Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 1

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

The result was delete and redirect to Taylor, Fladgate, & Yeatman. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Charles Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I frankly was initially going to delete but I thought redirecting would be an acceptable compromise....apparently not, because the author feels it's basically "deletion", overall and entirely there's simply nothing actually suggestive of his own independent notability and there's no inherited notability simply because he founded that company. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject is not notable outside of his company and he lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Taylor, Fladgate, & Yeatman as a valid search term. Cursory source searches in Google News and books, along with a couple of custom searches, are not providing significant coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete(or Redirect): No individual notability outside of Taylor, Fladgate, & Yeatman. (There is a similar case to be made against the article on John Alexander Fladgate, which appears to be merely family genealogical information.) AllyD (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons above. 2607:FB90:D8F:B1:1D32:C7C0:4208:FAEA (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - no independent notability, but may be a valid search term. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & Redirect to Taylor, Fladgate, & Yeatman. There's a couple of nuggets of verifiable info that could be put to good use in that latter article. A Train^talk 21:39, 8 August 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AirTreks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I still confirm my removed: "Noticeably advertorial with none of these sources actually being substantially convincing, not even minimally actually, they are either guides, trivial passing mentions or anything else clearly unacceptable; my own searches are simply not finding anything better than simple press releases, trivial passing mentions, guides and the like.". SwisterTwister talk 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. I did a relatively thorough google search, also looking up their old name High Adventure Travel, and wasn't impressed by anything except one excellent article [1] and a mediocre one [2]. Huffington Post doesn't help, and those were the only other articles that focused on the company in depth. There are some trivial mentions in good newspapers, so it might be a case of WP:Too soon. Yvarta (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, etc. Unsorted from media and music, BTW. Belongs in org. MSJapan (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep* - Been around for a while, subsidiary of well known travel network --Gilg89 (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)— Gilg89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some guidance on assessing notability (the asserted lack of which was given as the rationale for deleting the article): How long something has existed isn't a factor under any of the general notability guidelines or subject-specific guidelines. Also, in general, notability isn't considered to be inherited. The notability of an international conglomerate doesn't confer notability on each of its subsidiaries. To have its own article, a subsidiary has to meet the criteria on its own. That aside, a Google search doesn't give me the impression that BootsnAll is well known either. Largoplazo (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To note also, this "Keep" is not at all convincing since this would actually still need better substantial sources, not PR. SwisterTwister talk 18:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wall Street Journal not constitute notability? --Gilg89 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a company is actually covered by the Wall Street Journal, it cannot simply be PR-like such as funding or events. There has to be a convincing level of information that is simply not about the company starting or expanding. SwisterTwister talk 18:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep* This company will book around the world travel with any combination of airlines, no one alliance necessary, and will include budget airlines, making the product it offers, a RTW itinerary using any and all airlines available for each segment of a trip to get the best schedule and price, unique. No other RTW products I can find (Oneworld, Skyteam, etc) offer this specific service. I don't know how to add this information, however, and keep the copy sounding neutral, which is important in Wikipedia, right?ChrisCiolli (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)ChrisCiolli[reply]

