far as to tell her life story.--TM 02:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two in-depth articles in her local media doesn't cut it. That's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the type that all politicians at this level of office always get. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it better than I did! AusLondonder (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a place with a population of just 25K, neither being a city councillor nor even being the mayor constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — at this level of government the media coverage has to nationalize to make them appropriate for inclusion. But all of the citations here are to local media — which, as noted above, falls under WP:ROUTINE as all local politicians will garner local coverage. Which means that nothing written or sourced here demonstrates a reason why anybody not in her own local area would need to read an article about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article clearly passes WP:GNG with multiple, independent, reliable sources. One of the sources is a long form biographical piece from the state's largest newspaper. There is nothing routine about that. In fact, if you re-read routine, you will see that it clearly does not apply to these sources.--TM 11:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single city councillor on the planet for whom you couldn't find two articles about them in the local newspaper — such coverage is WP:ROUTINE, because local media covering local politics is entirely within the realm of the normal and expected. If a place is not large enough to get its municipal council politicians over WP:NPOL on size of the city grounds, then media coverage only gets them over the WP:GNG bar if it demonstrates that they're significantly more notable than the norm, by expanding significantly outside the bounds of the purely local. If there were 30 or 40 distinct citations to the local newspaper, then there might be a stronger case that local coverage was enough because the volume of it was getting disproportionately large — but two pieces in the local newspaper isn't even slightly out of the realm of the ordinary level of coverage that all mayors of small towns always get. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly a fine opinion for one to have, but it is in no way grounded in Wikipedia policy. Your bias against statewide newspaper coverage is baffling. The coverage is quite in-depth and from a variety of sources. Cohen is not just mentioned in the articles, but the articles are in fact about Cohen herself. In fact, if you tried to find such articles on South Portland's current mayor, which I have, you would not be able to find anything even close to the type of biographical coverage that Linda Cohen has received. The Portland Press Herald article is more in-depth than most city councilors receive, so your hyperbole is quite unwarranted.--TM 12:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a bias against "statewide newspaper coverage" — the fact that the local newspaper in her own local area happens to have statewide distribution doesn't constitute statewide coverage for Wikipedia's purposes. Even The New York Times, which has national distribution, does not automatically confer "national coverage" status on a topic of purely local interest which it's covering in a purely local context — a chip stand in Williamsburg does not get over GNG just because it got a restaurant review in the local section of the NYT; a non-winning candidate for New York City Council does not get over GNG just because the routine local coverage of the election happens to be in the NYT rather than the Palookaville Pennysaver. Where the coverage is coming from has to expand away from local to count as extralocal coverage, not the distribution range of the local media outlet. And there's no "hyperbole" involved here, either — local media cover local politics. That's their job. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not yet compelling for obvious signs with the applicable notability and also better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage does not extend beyond WP:ROUTINE, other than that, does not pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone read WP:ROUTINE? It says absolutely nothing about local news coverage. The sources of this article include a feature length, long form article written by a statewide newspaper and an interview with a regional weekly newspaper, on top of coverage of her actions as city clerk of the largest city in the state and during her time as mayor, when the city council made national headlines. WP:ROUTINE includes "coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" as well as "Wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, crime logs". There is nothing of that sort in this article. If you have a bias against small city politicians having an article on Wikipedia, that's fine, but don't try to cite Wikipedia's notability guidelines to confirm your bias.--TM 18:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE covers all forms of "media coverage that is to be expected in this context". Yes, it lists wedding announcements and obituaries as examples of what routine coverage entails — but examples do not limit a rule as being applicable only to those specific examples, and irrelevant to anything not explicitly named as an example. Routine coverage does also include purely local coverage of local municipal politics, purely local coverage of the local furniture store's fifth anniversary blowout sale, purely local coverage of local restaurants, purely local coverage of an unsigned local band playing their local watering hole, and on and so forth. If a person or thing doesn't have a strong claim to passing Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion standards for their field of activity, then to get a WP:GNG pass the level and range of media coverage has to go significantly above and beyond the realm of the merely expected. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and Notability. — Music1201 ^talk 03:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ROUTINE unambiguously states that its basis is WP:NOTNEWS. A biographical article is not news, whether or not it is in a newspaper. The first two references are not news, the last three are. Without trying hard, I found a source from the Bangor Daily News (over 100 miles away) covering the mayoral race, so it has at least some coverage at a more regional level. If the standard to pass WP:NPOL/WP:GNG, as Bearcat states, is high volume of local coverage, I was able to find way more than 30-40 local news articles mentioning Linda Cohen, probably closer to a hundred, although I stopped counting. The lack of x number of citations in the article is completely irrelevant to notability. Sure I'd like more sources, but I'm not comfortable deleting at this time. -- RM 19:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that in Maine the big newspapers have very wide, effectively state-wide, coverage areas. A local politician gets the level of coverage that in most states a higher level politician may get. That makes them notable at a relatively lower political level, because the amount and geographical spread of coverage increases proportionally. A cursory look at the news coverage supports this. It also appears that the decisions that South Portland makes have statewide ramifications, particularly the local oil policies, since it is an important port. -- RM 20:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant here, since the policy refers only to announcements of events. Linda Cohen has significant statewide coverage. The article easily passes WP:BASIC. As RM noted, there are even more sources not included in the article.Michiquito (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles are local to her, we virtually never let people be deemed to pass GNG for articles on them in their own local press.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks non-routine significant coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is routine and local -- fails WP:POLITICIAN, insufficient for WP:GNG. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per others. The few articles that are sourced in the article are routine and local. It would require far more sources than the page currently has for it to pass relevant policies. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have a local politician, a former major, who quite understandably got some local coverage. Per standard practice, this is not sufficient to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not enough agreement to close Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this was delisted a second time. It seems obvious that there is no consensus.--TM 15:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly there has been coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, perhaps with state-wide distribution. It may have been in depth - but it has not been significant. There is nothing historical. Wikipedia is the history book for the future, being written as it unfolds. What is the big picture here? Is there anything about Cohen that makes her clearly notable, in comparison with other former mayors of South Portland? Should we expect that a book-length biography will be written about her? Is there something that leads us to think that in the future, she "will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians"? Is there some scandal or achievement that garnered nation-wide attention?

The Portland Press Herald article goes into great detail about her life, but it doesn't claim or support anything outstanding or exceptionally notable about her; it's more of a "who is the new mayor?" human-interest article. In fact, that article says that for most of her 21-year career as a city clerk, nobody noticed her! And the 2010 piece says "“For nearly a decade, Linda has been the person behind the curtain, making sure that the clerk’s office was an open and welcoming place for the public". This is not the hallmark of a major political figure of historical importance, which is the notability bar for a local politician. The mayor of New York City can generally get over that bar easily; the mayor of South Portland, not so much.

Coverage in multiple reliable sources is the minimum requirement for an article, not an automatic justification. In the case of politicians, there are more specific guidelines about what is significant. It's not only about the number of words in the piece, or the number of times something they've done has been reported, or how many people read it - what matters is the significance that the coverage itself attaches to its subject; whether it claims that it's something truly out of the ordinary. Cohen is obviously a highly competent, dedicated, and effective politician of great integrity, and South Portland is lucky to have her. Personally I think it's all those "troops on the ground" who really make a difference in the world, and it's really unfortunate that Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines exclude them from being recognized for it as individuals. I hope that changes someday. But that's the way it is, at the moment. -- IamNotU (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So your position is that we should ignore WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Where are all of these requirements of which you speak? That she be a major political figure of historical importance? She a book length biography be written about her? The opinions expressed in favor of deletion are not based on Wikipedia policies, but on personal editing biases. There only requirement for a biography to be on Wikipedia is what you admitted this article had: multiple, reliable independent sources. You even qualified that they are of statewide significance. It's stunning to me that some of my fellow editors wish to WP:IGNOREALLRULES to delete a biography that even some of them admit passes the notability guidelines. Smells like WP:IDONLIKEIT to me.--TM 10:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously do not appreciate the accusations of "personal bias". We are here to discuss the issue, not take potshots at other editors. I did not say they were requirements, they are called standards in the guidelines. There are very few strict rules either for or against notability, but many methods by which to make a judgement call, eg. WP:POLITICIAN:

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office..." or,
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. [A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.]"
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

Cohen has only the one feature article, so doesn't meet #2. She can be included under #3, but it doesn't mean she should be, without some credible argument as to why we should ignore #1 and #2. WP:GNG says that it "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". Otherwise, there would be no point in having WP:POLITICIAN at all.

