Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 November	10 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Presidency of Donald Trump. Per WP:SNOW and WP:ATD. Please deal with these kinds of issues in the future through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidential trips made by Donald Trump during 2017

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

WP:NOT a crystal ball, too soon. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not too soon. Donald Trump is going to be President, and his travel schedule could be announced at any time. What is the harm in creating the article now?Juneau Mike (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can we not waste time with a deletion discussion and just redirect the article to Presidency of Donald Trump until a standalone list is appropriate? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AB. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Blythwood (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the articles creator, I'm totally fine with a redirect, for now. I can just restore it early next year...Juneau Mike (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per AB.LM2000 (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per AB. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is borderline between delete and no consensus. While there is the two-thirds supermajority for deletion that we, in practice, often deem consensus, several of the "delete" opinions are very superficial compared to the "keep" side's, which tend to go into more detail about why they consider the sourcing appropriate. So this is a "when in doubt, don't delete" situation for me. Sandstein 17:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biocom

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

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

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

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

The references consist entirely of its own PR, placed in various newspapers DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the references consist of legit news coverage from reliable sources that significantly discuss the article topic. Passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG per sources already on article. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment I do not see anything from a non-localnewspaper. I do not think the LA Times, in particulr, is considered reliable except for the field of film and associated forms of entertainment. DGG ( talk ) 09:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: As per nom. Nothing is here to known as Encyclopedic Notable. Light2021 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't love this article, and I don't think a fatal blow will be dealt to the project if it vanishes tomorrow, but I am going to make an argument to keep it because I want to offer a position that counters a recent trend here at AFD. Or attempts to, anyway.

Lest anyone be in doubt, I hate spam. When I find blatant promo articles, it makes me itch. But there has been a religious crusade against spam around here lately that borders on mania. I am not talking about DGG here, nor do I wish to cast aspersions, but in the fervor to delete spam articles wherever they lie, we've started seeing editors who are using extra-sensory (and extra-policy) powers to detect PR in article sources.

I'm not naïve, and I know that a lot of newspaper references for this article probably came about because a PR guy/gal helped them happen. But we have no way of knowing that. All we can do is look at an article source and determine if it's reliable. And The San Diego Union Tribune and the LA Times are reliable sources. These are major daily newspapers for important cities. They employ editors and fact-checkers. That is the very definition of a reliable source around here.

There's a ton of garbage articles in this encyclopedia that are sourced to press releases and terrible TechCrunch posts that regurgitate press releases. This is not one of them. A Train^talk 14:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

without specific reference to this article, my usual way for whether a news story is PR is to see if it is written in PR language, and especially the same PR language as the actual press releases. I assume all news reporters writing about products use press releases (or equivalent communications, such as booths at trade shows) to decide what to write articles about--how else could they work? I don't consider such PR useless-- when I bought books for Princeton, I used such information also. It's what they do with it that matters. (But there are some industries which are notoriously pay to play, like Indian film, and for these, no newspaper in the area can be trusted),

on the general question, we could do one of three things, accept all advertising, reject all advertising, or reject only the most blatant advertising. The third criteria may sound attractive, but it gives us no clear way to decide: it involves a consensus for every article, that will necessarily depend more on impressions than on hard evidence, and experience shows the the result depends not just on the merits but on who shows up and how effectively they argue)

A better approach is to first remove every promotional articles, and for new NPOV articles to be written by independent editors on the ones that are most important.The problem here is that there are insufficient people for most fields of practical life. A good example of how it can work is our articles on automobiles or airplanes, most of which are reasonably good or very good, and all of them written by volunteers who are interested. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on every point. My main concern is the very many AFD nominations that have appeared of late whose primary criterion is that an article is "promotional". Generally, the article being called "promotional" is a bland accounting of company details and anything even approaching what I thought a rational person's idea of advertising is. It's as though by virtue of having a Wikipedia article at all there is promotion going on. I picked on your nomination (unfairly, because I am in agreement with you 9 times out of 10 at AFD) because I figured you would discuss it thoughtfully with me, and I was right. The problem is the current vogue that every article about a company is automatically spam.