This Keep is not convincing for why and how the article is still questionable, especially given the Delete notes which have been listed here. SwisterTwister talk 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:PSTS primary criteria standards because of depth of coverage and independence of sources Skirts89 (talk) 21:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- the coverage appears rather trivial, and the claim to notability "the only company that would book complex airfare" and "Indie, the proprietary engine" is fine for trade press, but not for encyclopedia. Acquired by another non-notable company. Overall, does not meet CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 7 August 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" 11:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afendi Muteki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Still nothing, by all means, at all suggestive of his own notability and substance, I frankly would've PRODed if not for the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 21:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable writer/blogger. Subject lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I tried, and can't source him. Perhaps this belongs on Wikipedia's Amharic version.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Carleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PROD was rejected since Carleton is the first homegrown signing in team history. Sadly that does not make Carleton notable yet, he still fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Should have speedy deleted; this is purely promotional sans credibility. Hampai 15 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Is captain of the USMNT U17 squad. Has made several appearances for the National Team at the U15, U16, U17, and U18 levels. He scored 6 goals in his 17 appearances for the U17’s in 2015 . . . also plays for a team in a recognized league. http://charlestonbattery.com/players/andrew-carleton/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.50.132 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 August 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sady Doyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable journalist with few citations to her name. Seems to be more of a vanity page with links to her social media. Sayjermoon (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator, non-notable journalist. Meatsgains (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all convincing here. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Of the given references, the nearest to coverage about the subject is the NBCNewYork Q&A piece. Elsewhere, there is a critical piece at National Right to Life News ([3]  – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) and there are a few entries at Google Books, but I am not seeing sufficient for WP:JOURNALIST at this point. AllyD (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - a regular writer at Atlantic magazine, but not a lot about her exists. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 8 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alper Tursun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Does not yet meet notability guidelines: WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY and unlikely now to play in a fully professional league because he has been released by Crawley Town this morning. LTFC 95 (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per the clear SNOW consensus that this is clearly poorly-sourced listcruft. Steven Walling • talk 07:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Dictators Who Had Pet Cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The title of the article says it all. Plus, there are no refs and dubious choices dictators. Vladimir Putin was removed, but King of England is still listed. Bgwhite (talk) 20:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Serious reasons: violates WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR, and, since the keeping of pet cats by dictators is not an inherently notable topic, WP:GNG. Additional reason: it's a list of dictators who had cats. This just made my day. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, and WP:OR are issues, there also seems to be no real relationship between being a dictator and having a cat. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as per failure of WP:LSC and WP:V. Plus the potential for BLP vios and the general WP:TNT aspect. GAB^gab 01:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is so horrible I find it hard to believe it exists. Even if List of state leaders who had pet cats was in some way a reasonably notable and coherent list that it would make sense, the POV-pushing term dictator kills any chance of this being a workable list at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article obviously created by a dog owner, seriously, does not meet WP:LISTN, no citations found that discuss this (there are a number of sources discussing dictator pets in general but not specifically cats). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:V, as well as being a POV magnet. Though I do think it's a notable topic, however, because heads of state are inherently notable, I think List of state leaders who had pet cats covers this topic nicely. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. The term "dictator" is imprecise, at best. The rest is trivia. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- non encyclopedic topic and trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:LISTCRUFT. Lack of information and sources. Ajf773 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Čugalj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he has played pro football in Croatia and Serbia, and that he will play pro football in Germany. None of these assertions are supported by reliable sources, and speculation as to future appearances is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting WP:NFOOTY, at least not right now. — foxj 19:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ICARE Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I really think this is already eligible for A7; previous versions made a claim of some kind--but a totally spammy claim. Searches for full name and abbreviation do not provide me with discussion of the organization in reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, 100% agreement with nom, fails A7 and pretty much all aspects of WP:GNG. Get the hose. - SanAnMan (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As, in any case, failing WP:NCORP, due to not only not demonstrating 'f significant coverage,' but lacking any independent third party sourcing at all, whilst currently falling foul of WP:PRIMARY. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to locate independent coverage that was about this 'ICARE Foundation.' fails WP:NCORP Gab4gab (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable. Note, as an IP and a new account keep adding copyright violations to the article, including several times since this AfD nomination, I have semiprotected it. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Miss Colorado USA. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Cisneros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cisneros won a state Miss USA pageant. That is all she has done that is even almost close to making her notable. Nothing else she has done makes her even remotely close to being notable. Due to the way coverage works, this is essentially being notable for one event, and there are the same problems with this type of biography of a living person notable for just one event (normally notable is a bit of a stretch) as others. There is just not enough good reasons to keep this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: but question: Can we redirect to a Miss Colorado article? I think we really DO need to get NPAGEANT created, because at the rate things are going, all these state pageant winners are starting to have individual articles created, and I can see this would be a big problem. Where would an NPAGEANT SNG be best created? within NMODEL? Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Actually most of the 2005-2007 state pageant winners have articles, later years and earlier years very rarely do. To take a state I picked totally at random Miss Mississippi USA has articles for the winners in 5 years, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2013. The 2013 winner was the first Bangladeshi-born winner of "that title" if the article on Paromita Mitra is read at face value, it seems she is the first Bangladeshi-born Miss Mississippi USA, which hardly seems worth noting. If she is the first State Miss USA for any state, or even the first state winner of any one of the top two or three or so beauty pageants to be born in Bangladesh, this might be notable, but I still have my doubts. What has become clear is there is just not enough attention to people winning these contests to even have new articles being created on the new winners, let alone creating articles on every winner all the way back to 1952. We have not even come to a clear ruling on whether winnign Miss Teen USA makes someone notable. I have my doubts as to whether Kristi Addis is notable. The article is backed by a link to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source, and an article written by Addis, but maybe her title is high enough to presume notability, and I have not yet done a search to see if I can find more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Regional beauty contest winners are never going to be notable unless they've went on to bigger things. KaisaL (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and then only Redirect (because there is no actual substance, this should not be kept)as still nothing at all for her own notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Colorado USA The subject is best known only for winning Miss Colorado USA. The other participation is not notable. Accordingly, while this doesn't deserve a separate article, I would suggest a redirect to Miss Colorado USA. This is a better solution as the target page already lists the subject in the winners' list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Miss Colorado USA; valid search term where the subject is mentioned at. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 9 August 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 Miss Alaska USA . Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aleah Scheick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Basically because Scheick is not a public figure, she made one entrance into the public spotlight, in winning a state beauty contest, but that is essentially one event. Her aspirations to become a sportscaster have not led to her yet reaching the level of notability. I was able to actually dig up what appears to be a public record on her marriage in 2011, which leads me to question the name listed at the start of the article. However online postings of marriage certificate requests are not really the type of secondary sources we should be building articles on, they probably don't count as secondary at all. Even connecting the dots that much was largely based on a post she made on facebook showing up when I did the search. There is nothing close to a reliable secondary source even proving she is alive today, let alone saying anything about her life since she was Miss Alaska USA. Even the stuff from when she was Miss Alaska USA consists primarily of local coverage or coverage from within the beauty pageant industry itself. There is one exception, which is a photo (not an article, a photo!) from the Baltimore Sun of her and another Miss USA. There is nothing even close to showing notability for Scheick. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to Miss Alaska. Doesn't warrant an article yet per TOOSOON. But she becomes a notable sportscaster, then maybe spin it back out; keeping the bluelink preserves article history. Montanabw^(talk) 18:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Alaska USA - As the subject is best known for winning only the state level pageant, this doesn't deserve a separate article. Accordingly, I would suggest a redirect to Miss Alaska USA as the subject is mentioned on the page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Miss Alaska USA; valid search term and the subject is listed there. Cursory searches are not providing coverage to qualify an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 August 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. Userfied to User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day. Mkdw^talk 04:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I see no jr wins at the grand slams or a jr ranking of top 3. I see no main draw entries in WTA events, and zero wins in the ITF minor leagues either. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no where near to meeting the notability guidelines for tennis players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will not create any more tennis biographies. If this nominator's comments are true then the sources from Official wimbledon website and ITF are false and they are liars.

• Administrators Why do the sources lie?. The nominator stars as Ï see no jr wins at Grand Slam"

While this page shows that she won few matches. Rainbow Archer (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By wins, we mean they must Win the event, not just a match or two against other children. This is what people at wikipedia WP:NSPORT and WikiProject Tennis Guidelines decided by consensus as the best criteria. There is always trying to convince others that a player is one of a handful of exceptions under WP:GNG, but we felt that 99% of the time players that meet our criteria will meet GNG in press coverage. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have moved the page to User:Rainbow Archer/Kayla Day. The confusion is that ITF has two pages. One for junior and other for pro for the same player. If she plays only junior matches, then why do they create a separate pro-profile page for the same player? And ESPN source boldly mentions as Grand Slam without giving any details about Junior and Senior level match. Rainbow Archer (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - But please either let this AFD run its 7-day course or request a snow close for userfy rather than just disrupting the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: boilerplate fancruft articlecreated by banned user; which does not fulfill athlete/sports notability threshold. Quis separabit? 22:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: First; I am not her fan and second; this page was not created by any banned user. Marvellous Spider-Man (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I confused you with Neebras, a banned editor/sock puppet who created many pages on tennis players -- all of which were deleted yesterday by admins -- and who made early contributions to the Day article. Sorry, again, for the misunderstanding. Quis separabit? 22:27, 6 August 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. Created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arsha Aghdasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

My google search results have found no evdience of notability, Fails WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reson that this page Should not be deleted: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motah4re (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC) He is a Stunt man , you can see https://www.istunt.com/arsha-aghdasi-2463 that is a The most prestigious media to introduce Stunt mans. And he works with James bond and Nicolas cage and he has notability for having page in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motah4re (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should have been speedied as an AfD Repost - but since its here - as with the first AfD - no evidence of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete I told it for your Friend and I am saying it again for you :