The other is from WP:ANYBIO, which I think gives an indication about what "notability" should mean: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Generally, a person who is 'part of the enduring historical record' will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians."

One must consider the spirit of the guidelines, what they are trying to convey, not merely "the letter of the law". The mayor of a small city is specifically not entitled to an article purely by reason of their office. Therefore they should demonstrate a level of notability that distinguishes them from previous mayors, and the many thousands of other mayors, not only in America, but around the world. The coverage should be beyond what they might customarily receive, purely by reason of their office, in their city. I think it's not reasonable to conclude from the fact that the Herald published a feature on Cohen's personal background, while they didn't (yet?) do so for the current mayor, that Cohen is markedly more notable. A book-length biography is an illustration of something that would tend to indicate that, though it's not the only thing. It is simply not true that the "only requirement for a biography to be on Wikipedia is multiple, reliable independent sources." That misses the word significant, which is the crux. What is considered significant has different levels in different situations. A published in-depth biography of an actor in some circumstances is considered "trivial", because it's done customarily. I submit that a collection of articles that would customarily be written about a small city mayor, plus a single feature article mainly covering an incoming mayor's background and life growing up in their city, but not an in-depth analysis of an acclaimed political life and accomplishments that might be expected to become "part of the enduring historical record", does not meet the bar. You are welcome to disagree with me. You are not welcome to cast aspersions on my personal integrity as an editor! -- IamNotU (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She fails WP:POLITICIAN as the mayor of a small town of 25,000, and a few local newspaper profiles, even if nicely written, do not overcome that, and do not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory of every small town politician on this planet. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above - a not notable local politician Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've updated the article to reflect the fact that Cohen was not "elected" as mayor, but appointed by a vote of her fellow council members. The city government of South Portland uses the council-manager form, in which the position of mayor is "a largely ceremonial title", the chairperson of the council, which rotates among council members every year. I also included the information about Cohen's day job as the branch manager of a local bank, during her term as mayor; the daily operations and executive power of the city's government are the responsibility of the city manager. Those who argued to "keep" - VanEman, TM (creator), RM, and Michiquito - were you aware of this?
Whatever we may think about the position is irrelevant. Whether appointed or elected, serious or ceremonial, this does not affect notability. If anything, the relative "unimportance" of the position should correspond to lesser coverage, but this is not the case. -- RM 11:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. In reply, I would say that a person does not achieve notability as an individual, due to media coverage, simply because they are a spokesperson for an organization and it is their job to write press releases and speak to the media. The position of "mayor" in South Portland is basically a part-time city councilor, with no executive power, who has been appointed the designated spokesperson for the city council for that year; rather than an elected mayor directly involved in the daily operations of the city's government. I felt that the article may have been unintentionally misleading in that respect. It is not irrelevant to Wikipedia editors trying to assess whether news stories indicate enduring notability of an individual, versus an organization on whose behalf she is speaking. In other words, to what extent is the coverage about the activities of Linda Cohen, rather than the communications of the South Portland city council? -- IamNotU (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the South Portland city council isn't mentioned or the focus, then they are not notable to the audience. There are plenty of figureheads that are more notable than the thing they represent. Notability and importance are not the same thing. Example: A one year manager of a professional sports team might have an article, but the owner of the team might not, even if the manager is just a puppet. -- RM 00:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to be clear that I don't think the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. The claim of notability seems to be based almost entirely on a single feature article in a greater Portland newspaper, which is essentially a human interest story about someone from humble beginnings who has just achieved the title of "mayor" of South Portland. The rest are basically routine coverage of local community stories or news events such as "Portland City Clerk to resign" - which would be expected to include some biographical information about the clerk, but doesn't establish enduring notability. I would also point out that all other politicians in Category:Mayors of South Portland, Maine were at some other point also elected to either state or national governments. -- IamNotU (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've seen two disturbing trends here at AfD: first, to construe notability guidelines very narrowly, especially POLITICIAN, and secondly, biting of newbies. I'm not taking a stance either way, but I'd appreciate more civil writing here. Thank you. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: The creator of the article has 10 years of editing history. Who's the newbie? AusLondonder (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder Oh, I should be sorry then, it was my error. I though the creator was a newbie, from the way it -- and this thread -- was written. Never mind. Delete, then, per growing consensus to enforce the guideline strictly. Bearian (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, I still think we construe our guidelines a bit strictly nowadays, but I also understand how consensus changes. Bearian (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Personally, I consider myself an inclusionist. This would be a borderline delete case for me, but I'm relying on WP:NPOL. And to be honest, all AfD's are rather 'bitey', which is a shame for the project. AusLondonder (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:, @AusLondonder:, actually I'm the newbie, as far as AfD... Over the past few weeks I've immersed myself in the twisty maze of WP:THISEXPLAINSEVERYTHINGEXCEPTFORTHATOTHERTHING. It's interesting to try to figure out how it all works, but also... disturbing. Not sure if I'll stick around. I'd say in general I'm an inclusionist but consistency is important, which is not so easy given that the guidelines often seem contradictory. Also rampant COI editing and promotion (not that that's happening here) make it more difficult to give the benefit of the doubt to borderline cases. I hope that spam doesn't do to Wikipedia what it did to Usenet way back when... I did find TM's comment rather 'bitey'. I tried to respond in a firm but civil way, not sure how it came across. Thanks, AusLondonder, for your encouragement. I apologize if I've been talking too much in this discussion, I do that sometimes - see below :-) -- IamNotU (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was noted above that "One of the sources is a long form biographical piece from the state's largest newspaper. There is nothing routine about that." But in fact it seems quite routine for Portland Press Herald staff writer Kelly Bouchard to write such background articles on the occasion of the changing-of-the-mayor, here's this year's: [43], and for other members of the South Portland city council: [44]. Bouchard often writes about South Portland local news, such as this story about Knightville Street in South Portland being changed back from a one-way to a two-way street again. That story was also reported by WCSH Portland news, which broadcasts to most of Maine and parts of New Hampshire. The same "100 miles away" Bangor Daily News also reported on traffic issues on Knightville Street - as with the Cohen story, BDN pulls stories from South Portland local weekly The Forecaster into its online news portal. The point is that a story appearing in these "statewide" media gives no evidence at all that it's anything other than routine local news coverage or a community human interest piece.

The concept that "Wikipedia properly considers the longterm historical notability of persons and events" was added to Wikipedia policy by Jimmy Wales in 2007, and it was refined into "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", part of the first pillar of Wikipedia. It's a policy, which has much more weight than guidelines, which are meant to support the editorial judgement that goes into case-by-case decisions and consensus about the suitability of particular articles for an encyclopedia. Many people argue that as long as there are two newspaper articles with more than a trivial mention of a person, WP:GNG and WP:BASIC have been met, and a Wikipedia biography article must not be deleted. But there is a lot more to it than simply counting column inches. Current consensus is that routine news coverage of local politicians is generally not sufficient to establish enduring notability and justify a dedicated article. It's perfectly acceptable to add information about local politicians to other relevant articles, as long as it's given due weight. For example I doubt that a well-written article on the history of the South Portland city council would encounter problems with notability, though information about Cohen's school record or family finances would not be appropriate.