I agree that the system basically works here at AFD and has done for a long time. I just want to do my part (for whatever good it will do) to push back against this growing consensus that a "promotional tone" is a reason to delete an article. It's not. That's a reason to pare an article back unmercifully until you get down to a good stub and start over. A Train^talk 17:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sole basis of concerns here is advertising and thst:s what this is, from the SPA advertising-only account, to the advertising company-influenced and PR information to the PR sources; none of this is actually substance and it should not have been accepted lest we start sending messages to advertisers that their adverts can be accepted with only a few PR sources. Thid is also not quite salt material yet (it was deleted as G5 in 2013) but it can be if it's restarted once again. SwisterTwister talk 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd paid someone for "advertising" and what I got back was this blandly matter-of-fact article I'd ask for my money back. A Train^talk 17:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR WP:SK#1 No argument for deletion. No policies have been identified in any !vote. WP:SK#2 Disruption. AfD is not a discussion forum to advance novel personal policy opinions. WP:NPASR allows the article to be speedily renominated if a WP:DEL-REASON can be identified. Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that a WP:DEL-REASON has to be "explicitly provided" - and it is already provided in the nom's statement. Doing a speedy keep and NPASR is problematic here per WP:NOTBURO. Since it has been nominated, we might as well discuss. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chiesa, Vittorio; Chiaroni, Davide (2005). Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology: Driving Forces, Development Processes, and Management Practices. London: Imperial College Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 1860946070. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The book notes:
  Biocom (San Diego, US)
  In the mid '90s industry leaders in the cluster of San Diego, the third largest cluster in the world, gathered together with a strong commitment to create an association that would ensure growth and expansion opportunities and represent the industry's interests on a local, state and national level. Biocom was founded in 1995 by the merger of the Biomedical Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association. The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain.
2. Koren, James Rufus (2016-04-29). "Biotech trade group Biocom expands to L.A." Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  A San Diego trade group seeking to boost the Southern California biotech industry is now setting up shop in downtown Los Angeles, a northward shift that could step on the toes of L.A.'s own homegrown biotech association.
  Biocom, established in San Diego in the early 1990s, plans to open its office here in June. Joe Panetta, the group's chief executive, said he sees the expansion as a chance to add more members and unite the two regions' biotech industries.
  "It's an opportunity to bring together the life-science entities in Los Angeles and bring that group together with the community in San Diego," he said. "It will help us bring together something we've been talking about for 10 years: a unified Southern California life-sciences community that extends from Santa Barbara to across the Mexican border."
  Though Biocom is a not-for-profit organization, Panetta said the group — which counts more than 750 members, including biotechs, law firms and consultants — needs to continue to grow. A bigger organization can put on better events, draw bigger investors to its members and more effectively lobby in Sacramento and on Capitol Hill, he said.
  ...
  Biocom has already been active in Los Angeles. It's one of a handful of groups working with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. on a plan to build up L.A. County's biotech industry by attracting companies to the region and helping them expand.
3. Somers, Terri (2005-03-15). "The face of Biocom: Chief of biotechnology trade group has improved organization, won accolades". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  After Mycogen was acquired by Dow in 1998, Caulder recommended Panetta for the job running Biocom.
  ...
  Under Panetta's stewardship, Biocom membership has doubled, revenue has risen from $700,000 to more than $3 million and the staff has grown from six to 18. The group's geographic reach now extends north to Thousand Oaks.
  ...
  Biocom's board of directors has grown from 30 members to 50 and includes the top executives of the region's biggest and most successful companies. ...
4. Fikes, Bradley J. (2015-11-13). "Fouts, Benirschke mark Biocom's 20th". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  With two San Diego football legends taking center stage, San Diego's life science trade group Biocom marked its 20th year at its annual "Celebration of Life" dinner Thursday.
  Former Chargers quarterback Dan Fouts and placekicker Rolf Benirschke shared stories about their lives in football, life in general, and the need for better medical treatments.
  ...
  About 650 people attended the "Back to the Future" themed event for the biotech/biomedical industry, held at the Hyatt Aventine in La Jolla. Biocom was formed in 1995 from the merger of two local biomedical groups. Based in San Diego, Biocom operates throughout much of Southern California and statewide; in addition to having a staff member in Washington D.C.
5. Norman, Jan (2007-08-09). "BIOCOM comes to O.C." Orange County Register. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  BIOCOM, the San Diego-based trade association for life sciences and medical device companies, is pushing into Orange County.
  A hundred OC biotech industry executives and service providers pre-registered for a BIOCOM meeting held Wednesday in Irvine on the topic of getting medical devices to market.
  With roughly 560 members, BIOCOM claims to be the largest regional biotech group in the world. Only about 30 of those member companies are in Orange County. But here is where the group's greatest growth potential lies, says President Joe Panetta.
  ...
  The group plans to open an office in Orange County within six months and schedule education and networking events inside the Orange Curtain.
6. Crabtree, Penni (2002-09-24). "Biotech firms give grades to legislators". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2016-10-31. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
  The article notes:
  San Diego's leading biotechnology trade group has released its first "score card" on how California legislators voted this year on issues of concern to the industry -- an action that has some politicians crying foul.
  Biocom, which represents more than 200 biotech companies in San Diego, took aim at the voting records of legislators on 10 bills that deal with everything from the cloning of human stem cells to divulging secret settlements in product liability lawsuits.
  The trade group hopes to leverage the life-science industry's growing economic clout -- local biotech and medical device companies employ about 32,000 and spend close to $1 billion for research -- into political muscle. Last year, Biocom formed a political action committee to influence politicians and shape legislation at the state and federal level.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Biocom to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Comment and analysis - Literally advertising contents from the above:

Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain. (began with a "major claim" but then literally followed by the list of all services and company features available, so it's an obvious advertisement since it's only company-issued materials)

Now as for the next one:

A San Diego trade group seeking to boost the Southern California biotech industry is now setting up shop in downtown Los Angeles, a northward shift that could step on the toes of L.A.'s own homegrown biotech association....Biocom, established in San Diego in the early 1990s, plans to open its office here in June. Joe Panetta, the group's chief executive, said he sees the expansion as a chance to add more members and unite the two regions' biotech industries. (followed by company-man quote and other information from him, so it's not only non-independent but it's advertising by the company itself)

See the next one:

Under Panetta's stewardship, Biocom membership has doubled, revenue has risen from $700,000 to more than $3 million and the staff has grown from six to 18. The group's geographic reach now extends north to Thousand Oaks....Biocom's board of directors has grown from 30 members to 50 and includes the top executives of the region's biggest and most successful companies (every single sentence was clearly company advertising, because it went from company number specifics to then literally specifying who and what the board employees are! Not only non-independent but it's advertising overall, therefore unacceptable.

Now the next one is is literally a named mention because of a local stadium, and that's it. The next one (note it's from a local newspaper advertising its fellow local business):

BIOCOM, the San Diego-based trade association for life sciences and medical device companies, is pushing into Orange County. A hundred OC biotech industry executives and service providers pre-registered for a BIOCOM meeting held Wednesday in Irvine on the topic of getting medical devices to market. With roughly 560 members, BIOCOM claims to be the largest regional biotech group in the world. Only about 30 of those member companies are in Orange County. But here is where the group's greatest growth potential lies, says President Joe Panetta The group plans to open an office in Orange County within six months and schedule education and networking events inside the Orange Curtain. (every single word was the company's own because it not only went to number specifics about its partners, something only they naturally would know therefore making it non-independent, it's simply advertising it to the interests of local clients and investors.