I send you many accredited website that they wrote about Arsha Aghdasi . Like IMDB or Istunt (Official notification media of Stunt mans/womans) or Official Website of james bond . and you can search his name in that sites and see more information about him . these are great Source that Proves he has enough Notability for having an article in Wikipedia , Even you can see his Persian Wikipedia page. if he had not Notability , According to Wikipedia policy , he could not have wikipedia page in another language . that prove it , he has Notability for having page in wikipedia .Please reconsider in your decision and check this pages: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3646747/bio https://www.istunt.com/arsha-aghdasi-2463 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3646747/ http://jamesbond007.se/events.asp?id=3248 https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%A7_%D8%A7%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3%DB%8C — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motah4re (talk • contribs) 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:28, 5 August 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Highly promotional article about a subject who does not meet WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't see anything that makes them particularly notable. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nothing at all close to establish any form of actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a hedge fund manager who is no where near being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23 starting a hedge fund is not notable? I disagree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.48.137.94 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC) — 116.48.137.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not unless other people say so. Unfortunately, the source for this is pay-walled, so I can't read it, but if Mr Wong is truly notable for that fact there should be more than one source to confirm it, and I cannot find any. The apparent general lack of reputable, independent sources covering Mr Wong is the reason we are having trouble with his notability. ubiquity (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hedge fund sources are pay-walled. Even if you check someone called Danny Yong, he is one of the best in Asia and only has 4 sources. If someone quite reputable within the space like hedge fund intelligence wrote about it, it means something. This industry is discreet and it's not as easy to find much sources on a manager than other industries. Such as Yong as an example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.poon123 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Way WP:TOOSOON and doesn't pass GNG at the moment. As for Danny Yong, he has much more detailed and indepth sources over a period of time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lemongirl1942. There's no indication of where he got his money to start, and what he's done with that capital. Also, hedge fund managers are quite common. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 8 August 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) 10:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiductions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable website. The only actually sourced material is about a TV show and not the subject. Can't find any independent coverage whatsoever. Kolbasz (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, i am adding the information you would like up there, please do not delete this page. Give me 2 hours and i will have all the info you want! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete and possibly speedy delete Non notable website and heavily WP:COI. Blatantly promotional and borderline for CSD G11. Even if this turned out to be notable, WP:NUKE would apply. Safiel (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added external sources and would like to know anything else you need me to change. Also I do not know any of the Kiductions Team, and is very weird you think that to be honest. Also they work with big people, Jamal Edwards MBE, MBE is an award from the Queen of England and is a big achievement and i do not understand why you want to delete this page. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Supportkiductions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete. Should of course have been speedily deleted. I am voting here instead of immediately deleting it so that we have a more accessible record of why such articles are not suitable for Wikipedia, and to provide the creator with an opportunity to address the issues and rewrite it from a neutral point of view. Note also that notability is not inherited irrspective of how many knighthoods have worked on the project. Supportkiductions has been warned about COI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is a neutral point of view?

And which sections on the page have problems so I can rewrite with advice from you guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14jblood (talk • contribs) 07:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Kolbasz (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does this not have neutral point of view?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14jblood (talk • contribs) 12:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 8 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable heavy artillery regiment. Unreferenced since November 2015. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battery A, 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery which calls for deletion of separate articles on Battery A, Battery B, Battery C, etc. --doncram 23:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is referenced. Premise of AFD is wrong.

By the way, it was a US Civil War regiment, so it was no doubt covered in other military reports of the time. The war was very well documented. I think a regiment is large enough to ensure, like a secondary school, that there will be notable alumni, published letters home, etc., but not online because it has been 161 years. --doncram 21:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually some of the [available] sources are online, in the Google books results. Officer Horatio Rogers lived to 1904. Photos. Memoir of a chaplain. New York Times coverage. Etc. --doncram 21:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to several digs below: the article was created in this initial edit complete with all or almost all info in the article when the AFD started, with SOURCE clearly given in its own section (the 1865 Report of the Adjutant General of Rhode Island). That is evidence that the editor User:Jmgould meant that all of the info was sourced from that report. There's mention further below of a compendium by author Dyer (thank you to User:AustralianRupert for your attention here). Maybe Dyer and the R.I. Adjutant General both compended from the same military source, or Dyer compended from the R.I. Adjutant General. I personally imagine that the same information appears in more than one source, because it is a factual list of places where the regiment went, and it probably would not have been a copyright violation back then, even using today's copyright standards, to copy it. It's also possible the editor completely made up all of the information in the article out of thin air, but I doubt that. :) --doncram 22:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's referenced? What exact piece of information in the article is stated to have come from the "reference" given? "Sources" aren't just "I put some text in there that looks right, so it's sourced now." That "reference", by the way, is available online, is over 750 pages long, and is a primary source not suitable for establishing notability. Therefore, an incomplete citation isn't going to be sufficient here. This has got to meet WP:MILUNIT. MSJapan (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Let a conscientious editor write this article properly. While the unit meets MILUNIT and there are sources out there I see no point in keeping this mess. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Battalion- and regiment-size units are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - regiments are notable for the ACW, this specific one will be much more linked if the individual companies will get deleted (as is in discussion, too) and those who don´t like the article are free to improve it ...GELongstreet (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Necrothesp is correct, but so is Christroutman, and I believe the need to write an encyclopedia article that clearly indicates where its material is sourced from (WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT) is much more important to encyclopedic integrity than having a cut-and-paste job to show that "some sort of information exists in some fashion someplace" (which is about as specific as it can get at present). As far as I am concerned, this article is unsourced - without specific pages given, I have no empirical proof that the information in the article as presented exists in the source. MSJapan (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I'm pretty certain that the majority of the info was taken by the original editor from Dyer's Compendium, which can be found here in various formats: [4] I'm having serious trouble downloading it, so I will ping @Adamdaley: who I believe has a copy of the work (per this: User:Adamdaley/Personal Library). Adam, are you able to check your copy of Dyer's work and confirm whether the information in the article currently presented comes from that source? Beyond that, it seems to me that the topic passes the WP:GNG, although the article is most certainly in need of being rewritten. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort. I found my way to a browsable version of the Emory.Edu version of Dyer. I first saw the source in a page where there was what looked like a shrunk-down image of the book. I had to zoom in somehow (there are + and - magnification buttons at lower right) and then it is fine...it is the book itself. This is page 39 of the document, where Rhode Island's 41 separate units are listed (including, separately, Battery A,B,...M of the 3rd Rhode Island Heavy Artillery. The document is displayed "2-up", and I can page left or right, and using a slider along the bottom I can go anywhere from beginning to end (page 1810). It is organized into three parts, with the unit-by-unit histories listed by state alphabetically in the third part. I just browsed until i get to Rhode Island's start. The Rhode Island units' histories begin at page 1633 of the document (page with printed number 1627). The compendium doesn't begin the section by saying where the Rhode Island info comes from, but I presume it is a full copy of the Rhode Island Adjutant-General's 1865 report. This is surely in the public domain and it is fine by me if the initial version of the article was cut and pasted from there. It seems to have been slightly reworded here and there. Oh, now I see that User:Anotherclown has this Dyer source all figured out and has already put in some specific page references, e.g. page 1634, into the article. Hopefully this comment still helps. --doncram 23:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - from a fairly brief interweb search I found a few books (Cox, Dyer, and Grandchamp) that include quite a bit of coverage (multiple pages in each), whilst the regiment also seems to receive some passing mention in many more [5][6] (9,000 + hits in Google books). There also seems to be quite a few websites of varying quality. Whilst I agree that the article has numerous issues I'm not sure WP:TNT is the way to go. I admit to having little knowledge of researching American Civil War units but I did uncover some promising sources so I'd imagine a specialist would be able to find many others. This leads me to believe that the assumption of the general notability of units of this size in WP:MILUNIT is a reasonable one and that there is likely to be significant coverage per the requirements of WP:GNG. I'd suggest merging all the subunit articles into the regimental article as this should easily allow a fairly decent article to be written to cover the activities of them all (whilst individual sub-unit articles would probably be difficult to sustain). I've now made some changes to the article in an attempt to clean it up a bit and add what referenced information I found that seemed relevant. In doing so I removed a chunk of unreferenced material but of cse would be quite happy for it to be worked back in by other editors if they are able to provide the appropriate references. Anotherclown (talk) 00:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The statement on "the largest unit fielded by Rhode Island during the war, with more than 2,000 men" makes it a notable unit. The article appears to be reasonably well sourced at the moment. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Even though it maybe unreferenced it still has and is a Regiment in Rhode Island Civil War for the Union. It only needs to be referenced. Adamdaley (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:18, 8 August 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) 10:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asklaila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article with inadequate sourcing: Alexa rank, its own web site, a blog, and stockwatch.in DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Page's only reference is to an unreliable source. Meatsgains (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as by at nothing for substance and notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- typical "corporate spam". Nothing suggests notability here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:07, 7 August 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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lavington Square Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient coverage in RS. —swpb^T 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I'm not keen to dig through all the archives of the The Border Mail, but it seems to be a prominent feature of the Albury–Wodonga metropolitan area, and an article that could be improved on a subject that appears notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, enjoy this 1986 TV ad for the centre on youtube (then known as "Border Shoppingtown") [7], and 2013 electronic dance track [8].--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Milowent (and the, clearly incomplete, list of articles already cited). The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This article on a shopping centre should stay as a Wikipedia article owned by Vicinity Centres. Lavington Square Shopping Centre has over 50 and is anchored by Big W and Woolworths. The total retail floor area 20,239sqm with around 1,036 car spaces. The centre has an occupancy of 99.0%. Lavington Square is a single level Sub Regional shopping centre located approximately 3 kilometres north of the Albury CBD. This article should be improved not deleted. It is a very notable shopping centre and should be improved especially the images.--BugMenn • ^hasspoken 15:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop removing the AFD template. Read the policies WP:EDITATAFD which states you must not modify or remove the Articles for deletion notice (AfD notice) until the debate is closed and a decision made. Ajf773 (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blood libel (novel usage) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Original research/synthesis. Honestly not sure if it's intended to be a dictionary definition or a list of appearances in political commentary, but either way it's not an encylopedia article. Kolbasz (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Article is not unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •    Surely the double negative was unintended.
    --Jerzy•t 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    