No one is saying that Linda Cohen is not at all notable, and it may be that at some point she will meet the bar for a standalone article, or the bar will be lowered. As an alternative to deletion, I would also support a blank-and-redirect to South Portland, Maine#Government and politics, which would retain the edit history and a record of the sources for future use. -- IamNotU (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is very well reasoned, but it rests on the false assumption that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. It does not. It's a biography, not an event. The argument that all the newspaper coverage is local is interesting, but it leads the unreasonable conclusion that any politician in the state of Maine requires significant coverage outside the state. No policy supports this as a rule. That BDN or WCSH considers the local content important for the state audiences means that hard rejections on locality of sources are unfounded. We have to look elsewhere, such as the volume of coverage, to get a better sense of the notability of the subject. -- RM 00:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's sort of an "on the line" case, but I read NPOL saying "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." This doesn't say "national" press coverage; Portland is Maine's largest city, it is a regional center, and if we want to dismiss it as "merely local," we really could apply that reasoning to the entire state, or heck, all of New England, other than Massachusetts. Further, the tar sands issue is of national significance and a municipality considering banning their transport is notable in itself. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: She wasn't Mayor of Portland, Maine but South Portland, Maine. AusLondonder (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: Thanks for presenting some rational arguments beyond "passes/fails WP:GNG". It's difficult though, to see Cohen as a major political figure even within the greater Portland area. I don't see anything that distinguishes her three-year career as a minor city councilor from multitudes of others. Compare her to the mayor of Portland for example. The South Portland (not Portland) local ordinance about potential future tar sands exports wasn't an initiative of Cohen; on the contrary, about the original proposal, "The first to voice opposition to the ordinance was Councilor Linda Cohen, who reiterated the argument by marine businesses and oil and gas interests that the restrictions would have the unintended effect of shutting down companies that ship and handle a wide variety of oil and gas products that are bought and sold all over northern New England."[45] “I don’t think I want tar sands in South Portland, but this ordinance just goes way too far,” Councilor Linda Cohen said. “It is going to have unintended consequences that will be devastating to the city and will last a long long time.”[46] Eventually she supported a modified version, the passage of which was a newsworthy event and a commendable statement on the environment. But that by no means indicates that she and her fellow councilors ought to be considered notable politicians. That is the very essence of the "not a newspaper" policy.

For a politician to have a dedicated article requires that they have a political career of enduring notability (originally written as "longterm historical notability" by Jimmy Wales) so that an encyclopedic article can be written. General consensus has been that coverage of local politicians in local media is not sufficient for notability. There is no coverage of Cohen, as an individual politician, beyond what is routine and expected for South Portland city councilors. Coverage being primarily in the Portland Press Herald and other Portland media doesn't prove that it is "merely local" coverage, but it certainly doesn't prove that it isn't - see the case of the one-way street, above. Guidelines are meant to reflect consensus about best practices, not define them. They must be applied taking into consideration the policies in the "five pillars". Adhering to a literal reading of a guideline, when consensus and common sense would seem to dictate otherwise, is I think harmful to the credibility of Wikipedia if it results in an article that is not encyclopedic. -- IamNotU (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Wales' original "longterm historical notability" would require us to wait X years to see if historical publications (not modern biographies, newspaper articles, etc.) were made that covered the subject. Any sooner would require original research to make that determination. There is good reason the original statement is gone. "enduring notability" fits nicely with the notion that "once notable, always notable". I wouldn't read any more into it than that. If Linda Cohen is determined to be notable as a result of the discussion, then she by definition will have enduring notability. -- RM 00:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [TL;DR]: Can we actually write an article about Linda Cohen, discussing her notable political achievements? No. Because she doesn't have any. If you think there's some WP:GUIDELINE that says there ought to be an encyclopedia article about her anyway, please use common sense, go hit the edit button, and change the guideline. You're allowed to. [/TL;DR]

I've removed the sentence "During Cohen's time as mayor, she was a proponent of a controversial ordinance that banned tar sands..." since it wasn't supported by the citations. They were written before she had the position of mayor, and say that in fact she sided with the oil companies and opposed the ordinance, only later flipping to vote for a watered-down version.

I've also written a new section covering the ordinance in Portland–Montreal Pipe Line#South Portland Clear Skies Ordinance. This was indeed a big story that received national coverage, such as this article in the LA Times: [47]. Tellingly, that article (and the section I wrote) doesn't mention Cohen, but rather fellow councilor and then-"mayor" Tom Blake, who championed the ordinance. In reviewing the sources, it seems that Cohen, who ran unopposed in ward 4 (population ~5000) for her first time in public office, only a few months earlier, was only peripherally involved.

Apart from her previous job as city clerk, I am honestly unable to find anything whatsoever that distinguishes Linda Cohen from any other South Portland city councilor, or councilor of any other small city, or indicates that she is a major political figure (even locally) or a notable politician, or has any notable political achievements. Three of the seven current city councilors have had the same type of background article about them in the Portland Press Herald, and five of them have served as honorary "mayor". Linda, if you (or your great-great-grandchildren) are reading this, I think you are an upstanding and outstanding citizen, and an amazing person. The job of city councilor is really important, if not glamorous. Not everyone can be written about in Wikipedia, and that's ok. What good is "notability" anyway? What matters is that you care about people, and you try to help them...

In summary, the arguments so far to keep the article are extremely weak:

That anything written about in the Portland Press Herald or Bangor Daily News is inherently of regional or statewide importance.
That dozens of articles mentioning her in a local context in Portland news media, are sufficient to show notability.
That being associated with a notable event (the tar sands ordinance) and the related news coverage, confers notability on her, when her involvement was only marginal.
That news coverage quoting someone whose job it is to speak to the media on behalf of their organization, conveys notability on that person.
That the background article in the Portland Press Herald is something other than routine local coverage regularly afforded to South Portland city councilors.

These arguments have been made by only a few people, most of whom have left the discussion, and one of whom is clearly an alternate account of a proficient editor, created to participate in AfD discussions for 40 minutes. On the other hand there seems to be a near-consensus, and strong arguments, especially from the very experienced editor Bearcat, which solidly refute the above. This discussion has gone on for six weeks now, and it would be nice if it can eventually be closed with a consensus. As Bearcat said, the subject is not even close to being "borderline" for notability. In my opinion it's a textbook case of the type of article that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" and WP:NPOL are intended to prevent, though they may not do a great job of conveying that. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many problems with this that I'm not sure where to begin.

The age of viewpoints is irrelevant. I've been silently following along. There has been no need to weigh in or change my points. Nor is there a need to sway/bias the discussion by trying to expire viewpoints you don't agree with.
There is no room to minimize the viewpoints of certain contributors over others. That is not in the spirit of the project. Judge the comments on their own merits, there is no reason to demean individuals and the level of experience is completely irrelevant to the strength of the arguments being made. Bearcat's experience does not matter one bit and if a closing admin considers that, they should be ashamed of themselves for accepting a logical fallacy. There are other forums to deal with sockpuppets, and even if there is one, you should still judge the comments on their own merits.
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because Linda Cohen is not an event nor is she notable for an event. None of the four primary points apply here. This is related to the poor arguments that cite WP:ROUTINE, already mentioned above.
During this discussion some references have been found to be lacking while others have been introduced. I get the sense that the quality of references found has only gotten better, not worse. Others disagree. Fine.
I have yet to see any adequate argument for why such a supposed completely non-notable, unimportant, non-elected local politician could have so much more coverage relative to others with more important status. The assertion does not match the evidence. Time and again I've heard arguments to delete a BIO because "if so and so were notable, there would be a lot more coverage". If that argument is such a strongly compelling reason to delete, then meeting it should be a strong reason to keep. However, when a relatively large volume of coverage is found, some other excuse is made to delete instead. I see a bias against local politicians, but it is not policy that all local politicians are non-notable. Most of the "delete" rationales primarily cite the locality. So great, there is an overwhelming number of weak arguments for deletion under the mistaken notion a subject is automatically non-notable by being local.
I don't believe the evidence is overwhelming in either direction. It's a borderline case, and I won't argue that it isn't. I've seen a lot of citations of policies that don't apply, and the case for deletion is not nearly is strong as suggested.