Now take this last one:

San Diego's leading biotechnology trade group has released its first "score card"....Biocom, which represents more than 200 biotech companies in San Diego, took aim at the voting records of legislators on 10 bills that deal with everything from the cloning of human stem cells to divulging secret settlements in product liability lawsuits. (followed and finished by specifics about, once again, the company's number specifics of its business and partners)

Note how literally none of this was ever genuinely guaranteed of not having any self-initiated interviews of company specifics and numbers, overspecific information about the company's locations and how you can service them, etc. There there's nothing to suggest we should confide and accept them, especially when it was clearly advertising from the get-go, because no journalism efforts happened when the company supplied its own information! When it's so blatant as literally republishing company quotes and words, it's not substantial, significant (expect for the company's own mindset) or notability-causing, therefore they mean nothing for meaningful Wikipedia information. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no identified WP:DEL-REASON. Is this supposed to be a WP:NOT argument? Or is this supposed to be a WP:IAR argument that prefers to hide in the shadows, hoping to pass itself off as a policy argument via obfuscation? Does the neologism "notable-causing" nine words from the end of the comment mean that this has been a notability argument? Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: You've !voted twice. Unscintillating (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly said, blatant advertising alone is sufficient because then WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT apply; simply because there are some apparent "news" is a thin and therefore unconvincing basis considering my analysis above which explicitly showed the republished of advertising such as company and businesspeople quotes; none of that is independent or substantial. We seriously have to stop kidding ourselves with politics about "Well, sourcing is listed, why can't that keep it?" when there's blatant advertising in said sources.

My comments here have said what is needed to say and no one else here has actually listed meaningful sources, not from republishing of company advertising or other company-influenced materials, and no, we cannot begin to say "But news sources can base their own materials from company advertising and PR advertising as long as it's still covered as news" because that is still in fact advertising being cosmetic-filled therefore churnalism (news being overinfluenced and passed as "news" when it is in fact not, and this is so because it both allows the company to publish their own initiated and authored materials without the news media cutting into their own budgets). SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most notorious ways of making This Wikipedia Compromised on a highest scale of blatant promotions: Motivations are none other than Paid advertising. Such articles are violating every means possible by misusing GNC and References. Wikipedia is compromised. And can you even cite anything why on earth this article makes an Encyclopedia material. No one bother to know about this company. Not even their own industry I doubt. Only few media references are blatantly misused to create this High promotional material. Only interest is to build SEO, Online reputation and Luring customers or employee in the name of Wikipedia. As per wikipedia Such as this:

Light2021 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sole purpose of this un-notable article seems to be advertising.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the analysis by SwisterTwister is convincing. The vast majority of the sources are redressed PR and do not satisfy WP:CORPIND (any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly) and hence cannot be used towards WP:NORG. It is also worth looking at the fact that the coverage is almost entirely local. The only somewhat OK source I found is LA Times, but that quotes the people affiliated with the organisation extensively and it not enough for WP:NORG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This bylined coverage from San Diego Union Tribune is a good example why a byline doesn't automatically make a coverage reliable and free from PR.

On Tuesday, Nov. 1, Peter Schultz, president of The Scripps Research Institute, delivers a “Fireside Chat” hosted by Biocom, the San Diego-based life sciences trade organization.

The event takes place from 4:30 to 7 p.m at The Scripps Research Institute Auditorium, 10620 John Jay Hopkins Dr., 92121, in La Jolla. Schultz will speak from 4:45 to 5:45 p.m., followed by a cocktail networking reception.

It’s open to Biocom members, and those working in the life sciences industry except for non-member service providers.

To register and to check admission fees, go to j.mp/biocomschultz. For further information, contact Ashleigh Farver at afarver@biocom.org.