• I really don't think "Charles Koch and Sarah Palin independently misused this phrase" is enough to say that there's a new meaning for it that needs to be documented in Wikipedia. DS (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is this the "Blood libel in popular culture" fork of Blood libel? I'll revisit it during the week this AfD is open to see if it's improved upon, but right now it's an essay, not an encyclopedia article. (Did Mark Twain use the expression "blood libel"; no, it's just fun to quote Mark Twain.) I'm not familiar with the secondary analysis, but there might be an encyclopedia article to be written about the use of the expression "blood libel" in modern politics. If there is, this article will never serve as its foundation. A good candidate for some WP:TNT. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •    I'm not foolish enuf to expect a decent interval for enhancing what started out as an irrelevectomy on Blood libel, so here's the thumbnail response to DS:

1. 1. As always with natural languages, presuming "independen[ce]" would be not just dubious but naive. In Palin's case, one must suspect deliberate misuse; she disavowed having come up with the phrase, citing a WSJ journalist (who could not be proven to be writing at her campaign's behest). (That makes not two, but three usage-participants).
   2. User #2 is Palin, (Koch -- another right-wing political activist -- is, chronologically, #4 in my personal count) while #3 is the ever-unpredictable lawyer/scholar/activist Alan Dershowitz, who seemingly went out of his way to speak up for her -- consistent with his always-a-new-surprise semi-pro-Israel liberal contrarian role -- with an essay or interview advocating tolerance for what many who are Holocaust-aware would call poisonous misappropriation and trivialization of the original blood libel usage.