-- RM 22:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note More coverage of her career exists: Dateline 5 March 2004, Portland Press Herald: "Portland City Clerk [Linda Cohen] stunned officials in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., this week when she turned down the city clerk's position there, which pays $88,200 a year...."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dateline 13 March 2006, Pres Herald: "Clerk work suits the Cohens ; April Cohen is following her mother's public service lead..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep I ran a proquest new archive search on Cohen. There are many articles on her and her career, including 24 on her role in the Peaks Island, Maine secession debate (it's a summer community in Casco Bay, with an upscale population that flies in from across the U.S.)

The Press Herald has followed her career closely, Dateline 22 July 2002, Press Herald: "Clerk takes on task of preserving Portland's past, page by page ; Age-old vital records are worth protecting, and City Clerk Linda Cohen vows to raise the funds to do so..."

Dateline 10 July 2014: "South Portland council backs tar sands ban... "I don't want tar sands in South Portland... said Councilor Linda Cohen." Lots more of this sort of story.

She was City Clerk of first South Portland, then of Portland, and the clerk does appear to do more than hand out dog licensees, stories like this: Dateline: 12 February 2002: "City Clerk Linda Cohen is seeking the City Council's permission to... eliminate two polling places in Portland to save money and streamline..."

So, overall, it is a borderline case. Maine/Portland are not large, I think the whole state has 2 member of congress (think Dakota, but with lobsters) And, only one large newspaper.

But there is coverage in the other Maine dailies [48].

Just occurred to me to look at Maine Public radio, it covers the state and it has covered Cohen's activities at least once [49]. So, overall, leaning towards keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [50] is a link to a non password protected news search on her, showing coverage of her involvelemt in sundry issues in a variety of Maine media. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed search for sources - there are in fact many news stories which mention Cohen. But again this seems to be based on the idea that finding many mentions of a small-city councilor or city clerk in their local media, covering them carrying out their jobs in a routine way, justifies them being "memorialized forever with an encyclopedia entry" (Jimmy Wales). If that were true, then virtually every city councilor of every city in the world would have an article.

Minor local politicians don't get an article, just for being elected and/or doing their job competently. News coverage that doesn't indicate anything more than that - even if it's extensive - is not a valid source for notability on Wikipedia. Can you point to anything about Cohen that could be considered a notable political achievement? If not, why on earth should there be an encyclopedia article about her? She herself characterizes her major achievement as city councilor, as having worked towards the establishment of a new Municipal Services Facility in South Portland - see the updated article.

Someone turning down a job, or their daughter following in their footsteps, are trivial events, even if they're reported in the newspaper. It doesn't count as significant "coverage of her career" in determining notability. In fact, it indicates that the Portland Press Herald regularly reports routine, local, trivial news event stories.

The fact that certain news media are accessible statewide doesn't prove that every story written in them is of statewide importance, lasting historical significance, or enduring notability - they regularly report on purely local news, routine community issues, and "local-person-wins-award" trivial events. Common sense has to be used, to determine which is which. The example given of "coverage in other Maine dailies" is in fact copied from South Portland / Cape Elizabeth local weekly The Forecaster to BDN's online news portal, the original is here: [51]. The coverage on the Maine public radio site quotes her in association with the Clear Skies Ordinance, which gained national coverage, but she was only marginally involved as one of several councilors who voted (first against, then for) it. Every person associated with a notable event does not automatically qualify for a biography in an encyclopedia. Even participating in what was called "a historical vote", does not make a person notable, nor Cohen a notable politician. Again, she specifically distanced herself from involvement with the issue, see the article. Widespread media coverage of it does not add to evidence of her being a notable politician.

The Peaks Island Wikipedia article makes no mention of Cohen having played any significant role. The news articles I can see show her carrying out routine job duties as city clerk, such as swearing in members of the council, and acting as media spokesperson on behalf of the Portland city government. If it's part of your job to talk to the media, then media coverage quoting you doesn't make you a notable person, who should have their childhood documented in the history books.

Newspaper coverage of her involvement in "sundry issues" as a minor city councilor, is no evidence of her being a major political figure or politician of enduring historical notability, with multiple significant or notable political achievements, deserving of an encyclopedia article. -- IamNotU (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I go through the politician AFDs from time to time, and my experience seems to have been been different from yours. When I have searched news archives for small city polliticians brought to AFD, I have not routinely found this extent of coverage. That's what makes me lean towards keep. As for Peaks Island, I did not go read that article because the question here, as always, is: do sources exist, not: are they already on the page. Like most articles at AFD, this one can use improvement, better linkage. But Just to check myself, I just searched "Peaks Island" + "Linda Cohen" and got 194 hits: [[52]] the first page appears to be reliable sources. I'm still leaning keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counting WP:GOOGLEHITS is usually not very useful. Do the sources indicate that she had a significant involvement with the story? I'm not seeing that. I looked through several pages of the search results, many are unrelated/random hits, the rest seem to be from Cohen reporting on vote statistics and so on, as a spokesperson. Nothing at all indicates notability for Cohen as an individual. They may be reliable sources for facts, but the facts, and the coverage, don't support notability in any way. Some people have made arguments based on the quantity of coverage mentioning her, without considering its quality. If the Portland Press Herald has the staff resources to write many articles about minor local community issues, it doesn't make the issues any more significant or notable. It doesn't, as one person argued, push a minor city councilor up to the level of a state representative, in terms of notability.

Arguments like these skirt the issue: can anyone point to any achievement by Cohen, that could reasonably be considered notable? The couple of local sources that have covered her political career per se, indicate that she simply doesn't have any: [53] In that case, it's common sense that there should not be an encyclopedia article about her. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your link from The Forecaster. It has this to say about her achievements in her first term as Mayor: "Cohen was elected in 2011 on a campaign promise to work toward bringing a new Municipal Services Facility to the city. The groundbreaking for the new 70,000-square-foot facility, off Highland Avenue, took place in August and the first phase is slated to be completed in December... Cohen is also passionate about the environmentally sustainable direction the city is moving in and said she wants to continue pushing the city in that direction. One of her goals is to create the means to provide more solar energy to more residents. The city is on track to take the first substantial steps toward this measure, having put out a bid in early September to install solar infrastructure at 10 municipal sites, including the capped landfill next to the new Municipal Services Facility..." Followed by copy on steps she has taken towards alleviating traffic congestion on a particular route. To me, that sounds like news coverage of the kind of achievement mayors have.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First term as city councilor. South Portland doesn't have an actual mayor, it's a glorified term used for the chairperson of the council and their media spokesperson; a job that's rotated among the councilors every year. It doesn't confer any greater power than any of the other councilors, and you can find exactly the same type of media coverage of any of them, such as current "mayor" Tom Blake. Portland has an elected, full-time mayor - he has a Wikipedia article. Cohen is a bank manager, who gets about $8 a day for her city council work. It has to be put into perspective. I'm sure whatever her contributions to the Municipal Services Facility project were valuable, but the main responsibility for it, and the rest of the city's 30-million dollar budget, goes to full-time city manager since 2007, James Gailey, who does the bulk of the job that is usually associated with the term "mayor".