The quality of coverage does matter here and this is one of the reasons why local sources are problematic to use. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia is not a catalog of unremarkable trade associations. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I agree with the analysis of SwisterTwister and Lemongirl942. This is too promotional, and the subject does not seem particularly notabale. Reyk _YO! 07:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vittorio Chiesa and Davide Chiaroni, professors at Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy, wrote in their Imperial College Press–published book Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology: Driving Forces, Development Processes, and Management Practices: "Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation." That two Italian professors wrote this about Biocom, which is based in San Diego, California, strongly establishes that Biocom is notable.
The Wikipedia article notes:
Biocom is a trade organization focusing on the life sciences business market in California.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Biocom was founded in 1995, through the merger of the San Diego Biotechnology Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association.[8]
As of 2016, Biocom represents over 800 member companies.[9]
The organization runs the non-profit Biocom Institute and the Festival of Science and Engineering.[10][11]
This provides basic facts and is neutrally written. It does not violate WP:NOTADVERTISING.
Cunard (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have retracted my earlier close. It was not done as carefully as it should have been and I think it best if someone else now closes this. SpinningSpark 22:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 22:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—promotional at second hand. The pile of cited sources, in the main, do not qualify as WP:RS. The "Q&A" format of some sources are PR generated. Others are "feel good″ community puff pieces with passing mention of the subject. Even within such light-weight sources, cherry-picking is apparent (see criticism from a rival industry group). In fact, the article could be seen as part of a PR struggle between rival groups. No matter how skeletal this article is, promotionaisml is the common thread in the sources. — Neonorange (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article could be seen as part of a PR struggle between rival groups. – there is no evidence that the article is "part of a PR struggle between rival groups".
No matter how skeletal this article is, promotionaisml is the common thread in the sources. – the skeletal article is written neutrally. That is sufficient for the article not to violate WP:NOTADVERTISING. The sources are from reputable publications like the Los Angeles Times, the Imperial College Press, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Orange County Register. There is no evidence that these reputable publications are publishing PR.
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are two problems about relying on "Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation" "one of the" which is a very vague term that can be applied to almostany organization" and "regional". DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This statement was written by Vittorio Chiesa and Davide Chiaroni, professors at Polytechnic University of Milan in Italy about a San Diego, California, based association. If they did not consider it significant, they would not have included included this statement. If the Italian professors did not consider this regional organization based in another country significant, they would not have written about it in their book. That you personally feel that statement is insignificant when a reputable source does ought not mean we should follow your interpretation. We should follow the reliable sources.
According to this article, Biocom in 2016 represents 800 companies in the life science industry. This is a very substantial number of companies.
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would be good to see more information. Why did the two predecessors merge? What are categories of members? What is the benefit to its members and to society? What are its strategic goals for the future? Without such information, this is a fairly useless article for most would-be readers.--Rpclod (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are a very good list of questions. Here are my answers to your questions based on the sources:
1. Why did the two predecessors merge? – From https://www.biocom.org/s/History:
  Wain Fishburn: Back when both organizations were separate, Biocom Board meetings used to be myself, Jim McGraw, Peter Preuss, Bill Otterson, Ann Randolph and Bill Rastetter during cocktail hour at Tutto Mare. One of the defining moments in its history was when we decided to merge with BIC on a “dare-to-be-great” strategy that would seek to have the biotechnology industry companies directly linked to both the funding sources and supporting companies.
2. What are categories of members? – life sciences and medical device companies according to http://www.ocregister.com/jannorman/biocom-409660-biotech-panetta.html.
4. What is the benefit to its members and to society? – from https://books.google.com/books?id=TFzxeRLecnsC&pg=PA197:
  The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. ... Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain.
5. What are its strategic goals for the future? – from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-biocom-los-angeles-20160429-story.html:
  Though Biocom is a not-for-profit organization, Panetta said the group — which counts more than 750 members, including biotechs, law firms and consultants — needs to continue to grow. A bigger organization can put on better events, draw bigger investors to its members and more effectively lobby in Sacramento and on Capitol Hill, he said.
  ...
  Biocom has already been active in Los Angeles. It's one of a handful of groups working with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. on a plan to build up L.A. County's biotech industry by attracting companies to the region and helping them expand.
I agree that including such information would significantly improve the article. But per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, the article should not be deleted for not yet including the information. I am reluctant to spend time expanding the article with this information while it can be deleted at AfD.
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the above sources are yet more advertising / PR, such as "The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth... this appears to say that it's a lobby group? What are "local infrastructure issues having an impact"? This is all vague and marketing-speak.

"...Panetta said the group..." -- more of the org talking about itself, including "a bigger organization can put on better events". I'm not sure what value this could add to the article, as it's more marketing & PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with you in the facts of the sources and the quotes listed are simply PR again, regardless of the publication's name, because even the LATimes is in fact a literal "What are your goals?" followed by the company's own published "about us and our company" section. SwisterTwister talk 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Panetta said the group... – this answers the question Rpclod posed above, What are its strategic goals for the future? The association's "strategic goals from the future" can only be determined through statements from the association itself. There is enough material about Biocom in which Biocom is not talking about itself in the Los Angeles Times article and the other sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

but a reference that consists only of similar questions is not journalism, but a interview designed to give the subject a chance to do so PR for himself. An dit doesn't matter where it was published. The outside world is full of this, and maybe it's hopeless trying to keep an encyclopedia that is actually NPOV. But I don't think we should give up, rather we should try harder, and be very stringent in removing this sort of material. It's not useless trash intrinsically, because maybe someone does want to hear what the ceo has to say about his firm. But that's why he has a web page, and if newspapers want to change their mission and devote themselves to promotional of all sorts of things, from commercial products to politics, hat doesn't mean we should follow them. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

That the Los Angeles Times included quotations from Biocom's CEO does not detract from the significant non-interview coverage about the subject in the article. It is good journalistic practice to ask for comments from the subject of the article. And this argument overlooks the other sources including a book from two Italian professors and the The San Diego Union-Tribune and the Orange County Register sources. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not arguing about the notability of the company, but this is a purely promotional article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Onel5969 (talk · contribs). The article's text is:
Biocom is a trade organization focusing on the life sciences business market in California.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]
Biocom was founded in 1995, through the merger of the San Diego Biotechnology Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association.[8]
As of 2016, Biocom represents over 800 member companies.[9]
The organization runs the non-profit Biocom Institute and the Festival of Science and Engineering.[10][11]
I do not see how the article is promotional. Would you explain how you find it promotional so I can revise the article so it is no longer promotional? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard - When you're right, you're right, the article isn't promotional. I must have had two AfD's open at the same time. However, now that I read the current version, doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your view of the article, onel5969 (talk · contribs). What are your thoughts about the Los Angeles Times, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and the Orange County Register articles, as well as this book source from two Italian professors about this California association:

Chiesa, Vittorio; Chiaroni, Davide (2005). Industrial Clusters in Biotechnology: Driving Forces, Development Processes, and Management Practices. London: Imperial College Press. pp. 197–198. ISBN 1860946070. Retrieved 2016-10-31.
The book notes:

Biocom (San Diego, US)
In the mid '90s industry leaders in the cluster of San Diego, the third largest cluster in the world, gathered together with a strong commitment to create an association that would ensure growth and expansion opportunities and represent the industry's interests on a local, state and national level. Biocom was founded in 1995 by the merger of the Biomedical Industry Council (BIC) and the San Diego Biocommerce Association. The organisation was initially created to provide advocacy for industry on local infrastructure issues having an impact on future industry growth. Over the last six years, the Biocom has grown into one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation. Biocom currently operates for members in the areas of public policy advocacy, industry events and conferences, promotion of the industry, professional development programs, industry news and information, and, most importantly, purchasing group and member discounts that substantially affect the bottom line of the companies' value chain.