   I'm answering (not endorsing) the criterion of usage count, and my group of 4 is not twice the supposed mere 2. I put far greater significance in the chain of 3, suggesting that the phenomenon is not a handful of 2 (or many more) instances, but part of a largely neglected but demonstrable trend of discourse. I dunno if Palin's usage is a dumb (or a dumb-like-a-fox) effort by her or her Svengalis to stir up controversy between her and the liberal Jews whom her constituency love to hate, but i think there's evidence of a new but verifiable trend in usage, and sufficient reason to support further research by compiling the info i've just stumbled on.
--Jerzy•t 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per my preceding bullet point.
  --Jerzy•t 03:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Delete - Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. However, I want to keep or extend the "traditional usage" in the original blood libel article: all the cases where a group accused another group of (mis)using blood for political reasons. See its page history, where my proposal was rejected. Zezen (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is about as classic a content fork as I've seen in 8 years. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics and drives services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seams to be non-notable (WP:N). Google News search returns no hits. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I frankly consider this A7 and G11 material, nothing at all close to convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- nothing suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime science fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of maritime science fiction media, this genre does not appear to have attracted any academic or critical attention. There are no hits on Google Scholar and no relevant hits on Google Books; all of the hits on Google News are by Andrew David Thaler, a scientist and author who appears to have invented the term. This is perhaps an example of an article created too soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- a badly sourced article about a premature neologism. Wikipedia is not for things you just madeup one day. Reyk _YO! 15:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 1#Category:Maritime science fiction. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, fine. I was going to wait for the Afds to conclude, but they should be considered together. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nobody disputes that science-fiction films can be set at sea, but there is no evidence that such a sub-genre has been identified and analyzed in a scholarly context, unlike space opera or steampunk for example. I don't see an avenue for the development of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Underwater science fiction or Undersea science fiction. Gscholar shows 0 hits for "maritime science fiction" but 13 hits for "Underwater science fiction" and 2 hits for "undersea science fiction". GBooks shows 588 hits for "undersea science fiction" and 230 hits for "underwater science fiction". It seems a genre more likely called underwater or undersea sci fi. Under these alternative names there seem sufficient reliable sources to discuss this genre. --Mark viking (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You seem to have identified that there are places on the 'net that use the phrase "underwater science fiction" and that is a good start, but it does not show that there are reliable sources about a genre of fiction by that name. I'm seeing a good number of lists on IMDb, Goodreads and such, a few blogs and a number of pages that are completely off-topic. I'm not really finding reliable sources for meaningful content about a genre by any of these names. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Underwater science fiction or Undersea science fiction per Mark viking. If good-faithed, SummerPhDv2.0 failed to see Mark is referring to Google Scholar and Google Books hits, not crap "placed on the net." --PanchoS (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've found a few mentions of one or the other variants, but no meaningful content. Perhaps you can shed a bit of light on what you found. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator J Milburn, Reyk and Betty Logan. This is not an academically recognized genre. Also note that the related category was used to justify repeated edit warring in the lead of several articles. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This has enough citations as a stub and needs additional citations for expansion. A scientist who is cited is clearly an academic source. This is amongst the earliest kinds of science fiction going to 1800s. --Taeyebar 04:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have misunderstood the nature of the citations. They are not to academic work on science fiction (peer reviewed or otherwise). Further, while the scientist in question is an author of what he calls maritime science fiction, he is not, unless I'm mistaken, a scholar of literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a made-up term. The mere existence of a tiny handful of Google hits for two words strung together does not constitute the existence of a recognized category or concept. NO reference works on science fiction or literature in general recognize any such field or tradition. --Orange Mike | Talk 09:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep A major science fiction theme (together with spaceflight). And don't rename underwater since it can also be about using ordinary boats and ships travelling between islands. J 1982 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are your references, please? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Another website seems to acknowledge this in it's mention of sci-fi subgenres [9] probably from Wikipedia, but it shows that it's still acknowledged. I have dispatched an email to a science fiction author who talks about subgenres. Let's see what his reply is.--Taeyebar 05:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Yes, a blog-like promotional site that copies material from Wikipedia will have material that is in Wikipedia. That this unreliable source found the material here says nothing about whether or not it should be here. I'm not sure what you think we will be able to do with any response you get from "a science fiction author". We need sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to be able to write a reasonably detailed article, not copies of what we have on a blog or emails from an author. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This does not seem to be a recognized genre in independent reliable sources. As others have said, there are a few hits for variations of the phrase, but there doesn't seem to be in-depth coverage of it. We would need sources that describe the history, major works, and common themes. Instead, we get a few trivial mentions that point out that a science fiction story takes place underwater, much as people will clarify that a science fiction work takes place on the moon. Instead of lunar science fiction, we've got Moon in fiction (which is pretty terrible). Nautical fiction is a good enough home for this topic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We lack the number of sources discussing this is detail to demonstrate this is a recognized sub-genre worth having an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A list from good reads is not a workable source to show a sub-genre is recognized. The article cited has even bigger problems. He seems to be trying to show that the US navy naming ships "enterprise" has some link to science fiction. Of the 7 ships, 6 of them (including the air craft carrier he mentions) pre-date the first airing of star trek. Cause and effect are mixed, and so are the lines between "science fiction" and "adventure fiction".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 7 August 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. Consensus from every comment is that this should be kept. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 12:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Die Räuberbraut (opera) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable opera. I have declined the AfC draft, but the creator moved it anyway. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The draft was rejected for lack of references; that needs to be adressed. As for notability, I can't find any guidelines for the notability of operas. This may be the first time such a demand has been raised. Anyway, the article asserts notability; it just needs to be sourced. Apparently, the opera was quite a success and had been performed in several venues and received reviews in notable publications. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
• Keep This is the first opera by a notable composer. The dearth of references should not be taken as an indication of non-notability. The opera was well received when it was first performed. Reviews like the one that was published in the Allgemeine Musik Zeitung have not been referenced (yet), but do exist. Mduvekot (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael. Of course sourcing should be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep opera by notable composer, can be sourced meeting WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even as a non opera person I was surprised to see this AFD. Agathoclea (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michael Bednarek. Appears to be a notable opera by a notable composer. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 August 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 The 4 Corners Live. (non-admin closure) ansh666 18:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits Live (Diesel album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I had originally redirected this to the artist as there is no indication in the article that the album is notable. This was reverted without explanation. I have not found any sources to support this as a notable album. A4032 (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Diesel discography, unless we can turn up evidence of charting or similar - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also OK with the suggested merge to The 4 Corners Live - either link would be a relevant target - David Gerard (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this article into the related DVD album, The 4 Corners Live, if the latter is deemed notable enough. I found one review for the CD album, but this is not enough for a stand-alone article. If the merge is deemed untenable then Redirect per Gerard.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The 4 Corners Live as suggested above, since this is a companion disc. Would not object to the redirect as suggested by David Gerard either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:22, 9 August 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 Dogecoin. J04n(talk page) 17:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogetipbot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was deleted per WP:CSD#A7 but restored as as a result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 July 25 which decided that it should be listed here. Procedural nomination - I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and I myself was going to PROD, nothing at all actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 15:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Reddit. No notability demonstrated to warrant a stand alone article. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, Coin Deck, Cryptocoinnews, CoinFront, Finance Magnates, Business Insider. And trout the two editors above for doing no research. Also @Cunard: for additional sources. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:38, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing in the article and as presented above. I myself performed a reasonable search before I asserted my opinion in the DRV. I found nothing approaching WP:IRS. I'd be happy to look at this again if better sourcing is presented, and if Cunard could find something, I'd definitely want to see what has been found. As I've stated in the DRV (and for the record I recommended this AfD), websites like CoinDesk, CoinFront, and Cryptocoinnews lack independence (instead promoting alternative coinage as a business model) and reliability (being mostly fringe specialty journals and blogs). The Finance Magnates piece is a bare mention and doesn't directly detail; the usually reliable Business Insider (another bare mention) chooses to base the entire paragraph on this subject's creator to CoinDesk. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. As an aside, based on contribution history, one user above is hardly in a position to trout other users for failing to find better sourcing before entering the AfD arena. That editor would be wise to stick to discussing the subject, not editors who disagree with them. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are independent sources having no connection to the subject itself. They are not being paid or promoted by Dogetipbot. News sources from Coindesk are certainly reliable by any means another source. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the CCN article is Clay Michael Gillespie, who describes himself below the article as holding "a B.S. in Public Relations from Ball State University, and freelances for different clients in technology and cryptocurrency." He admits doing PR freelance work for the client. The entire CoinFront team describes themselves as being alternative coinage advocates. These sorts of sources doesn't meet the standard for independence, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redirect to Dogecoin#Use and exchanges Let's look at the sources provided above by Valoem:

• Coin Deck, Cryptocoinnews, CoinFront. These are all niche publications, with a very narrow focus on the bitcoin world. As such, what they lack is discrimination. If it's related to bitcoin, they print it. I don't see any of these as showing the subject to be notable. They need to be covered in the wider press. I'm not even holding out here for general interest publications. I'd probably be satisfied with some good coverage in financial or business media. Show me something in the Wall Street Journal. Or Crains. Or The Financial Times. The Economist. But not Joe's Random Bitcoin Website. They couldn't even get TechCrunch to write about them.
• Finance Magnates. This is an article about a service named Yours. The only mention of DogeTipBot comes in the 4th paragraph, This feature is similar to other content tipping items that are popular on Reddit such as the bitcoin ChangeTip bot or DogeTipBot. That's hardly significant coverage.
• Business Insider. This is an article about yet another service, TransferWise. The only mention is in the eight paragraph, Harsher words come from Robert Mohland, who built dogetipbot, an tipping tool that lets users tip others with digital currencies online. Again, just a passing mention.