But putting that aside... helping to shepherd the construction of a new municipal building, or plans to bring more solar energy infrastructure to the city, or alleviate traffic congestion - these are exactly the type of routine local things that don't result in an Wikipedia biography for a bona fide mayor, let alone a part-time city councilor of three years, or a city clerk with "media liason" in her job description! That Forecaster article is a fairly complete account of Cohen's career, and gives a picture of all that could be written about her in an article. Can you honestly say it looks like something that should be included in an encyclopedia? One that has a general editorial consensus, that a politician must have a record of lasting historical notability, which is not achieved through local media coverage of municipal politics? Her work may make her notable in South Portland, and her name at least recognized in the greater Portland area. But this is not the Wikipedia of Portland... -- IamNotU (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite comfortable with small articles of notable subjects. If Linda Cohen is notable and the Forecaster article contains a complete account, then our work will be very easy. That some people don't like small articles is their problem. Wikipedia is not paper. It is not constrained by size requirements (both large or small). I should note that lasting historical significance applies to events. This is a biography. -- RM 00:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable - not even close. A local politician being notable in their home town, for their involvement in routine local events, or as government spokesperson, doesn't translate into being notable to "the world at large" for Wikipedia's purposes. That's the point. The article's size doesn't matter; the content does. The concept of enduring notability also applies to biographies, it's part of the first pillar of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" - the policy that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". I don't think that can simply be dismissed.

The pressing question seems to be about "localness", and the significance of municipal politics to "the world at large". In general, can a small-city councilor be considered "notable" to Wikipedia's standards, solely on the basis of being elected and doing their job competently, as covered in a local context by newspapers? Does a brief political record as a city councilor, consisting of work such as helping with planning for a new municipal building, or addressing traffic congestion, plus previous employment as a city clerk, adequately meet the standards of notability expected for a Wikipedia article, taking into consideration the spirit of its policies about what it means to be an encyclopedia?

The question must come up all the time, with regard to "local celebrities" and so on, but it's difficult to find specifics in the guidelines. WP:NOTE and WP:BIO / WP:NPOL don't specify anything about the localness of coverage. WP:EVENT has extensive language about localness, but I'm having trouble countering Ram-Man and others' continuing insistence that there are no localness stipulations for biographies or general notability. Again, it would seem to be common sense that someone whose claim to notability depends entirely on being involved with multiple things that are non-notable, as per WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:ROUTINE, is not in fact notable, despite extensive local news reports about those things, over a period of time. A Wikpedia biography article should be able to discuss at least one notable event or achievement that the person has been involved with! Granting notability to a person based on a count of reliable sources, but then having nothing particularly significant or notable to say about them, is beyond common sense - though one could argue that it's supported by the guidelines. @Bearcat: perhaps you have a suggestion? -- IamNotU (talk) 14:01, 21 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 merge to 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season. Let's go with Merge. Nakon 04:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders' transactions

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and zero sources. This isn't encyclopedic; we're providing a mirror for the Roughriders transaction sheet from 2008 with no context whatsoever. ~ Rob^Talk 05:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! This takes me back. Someone had added this huge chart on the original article for the 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season and I moved it here because it took up too much space and cluttered it up. I felt bad for deleting it since someone put so much work into it. Too bad, so sad. Cmm3 (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season. The important transactions can go there. The less important ones don't need to be here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after migrating any relevant info to the 2008 season article. My opinion only differs from Smartyllama above in that I don't think this should be kept as a redirect, because it's not a plausible search term. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the important transactions to 2008 Saskatchewan Roughriders season and delete without a redirect. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this may be enough for there, but certainly not for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the list actually is WP:DISCRIMINATE (not as the nominator states), and the lack of sources is something that can easily be fixed, the list should still be deleted simply because it already exists in its entirety on the net. Reproducing it here is redundant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not merge. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article may very well qualify as an indiscriminate list; it contains all transactions found on the net, regardless of their importance. In any case, it's pretty much just a copy of what's on the net. I guess a merge could be OK, but I'm a fan of WP:MERGEWHAT. Unless we specify precisely what info is to be merged (along with sources, please), or unless there's a volunteer to do this now, I'd say deletion is the best option. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus against keeping this article. But are we merging or are we deleting? Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: I think it's a semantical difference. No-one is seriously arguing against not merging particularly notable transactions, and no-one is seriously arguing against merging the entire thing. The arguments actually being made (when you ignore the actual labels being given to them) seem to support a selective merge that only includes noteworthy transactions. ~ Rob^Talk 02:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I understand your point but I must add that one person explicitly objected to merging. Another "delete" !vote said they were ok with merging but they wanted consensus on WHAT to merge. There are still some issues to be discussed.--Mr. Guye (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just for the record, it doesn't really already exist on the net, I just moved it to this recently to save all the info. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was as of last year, but it looks like the Riders and CFL have taken down old transaction logs. ~ Rob^Talk 01:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - They still have ones from 2013. They may have removed some but I don't think they went back that far (2008). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know they want back at least to 2007 on the CFL site. To find them, you had to click back (i.e. what you got to 2009, they would show the links to 2007 and 2008, but they weren't easy to find). ~ Rob^Talk 03:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like the past relisting says, there is a consensus against keeping the article, but a consensus on either merge or delete has not been reached. — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:17, 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 delete. Zero additional edits as a result of this AFD Nakon 04:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Astro Chinese International

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

Promo, seems to fail WP:GNG, unsourced The Banner talk 07:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this seems to be primairly made by SPA's, such as Homeofbeauties and a multitude of IP's, Including at least one (User:58.71.156.222) who has all their edits to this page. The Platypus of Doom (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - A google search retrieved many useful secondary sources. STSC (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as unless this can be considerably improved, my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of convincing sources and unable to see how this could be improved. Mabalu (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are providing some news articles, but the pageant is only given passing mentions in them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 14 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. No sources were provided by those asking for retention (which as I've stated before is borderline disruptive)... therefore the article is simply not retained. (The Drover's Wife - I'll kindly warn you to provide sources in future discussions; this is the second time I've seen this behavior from you and I'm not very fond of it.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Milan

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

clearly fails WP:GNG. neither the consulate nor any of the consuls that have served are notable. This article is based on primary sources and therefore does not meet WP:GNG. Those arguing keep must show actual evidence of significant third party coverage to show this list is notable. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the proviso that it be moved to Australian Consulate-General, Milan. I have expressed on other pages for deletion discussions (with no response from the nominator as yet) that the case for deletion is easily removed by simply moving the page to a name that focuses on the consulate itself rather than the office-holders, and the content should reflect that also. It appears that third party references are strong enough in each case to justify a page on the topic of the consulate itself.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please provide these actual third party sources. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

simply renaming the article does not resolve the lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAs per above Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I will suggest deleting at this one because it was apparently only newly founded and there's nothing else convincing for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having done a few searches, sufficient sources exist to pass GNG and AfD is not cleanup. LibStar's insistent arguing with every single keep vote on his many querulous nominations is getting a bit old. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please show the outcome of your search. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. your keep argument is incredibly generic without actually referring to actual sources. Your comment hardly deters me in fact encourages me more to point out weak arguments and WP:ADHOM attacks like yours LibStar (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mergewith the main page for the Aust Consulate in Milan - doesn't need its own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't such a page. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in searches, nor as been offered here in this discussion, to show that either the individuals or the consulate itself passes WP:GNG. Would have no issue with merging, if an article like that existed, but there's no indication the consulate itself has enough notability for an article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Of note is that after this was relisted, a user changed their !vote to keep (diff), and another user who !voted later commented in the discussion that they are okay with the article being retained, leaving an edit summary stating "ok with keeping" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Bag of Bones