Cunard (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations" --- "one of the largest" and "regional trade association" is hardly a claim to notability. How many "largest regional associations" have the authors considered? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said WP:CORPDEPTH, if that had been the LA Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Chicago Tribune, instead of 3 southern Cal papers, I might have *voted* the other way, but K.e.'s comments directly above have merit.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH says:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

The international source is the two Italian professors' book. The national or statewide source is the Los Angeles Times. The regional sources are the Orange County Register and The San Diego Union-Tribune.

The book's authors are experts in their field. They have the knowledge and have done the research for their book to be able to make the statement that Biocom is "one of the largest and most acknowledged life science regional trade associations in the nation".

Cunard (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete. I would like to see more extended comment added before it is kept. Pyrusca (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. What are your thoughts about the sources presented in this AfD? Cunard (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BASIC and WP:GNG mean nothing when an article only exists for advertising the company like a PR business listing therefore it's emphasized in both WP:SPAM and WP:NOT that any such advertisement is best deleted, any other excuses be damned and regardless of any potential notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- Non-notable trade association. Has no place on WP. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The broad claim made at this AFD by User:DGG, a very experienced and respected user, that they "do not think the LA Times, in particulr, is considered reliable except for the field of film and associated forms of entertainment."[1] really deserves wider discussion. I have created a posting on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, please discuss there: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LA_Times_and_Biocom. Thanks. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --- clearly quite a notable entity. This article should be improved, not deleted. The argument about the LA Times article being parochial / local does not stand up to a first reading of the article: if N. California NGOs / advocacy groups are noticing the size of this S. Californian syndicate, it's not a local story. Please note that Bruce V. Bigelow is a Pulitzer prize winner, which presumably would suggest that if he is writing about the relationship outre-Pacifique this might very well be something that Wikipedia should have an entry about in these days of pacts and hoses. I've fixed the refs in hopes that this page will not be deleted for spurious reasons. follow-up: caveat lector... Pulitzer Prize in 2006 as part of a b.i.g. journalistic team. Still, the references provided by Cunard above should make the case clear. If not, here's Bloomberg. SashiRolls (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, what the concerns listed were the fact the LA Times contents were simply advertising and otherwise trivial and unconvincing, nothing of actual substance, and also, the fact you listed a Bloomberg is simply confirming there's no genuine news, since Bloomberg simply lists whatever available financials about the company hence advertising. Also, claims that "Bruce Bigelow" is a Pulitzer winner is not relevant for this company's own notability or the fact this article is in fact an advertisement. We never keep articles of excuses for other existing articles or existing businesspeople, because that wouldn't be acknowledging this article's concerns.

"if N. California NGOs / advocacy groups are noticing" is not suggesting or establishing how this helps the current article either. Also, since you have commented that news in fact are helping this article and "This article should be improved", it would've helped to list some actual substantial news, not simply a company financials list, because otherwise everything else is simply showing how the article is still currently an advertisement. Simply fixing a few links in the current article is also minor cosmetics compared to the massive overhaul improvements would need. Also, as for the sources listed above, there were examined and found to be republished advertising, regardless of publication, so stating "They're news!" if not weighing the considerations since the analysis showed them to be anything but news. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page tells almost nothing of substance about the subject, it is referenced to advertisement publications, and it was created by a suspicious SPA for the purpose of promotion. Looks like deletion to me. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just wanted to point out that those who are crying self-promotion are IMO obfuscating the issue. This is a trade union with over 750 members, and a political action committee that in 2004 was already active lobbying state government ("As an organization, BIOCOM took positions on 42 pieces of legislation at the state level and had a 28% success rate in getting bills that it supported signed by the Governor and an 83% success rate in defeating legislation deemed harmful to the industry.") [2]. In the most recent election they remained active endorsing a candidate who "was outspoken in opposing H.R. 9, a bill opposed by the industry, as it would have significantly weakened the ability to defend patents against infringement in the life science space." [3]. The fact that its CEO has been nominated by Gov Jerry Brown to CIRM because of his work with Mycogen, the EPA, and his testimony before the US and California Congress (in addition to founding the PAC mentioned above [4] suggests that maybe just maybe this powerful entity deserves a wikipedia article at least as developed as, say, the Danvers Opening in chess or the fur-bearing trout articles. I am not arguing this article should be kept because I want to promote Biocom, but because I think people should have access information about who this PAC / Trade Union represents when they hear that they have endorsed political candidates. SashiRolls (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources prove it exists, but I'm not seeing the significant coverage that makes it notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biocom exists. The article is factual and not promotional. There are generally reliable sources saying talking about it to some extent. The article doesn't currently make it sound "notable" in the sense of "exciting", like you would want to run and tell all your friends about what you just read. But that's not the standard for wikipedia articles. This is a decent stub/starter article about an organization, with links to sources, which can serve as a reference already and which can grow if/when the organization is salient in the world's issues. When Biocom is more in the news, at least we can know who it is as a player. Obvious keep, in fact. --do ncr am 06:19, 20 November 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 List of military clothing camouflage patterns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpenflage

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

An old Swiss Army uniform camouflage pattern. Most of what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAZ 90 (camouflage) applies here also. There is some Google-able stuff out there on account of the weird name, but nothing that I can see that amounts to WP:N-level sourcing. The one print source cited is not accessible online, so I can only guess at the depth of coverage it provides, but as it's only used to source a historical detail, I guess it's not much. Sandstein 22:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of military clothing camouflage patterns. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a plausible search term and to maintain any article history that could be of use. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 17 November 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 List of military clothing camouflage patterns. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TAZ 90 (camouflage)