In short, coverage in niche publications, plus passing mentions in somewhat larger scoped publications, does not add up to being notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't see any mention in Reddit of any of the tipping services, so a redirect there doesn't seem to make sense, given the current state. However, if there were a Tipping bot services section in Reddit, which listed the various services available, then I'd say go for the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After Cunard's merge, the redirect makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or perhaps smerge to Reddit, no real notability and sources are limited quality and passing mentions. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly redirect to Reddit. Otherwise, non notable service with insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose redirect to Reddit. The Reddit article doesn't mention or discuss "Dogetipbot" so having a redirect there would be misleading. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dogecoin. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Anarchyte, maybe smerge. I think Dogecoin makes more sense as a target than Reddit would. ansh666 19:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Dogecoin#Use and exchanges because Dogetipbot is a use of Dogecoin. I agree that Dogecoin is a better target than Reddit. I have completed a merge. The content is sourced to primary sources, Tech-Recipes, and CoinDesk. Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 August 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JUCCCE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability requirement. Was previously deleted and brought back for no clear reason. Organization appears inactive Plainsong43 (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; this wasn't nominated before. User above PRODed the article in 2015; this was later undone - see User_talk:Rjd0060/Archive_11#JUCCCE_.2F_Joint-US_China_Collaboration_on_Clean_Energy. I personally fail to understand the nominator's bare bones reason to nominate. A perfunctory search yielded dozens of sources about this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was PRODed (and endorsed by me) in 2014. The page was deleted and it was undone almost one year later in 2015, based on this discussion. The page was restored by Rjd0060 without restoring its talk page. The article was after that cleaned-up by AdventurousMe but it still seems to be problematic. Beagel (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:Previous deletion followed the proper procedure. The second paragraph of the article highlights the founder's translation of a Thomas Friedman article as the organization's most notable achievement. I don't think that meets the standard. Article says organization's mission is to "convene ... stakeholders," which sounds like PR jargon. Another major achievement was "revolutionized China's electric grid," which also sounds like PR because I see no evidence that any such "revolution" actually occurred. Based on its website, JUCCCE appears to have zero paid employees. Project descriptions are vague. Latest update to website's News section is an article about a July 4 party organized by the US consulate in 2015. Next most recent event was a "loosely structured discussion that invited the participants to reminiscence over their favourite past-time activity in their hometown" at a Shanghai restaurant. Media sources used as evidence of notability in User_talk:Rjd0060/Archive_11#JUCCCE_.2F_Joint-US_China_Collaboration_on_Clean_Energy are profiles of founder Peggy Liu, adding to the impression that the organization (and this article) are primarily a PR platform for her. I'd assess differently if there were media coverage of the alleged "revolution of China's energy grid" or other concrete achievements, rather than puff pieces about the founder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plainsong43 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantial coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are either unreliable or trivial mentions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Beagel (talk) 14:03, 7 August 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 - Clearly wasting my time, Once the article's deleted we'll have a useless disambiguation which sure as hell won't be my problem (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Actors Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deletion I can list disambiguations here, Anyway the disambiguation had 2 entries however one entry is at AFD which leaves only 1 left, The page is only getting 1 or 2 views every few days and as one entry is gone there's no need for this page (unless there's other Theatre Schools), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and if 2nd article is deleted (AfD is headed that way, but it isn't closed yet so this is premature), then the one remaining article of this name could be moved using {db-move} - no need for AfD, and that's if the Islington article is deleted and no other entries are found. Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is there's so many twats on here that revert anything and everything so figured It'd be much easier just to go along this route and get consensus first, If consensus is to keep and db-move this then I'll happily do that however I'd rather get consensus first instead of moving it and having someone revert, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 11:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: perfectly valid dab page, now that I have replaced the prematurely-removed Islington article. While that page exists, it needs to be linked from the dab page. If it is deleted at AfD, then the link on the dab page should be removed, and the dab page should then be redirected to the Florida setup (or that one moved to the base name). But this AfD is absurdly premature and it was very poor editing to remove the Islington article before the end of the AfD. PamD 12:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PamD - You do realize the article is going to be deleted so reinstating it is just wasting time and rather WP:POINTY? ...... If there was any inkling of this article being kept I wouldn't of removed it so early however as it's going to be deleted I see no point sitting around waiting ........ –Davey2010^Talk 12:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 You do realise it was completely inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of the AfD and remove a link to an existing page? Just be slightly patient and let things happen in the right order. PamD 12:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point in wasting time but screw it once the article's deleted we'll have a useless disambiguation won't we. –Davey2010^Talk 12:38, 2 August 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 Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. (non-admin closure) -- Dane2007 ^talk 12:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie or Bust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article should be deleted per similar logic behind this AfD for Never Trump. Online searches return thousands of results, but per WP:NEO, these seem to be generally sources using the term and not sources about the term. Appears overall to be a hashtag, general sentiment, (at times even a bit of a slur) but not really an organization of any type, nor even a loosely organized movement with any semblance of hierarchy or structure. Can throw in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM for good measure.

Currently the article is mostly a WP:COAT rack for talking about voter dissatisfaction, which may well be perfectly WP:DUE weight in an article about the candidate or the election, but remove the coats and the article is essentially a dictionary entry. TimothyJosephWood 12:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. There is possibly another good target I'm not thinking of. There are sources about this hashtag and these objections, but I don't see them covered sufficiently outside of the campaign in general, so per WP:NOPAGE, merge/redirect. @Timothyjosephwood: Regarding the comparison the the Never Trump AfD, it seems worth mentioning that the article looks to have been recreated as Stop Trump movement the day after that AfD was closed... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is plainly a notable topic, passing GNG with numerous sources. (Just a few examples: [10] [11] [12].) It has been covered for months. The deletion of Never Trump was grossly erroneous, and should not be used as a precedent here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has four paragraphs and only one of the paragraphs talks about voter distrust, while the other paragraphs talk about polls showing that the majority of Sanders supporters would support Clinton, Bernie Sanders endorsing Clinton, or arguments against the Bernie or Bust movement. For that reason, I think it is un-insightful to call this article a WP:COAT article. Even if the article only discussed voter distrust, it would not be a WP:COAT article because it discusses the cause of the movement rather than spread a propaganda about it as a WP:COAT article would. One of the biggest reasons people come to Wikipedia is to learn the origin of a particular concept, so we shouldn't delete an article for doing its job (unless there's no sources or the topic is not notable, however this is not the case). The article is balanced because, as I mentioned before, this article has four paragraphs and only one of the paragraphs talks about voter distrust, while the other paragraphs talk about polls showing that the majority of Sanders supporters would support Clinton, Bernie Sanders endorsing Clinton, or arguments against the Bernie or Bust movement. --Proud User (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Strong merge and redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 for the same reason as the "Never Trump" movement. It's too early to determine whether this will have lasting significance and comply with WP:NOTNEWS. Graham (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also per Grayfell, who I think put it rather succinctly:

Election coverage needs to be weighed carefully, as so much of it turns out to be disposable. This specific phrase may turn out to have lasting significance but it's too early to tell.