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed. Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~Delete~~ or redirect to ~~Kevin Devine#Singles~~Brother's Blood or keep. An article isn't justified, but someone might just search for it. --Michig (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Two albums reviews that mention it briefly and a review of the single in an unreliable source still don't justify an article. --Michig (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kevin Devine#Discography or Kevin Devine#Singles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Changed to Keep — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added references to three independent reviews. Please try to improve missing references rather than delete, when possible! -- IamNotU (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by new sources. Please also consider redirect/merge WP:BEFORE bringing articles to WP:AFD. Editors have complained that my WP:DEPRODding wastes time. It is actually the nominations that ignore WP:BEFORE that is wasting time. ~Kvng (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as at least this song article has some context and review references to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as still not convincing for its own notable article, only best connected to the Kevin Devine. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One problem with a merge to Brother's Blood, is that this version didn't actually appear on the album. The album version was a somewhat different arrangement and recording. And given the sources, I definitely don't think it's right to just delete and redirect. James Shotwell - who said "this may be the most important 7″ of the year" - might not entirely fit the definition of a "professional music critic", but Under the Gun Review isn't just some guy's blog either. I don't completely agree with it being an unreliable source (it's used in several hundred other Wikipedia articles), and the discussion about it wasn't unequivocal. Also it's really inaccurate to refer to the Punknews.org review (definitely a reliable source, which called it a "great song" and some of Devine's strongest work ever) as "an album review that mentions it briefly". It was written before the album was released, and is a fairly in-depth review specifically of the single. It's comparable in length to the reviews of another album and another EP, on the same page. PS, I'm not a "fan", just came here randomly... -- IamNotU (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU:. Good work on improvement to the article. The first "reference" is a dead primary source which probably needs to be removed. We are discussing an article about a song - not a specific recording (as per WP:NSONG), so your objection to a merge on those grounds is not correct.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho:You're mistaken, the article is about a single release. The two main reviews are specifically of the single, and discuss both the A and B side recordings, neither of which appear on any album. The Brother's Blood album, with a different version of the Another Bag of Bones song, came out eight months later; the single isn't (and shouldn't be) linked to the album in the infobox, according to Template:Infobox single. I added an archive url for the dead link, and the catalog number of the single. One more thing, I added some material about Devine's version of "Love Me, I'm a Liberal", and a citation from the book "Singing for Peace: Antiwar Songs in American History", which discusses Devine's recording and cites the single release in the book's footnotes. -- IamNotU (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU:. You say it's about a single, then add information about the song to justify your claim to keep. In fact if you are correct there is absolutely nothing notable about the single, any notability claimed is for the song itself. A can of beans is about the beans, not the can. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the comment that it's an article about a song "as per WP:NSONG", it doesn't seem to say anything about it. WP:NALBUM above it lists a single as a type of recording. I've added another citation covering the single, from SPIN magazine. The reviews establish notability for both tracks, and many of the remarks apply to the package, such as the overall feeling, the arrangements, and the production quality. The main information about a release will naturally be about the songs, just as on an EP or album. But the article can also be expanded with information about the production, the recording session, the cover art, its relationship to the events of 2008, and so on, which is also relevant. To me this single is an independent and notable work by the artist, and is rather different from the typical "single from the album" in mainstream pop. I think it's more than just two unrelated songs that happen to be thrown together in a meaningless package for marketing purposes, any more so than an EP is. Is there some reason that it's unacceptable to have an article about a single release on Wikipedia? I don't see the necessity to split the article, nor to insist that the subject must be the one song, rather than the overall work. We don't need separate articles for each song, and it's common sense not to merge it with an album that came out nearly a year later, which doesn't actually contain either of the recordings from the single. -- IamNotU (talk) 04:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@IamNotU:. I was responding to your words, "You're mistaken, the article is about a single release." which is more than a subtle difference. Yes, when a song is released as a single it can gain notability, release details can be added, but that does not detract from it being a song article. Otherwise all we have are discography entries which most certainly should be merged and/or deleted! Perhaps you should ping the remaining deletionists to show them the changes you have made to see if they will change their minds now. It's certainly a much better article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't follow what you're saying. The article is and always has been about the single, or an "EP" with two tracks, until you changed the wording two minutes before you prodded it. In any case it doesn't seem relevant at this point, could be a discussion for the article's talk page. @Michig:, @SwisterTwister:, there are two reviews in reliable sources, plus the Under the Gun review - all covering the single, not the album - and a history book citation for the B-side. Any change in your position? -- IamNotU (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe it is about "a single" then remove everything you have added about "the song" and see how much is left and whether it is notable. It is a song. What is the problem? --Richhoncho (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with keeping it. I'm still very unconvinced about Under the Gun Review's status as a RS, and a Punknews.org staff review, while acceptable as a source, doesn't really mean a lot re. notability, but there's enough other coverage around. We really should be able to have articles on singles - the insistance that every single should be written about as a song seems pretty nonsensical to me. --Michig (talk) 15:55, 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 04:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Límite (Magnate & Valentino album)

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

Unreferenced tracklist. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually convincing of its own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:10, 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arcady (musical ensemble)

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

Local Ontario ensemble that does not appear to have national platform or any coverage in the national press. Vehicle for the composer and page creator appeared to have a link to the subject. Cannot find any reviews of the three albums or the Crescendo label that released them. Fails WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability, nothing suggesting lasting improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kyle1278 (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SJK (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is based entirely on primary sources, with the exception of a single article in the Brantford Expositor — but Brantford isn't a large enough market for the Expositor to singlehandedly carry a topic over WP:GNG as an article's only reliable source (especially since the ensemble's contact address on their website is in Simcoe, which means the Expositor is the local media), and I can't find anything else substantive enough to bolster it with. No prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources can be found. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 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 04:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petrus A. Christensen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR (notably criterion #1). All sources that turned up at search are inclusive databases, torrent sites, etc. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two cites to a local newspaper, one cite to a Norwegian equivalent to IMDB. This is not sufficient reliable sourcing to establish notability for an actor, and in my own searching I can't find anything better. SJK (talk) 13:24, 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 04:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deadlines

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

They are not notable in the least. A standard google test doesn't work, but if you search for the band's name and its lead singer, you'll get barely over 100 hits, and not one notable publication/3rd party source. All the hits are either (1) social media and video links, (2) mirrors and spam websites sites with information from this Wikipedia article, or (3) questionable unreliable sources. The article's talk page includes an admission that the lead vocalist was the main editor of this article which is probably the only reason why it exists at all. Feedback 00:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as I'm not finding anything convincingly better aside from 1 music encyclopedia, simply nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Two albums on Tooth & Nail arguably gives a pass of WP:NMUSIC. I didn't find a lot of coverage but there is a bio and review at Allmusic, and a couple of reviews on crossrhythms.co.uk. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC) The band also has an entry in Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music ([54]). --Michig (talk) 08:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:06, 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 (nac). Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hooker (bioengineer)

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

This is an article on an anti-vaccine activist (not that you'd know it from the content). It has two sources: a crank MMR-autism advocacy group and a notice of the retraction of his only well-known paper. It's a massive WP:BLP problem, it might just be OK as an article on the so-called "CDC whistleblower" hoax, which formed part of a slightly notable film by disgraced former doctor and research fraudster Andrew Wakefield. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 22:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep at best as I'm convinced by DGG's analysis. Delete at best and I can see this is questionable overall especially since my searches only found expected coverage. Not all yet convincing. Asking DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 23:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's ambiguous what "this is questionable" and "expected coverage" specifically refers to above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable under WP:PROF on the basis of his publication record in conventional work. Clement TP, Sun Y, Hooker BS, Petersen JN. "Modeling multispecies reactive transport in ground water." Groundwater Monitoring & Remediation. 1998 May 1;18(2):79-92. has 242 cites in Google Scholar [55]; T. P. Clement, B. S. Hooker, R. S. Skeen "Macroscopic Models for Predicting Changes in Saturated Porous Media Properties Caused by Microbial Growth" has 182; Dai Z, Hooker BS, Anderson DB, Thomas SR. "Expression of Acidothermus cellulolyticus endoglucanase E1 in transgenic tobacco: biochemical characteristics and physiological effects" Transgenic Research. 2000 Feb 1;9(1):43-54 has 92; h=22. I am unclear to to what extent he may be notable as a vaccine denialis, but I think it should be mentioned more prominently in the paper. I do not see any BLP problem, and I would like Guy to specify exactly what it is. . DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advocate of fringe ideas who lacks in depth enough coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 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 12:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:06, 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 04:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangir Khan Jani