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

The Swiss Army uniform camouflage pattern. I happen to have worn this uniform for some 700 days of militia service (and shot some of the photos in the article), but there's no way that camo pattern is notable per WP:N; and moreover the article is entirely unsourced. There could be some niche militaria publications covering this topic at the appropriate depth. But I'm not aware of them, they are not cited, and these kind of books tend to be print-only and in German, in my experience, so Google is of little help. - If there had been any useful content, I'd have merged it to Equipment of the Swiss Armed Forces, but there's only some unsourced minutiae and an image gallery. Sandstein 21:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate collection of information. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of military clothing camouflage patterns. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as stated above. Not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 16 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postcard App

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability, minimal sources (trivial mentions), and it is a brand-new product which, according to their own website, has not even been launched yet. bonadea contributions talk 20:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:N. If the creator of the app is notable enough to have his own page, this app would be a good section in that article. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional (article written by a creator of the app) and non-notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with MordeKyle. This information doesn't need a new page. It should be a added to the app creator's Wiki._ _JenniferLance7 (talk) 05:16, 15 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bodnariu case

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

The article describes the details of a single case of the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. All members of a client family (two parents and their five children) are identified by their full names. I do not think that clients of any welfare service should be identified in this way, especially when children are involved. Anonymisation might be an alternative to deletion, but I cannot really see how an article that consists of a single case study should be fully anonymised and still be relevant and able to provide documentation. In my opinion, there are three independent (although not necessarily 100% conclusive) reasons for deletion:

The article violates the Wikipedia guidelines on privacy (WP:BLPNAME), which state: "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases [...], it is often preferable to omit it". Official sources in Norway have "intentionally concealed" the names in this case (as in all other child welfare cases; they are obliged to do so by law). While the names have been "widely disseminated" by news media in some countries (not in Norwegian media, which use to anonymise their coverage of such cases), this does not justify adopting the same practice in an encyclopedia (such as wikipedia).
The article uses exclusively news media and campaign websites as the sources of crucial information, violating one of the requirements for notability (WP:N, WP:EVENT). It is hard to see how this situation might be remedied, for the very reason that cases such as this are subject to strict rules of confidentiality on the part of the Child Welfare Services (and other potential official sources).
In addition to these formal reasons, I think there is an important ethical reason: the children involved certainly haven't asked for this kind of publicity (whether the parents have asked for it, I do not know, and it does not really matter). I cannot help thinking that this is a violation of the personality rights of the children, and that this public attention potentially represents a serious (additional!) burden for them.
Hanno (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norvegian and any other state laws are not basis for deletion. IFAIK Wikimedia even won some court case in Germany against some crook who had his bio in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has mentioned any law as the basis for deletion. I mentioned that official sources have "intentionally concealed" the names, which demonstrates that (a) wikipedia's privacy policy is violated, and that (b) no independent sources will become available in the immediate or foreseeable future. Hanno (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Privacy issues are easily fixable without deletion. (b) I doubt your abilities to forsee future. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) If you can think of a way to anonymise an article that is about a specific family, you are welcome to go ahead; the article in question is open for editing. (b) That's exactly my point: since none of us can foresee the future, we cannot base articles on the assumption that independent sources will become available in the future. Hanno (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is certainly notable. Upon the privacy issues: I'll pass. The couple itself sought broad publicity, it is thanks to them that the genie is out of the bottle. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP. We shouldn't base articles, particularly those about living people (whether they are directly named after those people or not), on primary sources such as news reports. If this gets into secondary sources such as history books or legal textbooks then it can be recreated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- IP !votes are disregarded in wikipedia. Not to say you have no idea what you are talking about. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous IP address has made some constructive and objective points. That is more than can be said about your response to it. Hanno (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek, unless you can provide any evidence for your first sentence the second sentence describes you rather than me. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- what "NOT"? Please make a meaningful, specific statement. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The case have been elevated to intergovernmental level and widely publicised in international media. All privacy is gone. It is easy to remove unnecessary detail, such as children's names. Otherwise this deletion would smell like sweepin criticism under the rug. Norway child services is notorious for jumping the gun with immigrants' children without prior warning and education. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2 short comments: (1) Even if some news media have violated privacy rights, that is no justification for doing the same on wikipedia [the children are easily identifiable even with their first names removed, since the family name is unique in Norway]. (2) Even given that a certain claim is true or valid, that does establish the notability of the topic for wikipedia. Hanno (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:GNG says it does establish notability for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:GNG does emphatically not state that every true or valid statement should have its own article (which was my point, in response to your argument). GNG even states that articles need secondary sources to achieve notability. Hanno (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes WP:GNG does emphatically state that is multiple independent sources exist for a true an valid statement then it is very probable the statement is of public interest and hence encyclopedic. And newspaper articles are actually mostly secondary sources. Otherwise all wikipedia articles about events will be deleted. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mother is a native Norwegian, only the father is an immigrant. She should have known better. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This only means that this couple is abusing international relations, but says nothing that this case is nonnotable.Staszek Lem (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rewrite as a trimmed-down part of a larger article, International protests against the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. This is a phenomenon which is certainly notable and covered in academic journals; this particular case may not be. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG satisfied good and big. An event must not be in books and journals to be notable. Otherwise we may as well delete articles about 90% events of 21st century. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rewrite" is not a reason for deletion. If you see the subject must be covered in wikipedia elsewhere, the valid options are rename or merge. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an anonymised summary of this case in the last bullet point of the "National and international criticism" section of the article on the Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Hanno (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek, I do not find it the least relevant what the "options" are. This is an open debate, not a vote. I've got a WP link for you too, it's called WP:BLUDGEON. @Hanno, as soon as the criticism section is spun off to a separate article, which will happen if it grows further, then we are good to go. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This deletion discussion is about whether the "case" should be treated in article-length in wikipedia. This discussion is not about whether one (or any, or which) of the parties in the "case" is right. I have no qualification whatsoever to participate in a discussion of the latter question. All my utterances on this page have been concerned with the former question.
Allow me to put the situation in the following way:
- If the Child Welfare Services are right, the article is about one of some ten thousand sad cases where parents do not see the best of their children. If so, this case has nothing to do on wikipedia.
- If the parents are right, the article is about one of some hundred sad cases where the Child Welfare Services have overreacted. If so, this case might have something to do on wikipedia in the future, viz. as soon as it has consequences over and above its coverage in news media and the campaign initiated by the suppporters of the parents (e.g. if the case leads to investigations against the Services, results in peer-reviewed research on the handling of the case etc.). As yet, this is simply not the case. Hanno (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. This article is very important to the people that is actually prosecuted by his religion. It is not a single case, is a Rosa Parks's case. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has taken the case. Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOURCE, please. The sources already cited (including a Christian newspaper and Bondariu's own Norwegian church) agree that there is no persecution of Pentecostals in Norway. So crying persecution is in this case like the boy who cried wolf. There are real persecutions against Christians in today's world, but not in Norway. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people asks how Donald J. Trump has won the latin vote in the U. S. presidential election, many christians says because they are prosecuted by Obama´s and Trump has promised to stop the christian incarcelation by his believes. So, this article refflects the world government prosecution against christians. Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC) The article is redacted against the Bodnariu family, so is not an propaganda article. Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Full name is for deletion? Why do not delete articles about Hitler, Mussolini, or any other person that is mentioned by his name? Cmarziali (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP, and WP:OUTCOMES. We usually delete settled cases, and almost always erase material concerning children who have come into the news through no fault of their own. Even if this did make 24/7 media coverage, it's such a BLP violation that it needs to be erased and started from scratch, at best. Even if news media violate people's privacy rights, we do not. We are not Wikileaks! Bearian (talk) 19:48, 15 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Test matches played between Bangladesh and Australia