Given the level of significance that we can ascribe to this phenomenon (or movement, or however it is best described at this stage) without having a crystal ball, the appropriate depth of coverage can fit comfortably in the campaign article. And if this phenomenon comes to have the level of significance that some expect, the decision not to have a separate article can of course be reassessed at that time. Graham (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 - there is no reason that this can't be covered, in context, in a paragraph or two on that page. Neutrality^talk 21:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there are a couple reasons. One is that that article is already very large, and there is no room to merge this one into it. Another is that the subjects are different - "Bernie or Bust" is not part of the campaign, and is a continuing phenomenon, while the campaign is over. Also, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here, as this is a months-old topic which continues to get coverage, so I can't see any rationale for deleting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is not so large that it couldn't be merged. And while the phenomenon is not part of the campaign, it is an outgrowth of it. Neutrality^talk 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect per above. There are some sources, a few of which are good, but this is just one relatively minor aspect of his campaign and the election. Election coverage needs to be weighed carefully, as so much of it turns out to be disposable. This specific phrase may turn out to have lasting significance but it's too early to tell. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016 per Grayfell and WP:NOTNEWS. While the subject is well-sourced and relevant enough to the Sanders campaign to warrant coverage, it is simply WP:TOOSOON to determine whether or not it is notable in its own right.--JayJasper (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The Daily Banter February 22nd, AlterNet April 11th, Los Angeles Times April 24th, U.S. News and World Report May 3rd, The Atlantic May 5th, New York Magazine July 28th. These are a few sources among literally hundreds. The range of dates should dispel arguments of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:TOOSOON. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect We don't need separate articles for every briefly popular hashtag that pops in the 2016 election cycle. Plantdrew (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Never Trump article was partly deleted for being a mere two-liner that can be easily discussed within other contexts, and for being an insider campaign that failed to rally a real movement. I don't necessarily agree, but this article here is considerably longer, adequately sourced and indeed a widely discussed popular movement that is distinct from the Sanders campaign, and may still play a decisive role in the election. --PanchoS (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "may still" sounds a lot like "may one day be notable". TimothyJosephWood 00:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's no way that argument can be reconciled with WP:CRYSTAL. While they "may still play a decisive role in the election", that's no different than saying that they're the up and coming next big thing. Graham (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are working very hard to establish a false equivalency between "may still become notable" and "may still be the deciding factor in a presidential election". How do you reconcile the idea that it is not notable yet with the large amount of coverage it has received over the past five months? --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016, with some content merged if anything warrants it. If the current page actually talked about the phrase's cultural impact in more compelling detail, I might vote keep. As is, however, all the page's content seems to be talking about Sanders supporters as a general concept/timeline of events. As this group of people isn't defined by their catchphrase, but by their political allegiance, I feel all the current content would be more appropriate under a "support movements for Bernie Sanders" section or something along those lines, with Bernie or Bust mentioned briefly in that context. Yvarta (talk) 09:54, 5 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have appeared on the cover of all "Big Four" editions of Vogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources discuss the topic of this list. The inclusion of people on this list is based on searching of lists of either one of these 4 Vogue editions. Pure original research. Randykitty (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not really sure why this is significant, seems a very weirdly specific thing to have a list for, and probably more fancruft/original research. Probably something to cite on the main Vogue webpage, but seems silly to have a spin-off for this. Mabalu (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no allegation of why this might be notable or even important to our core readership - thus failing WP:LIST. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a homosexual who sometimes pays attention to this trivial fashion stuff. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This does seem to pass WP:NLIST and WP:BLPLIST in that every single person except one is notable . And the act of appearing on Vogue cover is also certainly notable.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Except that the selection of who to include on this list is pure original research and that there are no sources discussing the topic of this list... --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think that whoever appears on a Vogue cover is not disputable. Also, the editions known as Big Four seems to be universally recognized, although I will admit I had a hard time finding info on the Big Four as a classification.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• possibly keep Just as counting is not OR, comparing several lists and selecting those items found on all of them is not OR. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the grouping by "big four" is clearly WP:OR. Why not the big five and include Spain? For non-OR groupings we have List of Vogue cover models. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The issue here is not whether the people on the list are notable. The issue is that the concept of the "big four" Vogues is clearly an opinion being passed as fact. You will not find any mention of the "big four" Vogues on any of the Vogue websites. This concept is not notable for an encyclopedia article. Lupine453 (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- non encyclopedic topic & quite trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 6 August 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) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrome Tripoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:ARTIST . completely unremarkable career with no major awards. Only links to one other article. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. There is one museum show, but many galleries he exhibited in are not commercial, but public galleries. Shows like Public Art in Brooklyn, Armory Show in NYC are equal to museums exhibitions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are weak. Vortex is a primary source. Bushwick open studios doesn't actually say anything; it is a directory. Artnet shows images of his work at his gallery, McNeill Art Group, but provides no information about him. Mutualart references some other sources, but has nothing substantial to say about him. Recology is a statement by Tripoli himself. The WYNC ref is to a radio show with Tripoli as a guest. And finally artmargins is a dead link. Following up on the mutualart link, there is indeed a mention of his work: It is not even a full sentence: "Tyrome Tripoli’s “Rubber Fan, Exhaust” (2007) seemed to recede into its own shadowiness,…" in this article. When I looked for sources I found nothing more substantial than what is listed as references. With regards to Arthistorian1977's comment that showing at Public Art in Brooklyn or the Armory Show is equivalent to a museum exhibition, I found no evidence that Tripoli showed at the The Armory Show (not to be confused with the Armory Show) or that there ever was a show called Public Art in Brooklyn that featured his work. He has had some commissions for public sculpture which don't appear to have been reviewed anywhere. In summary, this article fails WP:ARTIST on all criteria. Mduvekot (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at it, so at this point I agree that I need to reconsider my opinion and it's a Delete now. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 August 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Shek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person as a whole is not notable nor influential, and does not meet wiki standards for biography of a living person.