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

Reason the page should be deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown: Speedy-delete-tagged for "created by banned user", but others have worked on it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't think this is a very good reason to delete this page. It might have been created by a user who got banned after creating it and then created socks afterwards to keep editing but this page was also worked by me and I added many sources to it. Those sources established his notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to actually suggest convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep': Not sure if we have to vote with every relist or once is enough. I don't think this is a very good reason to delete this page. It might have been created by a user who got banned after creating it and then created socks afterwards to keep editing but this page was also worked by me and I added many sources to it. Those sources established his notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only one vote is allowed, extra comments are ok.Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree that he has a solid body of work with many prominent roles and the article is well referenced to the India national press such as Express Tribune. passes WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 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. No further comments provided. Nakon 04:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ark (South Korean band)

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

I'm not sure this group is notable per WP:BAND. They debuted in April 2015 and have released only one song, which was not successful. They are now likely disbanded ([56]). All news articles look like routine coverage of their debut (e.g. [57], [58], [59]). The article currently has no third-party reliable sources. Random86 (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better and it simply seems too soon. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:05, 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 delete. Nakon 04:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Prazak

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

References given here lack independence from the subject. The first reference is to a personal profile, which is only trivial coverage, and it goes from there. The Full Impact references do not discuss the subject, they are only instances where he is mentioned as manager for other wrestlers. No real world notability found in reliable independent secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 09:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage to show he meets GNG. A large listing of passing mentions does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:05, 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 delete. No further comments provided. Nakon 04:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fright Night (band)

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

Having played with other well-known groups does not make this band notable. References given here are only trivial mentions, not evidence of coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources (of which I found none I could reliably understand). KDS4444^Talk 09:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 15:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all and the article is not at all convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:04, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 06:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Welch (stage manager)

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

References as given here are either not independent from the subject or do not come from sources with sufficiently large circulation to justify a notability claim. KDS4444^Talk 09:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge and redirect to Ozark Actors Theatre. The sources do not warrant this separate article about the company's stage manager, but a sentence (plus sources) about his long association with the company could be appropriately added to the article about the company. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to meet general notability although appearing locally notable. The theatre may be notable but routine cast and crew are not inherently notable.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The independent sources provided don't cover the subject significantly, but only mention him briefly in coverage of the theater he works for or its productions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- all professional stage managers are members of the Actors Equity Association, and are quite common and ordinary. I don't see anything in this article to show how the subject rises above the crowd. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 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. Michig (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vakeel Siddiqui

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overall still questionable for WP:CREATIVE, nothing convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neither the provided references nor the output from an Indian media search are locating anything to indicate the subject meets WP:CREATIVE or wider biographical notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources for this BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 06:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badlands (Swedish musical act)

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC for anything more than the fact of her existence. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a musician automatically gets to have an article just because she exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim that satisfies WP:NMUSIC, must be present for her to earn one. Also WP:COI, as the article was created by her own record label. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Bearcat . Sorces now added, all new to this and all under construction. Regards RITElabel (talk)RITElabel —Preceding undated comment added 10:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC) — RITElabel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

User:RITElabel is a role account of the singer's record label, and has been blocked. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Despite the COI involvement, there seems to be a credible assertion of notability, if the article is re-written. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best for now and Draft if needed as the current article and coverage is still questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no questionable sources --Selinsandy (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are sources up to and including Dagens Nyheter, a major national daily newspaper. I had a look at other Swedish sources and there seem to be plenty available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks legit Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 20:15, 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 no consensus. Nakon 04:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharna Bass

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

Only coverage is for the Clean Bandit single and nothing else. At best a redirect to the article about the song editorEهեইдအ😎 23:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2.--Laun chba ller 19:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is incredibly week. The person has only been mentioned as part of only ONE charting song that she only was a featured singer on, and that's it. Please take a good read at WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Launchballer - Meets WP:MUSICBIO#C2. –Davey2010^Talk 15:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft instead at best since this is still questionable, no other contents are convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's tons of sources on Google [60] so deleting and sending it to draft would be a waste of time.... –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:56, 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 no consensus. Although the consensus appears to lean towards the subject passing WP:GNG, it isn't clear enough yet to be definitively the "stronger" argument. Therefore, no consensus has been reached during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Doe (Panama Papers' whistleblower)

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

Minimally sourced stub about the anonymous whistleblower in the Panama Papers story, which really says nothing substantive about him that isn't already in the main article anyway -- and because he's anonymous, there's no real prospect of the article being expanded to say anything more about him than it already does. This was redirected to the main Panama Papers article within two days of creation, but was then reverted back to a standalone article last week on the grounds of a previous contested speedy deletion nom -- but declined speedies only preclude subsequent repeat speedies, and do not veto redirects or AFDs. There's just not enough meat here to warrant a standalone article about "John Doe" as a separate topic from the papers. Delete, or redirect back to Panama Papers. Bearcat (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable due to release of "The Revolution Will Be Digitised". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A separate article is appropriate for the individual's role in an highly significant event.--Markov (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A separate article would be appropriate if it had a lot more substanceability and sourceability than this. But if this is all you can do, then we don't need anything more than a paragraph about John Doe within the main article itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substance there. — JFG ^talk 15:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a separate article is warranted here. significant. wp:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after transferring sources, information to Panama Papers. There is no point to having a separate article about even a crucial source in a big deal case about whom nothing can be said beyond the fact that he exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Panama Papers, per Bearcat (nominator) and E.M. Gregory. Not notable enough per WP:GNG or WP:42 to rate a standalone article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as not seriously needed for deletion and is still a likely search. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider the new developments about him : [61] --Markov (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for evaluation of possible new information. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, maintaining the edit history. As stated by others, maintaining a separate article in this case is pointless and only serves to confuse the coverage without adding any illumination. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There si no coverage of the the subject that is not focussed on the leak itself, and assuming that what you see is what you get, there is very little relvant and interesting information to warrant actually keeping the article. However, it might be valuble as a subsection in the Panama Papers article. I see no reason to redirect, as people are unliekly to search for John Doe, especially now that the event is no longer in the mainsteam media. RailwayScientist (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in the mainstream media, for John Doe himself ? See [62].--Markov (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable due to release of "The Revolution Will Be Digitised". – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 13:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Release of The Revolution will be Digitised shows independent notability. Also, I dispute the idea that there are no future prospects for this article; there's no guarantee the whistleblower will stay anonymous forever (though that's not part of my keep argument, due to WP:CRYSTAL). clpo13_(talk) 22:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the primary Panama Papers article is already spinning off subsidiary articles due to its length. Without John Doe there would be no Panama Papers so giving him due weight there would substantially increase the length of the main article. Also, what I don't see mentioned above is his offer to assist prosecutions, which means that prosecutors, who have already asked the ICIJ for documents, may well issue press statements asking him for help, since how else do you talk to an anonymous source? More coverage. The usual benchmark for notability is five mentions in reliable sources, and he has this several thousand times over, most likely. He is also notable as the first whistleblower in decades to stay out of jail (except Snowden, who barely managed to get to Russia). By the way, I have contributed significantly to the Panama Papers article, and the comment above was extremely heartfelt. We really really can't cope with too much scope creep. If John Doe already has his own article then good. Elinruby (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it him?Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; but as he/she chose John Doe as their pseudonym, he, and him, seems a legitimate form of address. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Elinruby. AFAIK, a scarcity of information in itself is no bar to notability, and neither is anonymity. Nor (with a Gsearch throwing up over 160,000 results) is there a lack of “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject”.