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same criteria:

Delete all. Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:MIRROR, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As above, and the reasoning on the ODI stats threads. Joseph2302 20:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although the lead is attempting to summarise results, there is really no need to have a separate article on each contest which simply summarises the overall results. That could be achieved better on the team page for Bangladesh perhaps. I could see a position where better quality articles could be created on these sorts of topics (although I doubt they would be lists) and I would have an interest in seeing those if that were to happen. But this is not at that stage yet, so delete for now Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons listed. Wikipedia is not a stats archive. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and previous discussions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:36, 16 November 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 West Nickel Mines School shooting. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carl Roberts

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

Does this need a separate article from the crime itself? Anmccaff (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is only notable for the crime he committed. The subject of this article should be a section on West Nickel Mines School shooting, and does not need his own article. He fails WP:N on his own. {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Not notable enough for an individual entry, and content is redundant as the majority covers the shooting itself, which is already covered in that article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 07:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West Nickel Mines School shooting, this is a useful/plausible search term, but this murderer's life is already covered there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per E.M.Gregory and WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 15 November 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 all. A clear consensus for deletion has been established herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Test cricket matches results (1877–1914)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same criteria:

Delete all. Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:MIRROR, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Per the above, and my messages on related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 20:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all please. Please!!! This is not what we should be doing here per above Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything.. Directed by the editor itself.. I created them. but it went wrong for all. So for all of good sake, delete them all including ODI T20I results. cz I created them for editing n update for all of you. but none has ever edited them. I have been edited them always. So it is not worth to keeping in wikipedia. It is a relief for me as well. Delete Them.. User:Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:50, 10 November 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 all. A clear consensus for deletion has been established herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Test matches

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar and breach the same criteria, especially WP:NOTSTATS:

Delete all. Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:MIRROR, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 18:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all essentially for the reasons provided by the nominator. For example, the New Zealand page is a poor quality and less useful version of the CricInfo page which is its first reference. It would be helpful somewhere to point people in the direction of such a page - for example, from the New Zealand national cricket team (which has a second half which is mainly statistical lists which would, again, be better served by being summarised in a paragraph of prose and then pointing the reader at an external link to a specialist site). Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator, and my comments at the India ODI deletion discussion. Joseph2302 20:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per my comments on earlier discussions. IgnorantArmies (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Scotland

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

This is just a list and fails WP:NOTLIST, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTMIRROR Domdeparis (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has long been accepted that we have many thousands of lists on Wikipedia, from List of lists of lists down, so "just a list" is not a reason for deletion, and the recently written WP:NOTLIST, which is marked as intentionally humorous, in no way reflects policy or guidelines. In this specific instance Michelin stars are the highest accolade that any restaurant can achieve, so it is perfectly reasonable for us to have lists of the recipients. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3 stars in the Michelin Guide is one of the highest accolades and this list exists but 1 and 2 stars are not, it is a sign of quality but certainly not the highest accolade. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even one star is a very high accolade, as evidenced by how few restaurants have it. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several more such lists in Michelin Guide starred restaurants by country, created by more than one editor. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link that you gave is not a page with lists but subcategories that link to the pages concerned. i would suggest that instead of creating a list contrary to WP:NOTLIST the editor create a sub-category for Scotland. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you've got to do your homework, here. Several of the national subcategories do contain such lists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the Usa and Ireland have these lists but should they exist as well? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Domdeparis (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's three in the U.S. category. There's also one in the Netherlands. My personal preference would be to do a group nom and alert all the various creators, but you're under no obligation to do so, I guess. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are referencing WP:NOTLIST, which is intended to be a humorous essay, although I don't share the author's sense of humour. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)... And then of course there's the parent list at List of Michelin starred restaurants. And maybe more. We seem to have a rather extensive category scheme Category:Michelin Guide starred restaurants, as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_26#Category:Michelin_Guide_starred_restaurants_and_chefs. WP:CLN explains how lists and categories coexist. I just don't see a valid reason to delete. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems a rather spurious nomination, as WP:NOTLIST is neither Policy nor Guideline. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if someone is willing to maintain this article, this could be a keep. I would imagine that ppll might want to know what restaurants have these stars. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it could do with third-party sources. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a prestigious award. List is notable and narrowly defined. Close perWP:SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 23:59, 15 November 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; large majority consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Eurich