Her achievements and awards' notability is questioned. At least it is very debatable whether his awards are truly notable by wikipedia standards. They could be achievable easily by others. There are many other similar children merely in Hong Kong (her country of residence), let alone the world.

Many of her competitions are regional with few competitors. It is not difficult to achieve these results. Her international competitions' awards are mostly seconds to fourths. Her performances are also not notable.

The whole article is interwoven with biased terms, suggesting a positive image. More neutral wordings should be used if it is to be kept. (eg. she is recognized by her achievements in..)

Dead links present.

The major contributor & creator is suspected to be autobiographing together with a few of her close friends. There is a huge conflict of interest in creating a wiki as a resume. Moreover, several accounts are suspected to be involved in sock puppetry (requires further investigation with admin power), thus protecting this article from deletion.

minor: There is also a noticable amount of edits by blocked users or ip adresses.

Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 11:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a borderline pass of WP:GNG as references are provided, her achievements in competitions are notable at the international level which is more notable than national level, the accusations of coi and sockpuppetry is wholly unproven.

*May I know who made this edit? From "as a borderline pass ....to ...wholly unproven". Thanks. Also, please look at this page's edit history. There are indeed multiple accounts confirmed with sock puppetry that were editing this page. More are yet to be confirmed but highly suspected. Multiple accounts involved in the editing history have only edited this page! Then gone. Nothing else.Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are references, but they all seem to be of a primary or affiliated nature. Her five top three finishes in competition are impressive: but they seem to all be in the junior category that would not be considered a "major music competition" per WP:MUSICBIO, I think. I'd say she fails that guideline as well as WP:GNG, on the basis of what I can find -- my only concern is there maybe Cantonese news refs we're missing. Definitely leaning to delete, if none can be found. Given her talents, it may just be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not convinced she is even close to being borderline, however for minors we should be well past borderline before we create articles on them. BLP concerns are even more heightened when the subject is still a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If you look closely at her awards, they are mostly regional with few competitors. A closer examination reveals that some of her regional competitions (regional as in within her own town) have only less than 20 competitors. Even the overseas ones have few competitors, mostly from the hosting country. They are also children's competitions, not professional ones and not notable. It is not hard or notable to get these achievements if she joins lots of these competitions. Moreover, two of her prizes are awarded by the Hong Kong harp chamber, which is the place where she attends lessons.^[1] Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ReplyAs a cantoneese speaker, I have searched for websites related to her using various search engines in Chinese language. There are indeed a few more websites about her. Consider this one:^[2] It's an article mainly focusing on her teacher. There's a tiny section interviewing her, with her saying that playing the harp makes her happy. There's also a ticketing website which included that she performed as a student in her teacher's personal miniconcert^[3] (The concert is held in a small chapel) These are the notable websites that mention her. There are also some other promotions or archive websites that mentions the above concert. Aside from that, two websites from her elementary school that said she got some sort of artistic ambasador's nomination in her school. Please correct me if there's anything wrong. Tseung Kwan O Let's talk 07:05, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since there's nothing at all convincing and this should've honestly been PRODed. SwisterTwister talk 19:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete my sweeps didn't find much, including news sweeps, international news, etc, although here she is at a young age and here she is older. I imagine in time she'll be back in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:13, 8 August 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. Notability not established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashmead Choate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This guy appears to be known for one event. There aren't even enough reliable sources to ascertain whether he is alive or not. The original article said he had passed away but this wasn't referenced. -- haminoon (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rubbish, he is 1. an islamic scholar, which is enough independent notability 2. was detained as part of the plot to kill the prime minister of trinidad and tobago, which is huge notability 3. fought and died for the islamic state (the source for him dying is contained in Dabiq (magazine) issue 15). he is notable three times over. I feel this deletion nomination is a malicious act since I reverted your NPOV label of 'terrorist' in the article Ahlam al-Nasr.Samwelltarly1 (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Samwelltarly1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dave8899 (talk • contribs). [reply]

• delete Per nom. Again, the ISIL propaganda magazine is anything but a reliable source. Also malicious act? WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Kleuske (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what does dabiq have to do with this page. this page is all sourced on newpapers in trinidad which are reliable sourcwes. you are coming here crying delete without even taking the time to understand and look at the meritsSamwelltarly1 (talk) 12:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC) — Samwelltarly1 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dave8899 (talk • contribs). [reply]

You brought it up, above. "(the source for him dying is contained in Dabiq (magazine) issue 15)." Kleuske (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of notability. If Samwelltarly1, or other editors, think notability is established, they should point to specific notability criteria. Please see them at: Wikipedia:Notability (people). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 5 August 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 per G5 by Ponyo (non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of rain songs in Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to meet criteria for notability - Vivvt (Talk) 11:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As "rain song" is not a recognized musical genre, having a list of "rain songs" seems arbitrary. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE applies here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - Many unimportant musical lists regarding US and UK are here in wikipedia. Whereas rain songs play very important roles in Bollywood. If u search in google "rain songs of Bollywood", I'll see thousands of articles. Rain songs are certainly a musical genre in India. The article includes proper references and the article is well written I think. Neebras (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @Neebras: You'll have to provide sourcing to verify that "rain song" is a specific recognized genre of music. The fact that there are lots of songs about rain does not make "rain song" a recognized genre. "Love song" is a specific genre, and there is a lot of literature on the topic of love songs. If you could find similar literature (albeit likely a lesser volume of literature, but that's OK) to indicate that "rain song" is a recognized genre, you might have something. You'd probably do better to create the article Rain song (genre) first, to establish its notability as a genre, and then this list might have some meaning. But otherwise, this list falls into the category of list cruft. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-sense. Admins, WP:BEBOLD. We should not waste community time in debating over this user's multiple edits which have been nominated on various forums of deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:16, 5 August 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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Kearns Goodwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Person only notable for one event (an unsuccessful state senate campaign) and for his famous parents. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles because candidate — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he must win the seat and thereby hold office to become eligible. And neither does a person get a Wikipedia article just for having famous parents, as notability is not inherited. The Bronze Star, however, is not an honour that gets a person over WP:MILPEOPLE in and of itself — and the only other potential claim of notability here, that he's written for the media about his military service, is sourced entirely to content where he's the bylined author of the piece rather than independent third parties writing about him. So no, nothing here clears the "belongs in an encyclopedia for it" bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Sorry, this person isn't notable. Someone who didn't even become a candidate to be a State Senator fails WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile. No significant coverage of his charitable ventures since 2012, so it looks like he has faded into becoming a regular private citizen again. Blythwood (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- nothing that suggests notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means, nothing at all here convincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is an unelected politician who happens to be the son of two very notable people, but having notable parents does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable for stand alone article; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 19:47, 5 August 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 per WP:G7 by DGG. (non-admin closure) --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Taha (American soldier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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