As the Panama Papers article is now over 318Kb long, the last thing it needs is to have more stuff emptied into it; if anything, it would make more sense to move anything more than an outline there about the whistleblower to the John Doe page (per the page size guidelines).

And as we have articles on all the other players in the story it would be a bit left-handed not to have one on the person who started the ball rolling, n'est ce pas? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Elinruby.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elinruby and Moonraker12. Booyahhayoob (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The John Doe is an integral part of the overall story to which his goals, his background, his specific beliefs, and his exact behaviors in how he leaked the information are all notable topics that should receive due encyclopedic coverage. I would likely vote otherwise in different circumstances, but he's released his own manifesto and continues to be the subject of much commentary. Questions of what he might possibly do next, of whether or not he truly has no association with any government or non-governmental spying-type group, et cetera are still up in the air. I'm in agreement with the above editors. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:09, 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. Michig (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eureka Seven mecha

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion because I think that this article does not pass the Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Also concerning is Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, since this article has no third-party sources.

I have no problem with merging it into the appropriate subpages, but as this article does not seem to pass stand-alone notability and sourcing requirements, it's time to do something. If no one wants to merge it now, I'm afraid we would have to delete it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability of the mecha that can't be explained on the main page for setting. As of this post, the article is completely unsourced, not even books that would go into detail on the mecha used in the franchise as with Star Trek ships. I suggest some WP:TNT and move the most important data to the main. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here indicates notability, better left for wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overly in-depth fictional material is not necessary, and this doesn't have sources to establish a reason for even a cut down version of the article. TTN (talk) 21:05, 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 04:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Dougherty

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage beyond passing mentions, mostly in local news. The article on her company's CEO was deleted in October, too. Huon (talk) 01:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per above, no solid references that I could see Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian, sure you didn't mean "delete"?

Huon (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 14 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 04:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staff and Educational Development Association

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

I see no evidence that this is a major professional organization, or that its credentials are required for any position. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've had a look at the website and it seems to be a major organisation. Its members include many major UK universities, including the University of Edinburgh and Queen's University Belfast. It's also registered as a UK charity and definitely notable. Worth keeping, but the article requires some work. st170e^talk 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced in various books and an awarder of post-nominals. Seems to be a significant and important professional organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as I also concur the current information is still questionable and I see no obvious inherited notability to suggest instantly keeping and improving. Restart if needed when better, SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The above delete opinion was typed in and saved only 1 minute 09 seconds after the user's previous !vote in another deletion debate. ––Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable meeting WP:ORGDEPTH through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I have added a handful:

Malcolm Tight; Ka Ho Mok; Jeroen Huisman; Christopher Morphew (3 June 2009). The Routledge International Handbook of Higher Education. Routledge. pp. 430–. ISBN 978-1-134-08201-8. ... the move to professionalise and accredit teaching in higher education, with the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) at the forefront of these developments (Beaty, 2006). SEDA was formed in the UK in 1993 by the merger ...
Jeanette McDonald; Denise Stockley (13 July 2010). Pathways to the Profession of Educational Development: New Directions for Teaching and Learning. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-0-470-88010-4.
Society for Research into Higher Education (1 July 2003). Towards Strategic Staff Development in Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). pp. 11–. ISBN 978-0-335-22431-9. The creation of a fellowship scheme by the British Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) in May 1994 is clearly significant ...
Carole Baume; Paul Martin; Mantz Yorke (2002). Managing Educational Development Projects: Effective Management for Maximum Impact. Psychology Press. pp. 180–. ISBN 978-0-7494-3904-0. This is very similar to the approach implemented in 1992 by the UK Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) to the accreditation of programmes for the accreditation of teachers in higher education (see Baume and Baume, ...
Fran Beaton (5 October 2012). Developing Effective Part-time Teachers in Higher Education: New Approaches to Professional Development. Routledge. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-0-415-51708-9. By 2003 the OU's Associate Lecturer Development and Accreditation Pathway (ALDAP) was established and recognised through the Staff and Educational Development Association's (SEDA) Professional Development Framework (PDF).
Stacey, Elizabeth (30 April 2009). Effective Blended Learning Practices: Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-Facilitated Education: Evidence-Based Perspectives in ICT-Facilitated Education. IGI Global. pp. 287–. ISBN 978-1-60566-297-8. The UK Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA) professional development framework reflects theoretical concepts and a summary of the findings from various research studies such as those that underpin the work outlined ...

Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of sources presented by Sam Sailor. Also, I don't view the current information as "questionable", whatever that means, Sam Sailor verified information in the article quite nicely (diff). This is often all that it takes; an interested user to come along and improve an article. Also of note is that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 14 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 04:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Donald Barton

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

Subject does not appear to be notable, as they do not meet WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or any of the more subject-specific biographical notability criteria. The article does not cite any reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject.

I also did a WP:BEFORE search on Google/Google News/Google Newspaper Archive/Google Books/JSTOR/Highbeam. (I don't have a newspapers.com subscription, so I may have missed something there, although I am doubtful. I would be grateful if someone with access to that service could check for anything of value.) This turned up nothing at all. It seems that Barton has not been covered by any reliable sources at all. The best I can find is a name-drop in books like this, but this only indicates that he worked at a radio station; it does not help establish notability. /wiae /tlk 00:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources. If somebody has access to Maclean's archives, can you take a look? Bearian (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the substance nor the sourcing here provides a reason why he warrants permanent coverage in an international encyclopedia. A broadcaster generally has to work for national, rather than local, media before the mere fact that they worked as a broadcaster can confer an automatic presumption of notability — absent that, it's "pass WP:GNG or bust", and a person does not get exempted from that just because they moved around to several different local media markets over the course of their career. But the closest thing to a reliable source here is a community weekly newspaper blurbing his opinion on the death of Phyllis Diller, which is not the kind of coverage it takes — all of the other sourcing is to invalid sources like IMDb, Blogspot blogs, a local radio history directory with thumbnail profiles of everybody who ever worked for any of that city's radio and television outlets at all (thus failing to distinguish him as more notable than the norm), and a glancing namecheck of his existence in a summary of the history of a television station he worked for (which is coverage of the television station, not of him.) I ran a ProQuest Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies search, and found no coverage of him with which this could be repaired. In addition, the creator's username suggests the possibility of WP:COI by a direct relative of his. I'm having extreme trouble, in fact, figuring out how this ever got approved at WP:AFC, where the sources are normally evaluated much more carefully than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing of solid independent notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 14 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 procedural close. Page was nominated in error. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almaron Dickinson

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

Will combine in a sec Si Trew (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the tag was meant to go onto the redirect, Almaron, but not on this page. This page needs citations, but is definitely notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 06:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: It is safe to assume that this is another accidental nomination? -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usually a nominator presents the grounds for deleting an article but I see nothing stated here so it's an automatic keep from me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely total cock up on my part as User:Tavix implied. I as many admins may notice am listing stacks of redirects and accidentally nominate the article sometimes instead of the redirect, so absolutely, keep and so forth, total cock up on my part sorry. Si Trew (talk) 18:43, 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.

[1] ttp://www.sooperarticles.com/education-articles/good-samaritan-school-jasola-south-delhi-440184.html

[2] ttp://www.onlookersmedia.in/latestnews/dulquer-salmaan-in-love-in-anjengo

[1]

[1]