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

Minor academic who has published a book, and is clearly quite good at orchestrating her own PR. This article appears to be promotional spam added by a SPA. Fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:ACADEMIC. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Promotional content —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially per nominator. I cannot find evidence that she is notable as an author, as an academic, or that she meets WP:GNG. Vanamonde (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional work by single-purpose account. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little impact on GS. WP:Too soon BLP is bloated with promotionalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "Martin P. Seligman Award for Outstanding Achievement in Applied Research in Psychology" is from a respectable society, but it is only a dissertation award. The rest is promotional fluff. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CNN's "iReport" is user submitted "citizen journalism" which does not go through any fact checking or professional editorial control. Not a reliable source. The other sources have a variety of similar weaknesses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely promotional page. -- Dane2007 ^talk 07:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Sock editor notwithstanding, we have a combination of writer, speaker and academic. The TED credit jumped out at me, and I also see mainstream press credits. WP:ACADEMIC is only part of the picture here, though each of these SNGs alone might not get her to GNG, I think that in combo they do. Article would benefit from a rewrite, big time, to remove the fluffy tone. Montanabw^(talk) 08:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
may have marginal notability NOT an academic, she is a PhD psychologist, consultant, pop-psychology author, and leadership guru. Article is misleadingly (dishonestly) worded PROMO, asserts that She "has been featured in... The New York Times" So I ran a search. 2 hits. 1.) she answered a question posed by the Times: "Try to find common ground, says Tasha Eurich, a workplace psychologist and principal of the Eurich Group, a leadership and organizational development consulting firm in Denver: “Say something like, ‘I bet we can agree that both candidates are smart people who care about their country a great deal, right? Let’s leave it at that.’ And then change the subject.” If your co-worker is unrelenting, she says, tell him or her that you fear you’re both going to become upset if you keep the discussion going, so you’re going to walk away."[5] 2.nd NYTimes mention) came Oct. 20, 2013 when her book placed #8 on the Advice, How-To & Miscellaneous bestseller list; but only for that single week. Still, that is something. Just, it's not being "featured" in the NY Times. Searched Forbes, found somewhat less [6], quoted by reporters twice, not "featured." Nor is a TED talk the highly selective accolade it was in the early years. TED-flation, has set in; with the inevitable cheapening of the currency. gNews can be a good indication of current notability [7]. Some of those hits - and there aren't all that many - are things she wrote, this one [8] may be persuasive; her books seem to sell. If kept, this deeply misleading and overhyped bio needs to be rigorously deflated. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 16 November 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. As per WP:G5 ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoolepur, Ambedkar Nagar

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

Was speedy-delete-tagged as a duplicate of page Bhulepur, but are they about the the same place? Their info tables says that Bhoolepur, Ambedkar Nagar is at Coordinates: 36.722°N 81.522°E and Bhulepur is at Coordinates: 26°31′36″N 82°48′38″E. If these 2 pages are both factual and about the same place, they should be text-merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are clearly about the same place, and the coordinates in Bhulepur are just as clearly the correct ones. If there's anything worth merging then I suppose that can be done, but otherwise delete. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as duplicate with erroneous information.The Indian census of 2011 lists no location named Bhoolepur in Ambedkar Nagar district in Uttar Pradesh (search here) , although the name might be a local spelling variation. Prose in "Demographics" and the "Religions" table are copypasted from Bhulepur, so these details are either wrong or misplaced. Several infobox parameters make no sense (I doubt, that "Bhoolepuri" is an official language), and the housing statistics lack a reliable source (the Indian census site has no 2016 census by the way). The article might be a good faith mistake, but there has also been a lot of unconstructive editing in articles about this Indian region recently. GermanJoe (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bhulepur: This village exists and its name is an alternative spelling for Bhulepur. In Indian English language, double 'o' is often used interchangeably with 'u'. When I speak my name, I've to tell people, it is 'u' not 'oo'. Anup [Talk] 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SIRE Life Sciences

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

Quite apart from the fact that the article reads like an advertisement, I cannot find any substantial news sources covering this company. I do not think that it currently meets notability guidelines. Shritwod (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources presented fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and do not give any sign that greater significance exists. The awards won appear to be PR or trivial. I found no better sources. Grayfell (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the SIRE Life Sciences page is up for deletion due to promotional content and no substantial news sources. The update on this article on 9/11/16 11:00 GMT +1 might have resolved the previous complaints. If this article is still unfit for Wikipedia, what are changes that can be implemented to improve this article without removing it. With the google search "sire life sciences -site:https://sire-search.com" many reliable news sources appear, which can be used to update the article to the wikipedia standarts. Thanks in advance.

Best regards 195.191.1.50 (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My comments came after that update, and I already searched for sources. Neither version contains sufficient sources, no new sources of sufficient depth were found, and this article still appears to be spam. If you have a conflict of interest (such as working for the company), you can propose changes on the article's talk page. In order for this to be kept, much, much better sources need to be found. Grayfell (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recruitment firm. The award documented in the article (placing in a top 100 self-nomination SME award from the Netherlands' Chambers of Commerce) is not notable and my searches are finding nothing better than the routine listings expected of such a business. No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep -Thanks for the responds, upon researching the subject I found 3 articles in Het Financieele Dagblad (biggest financial newspaper in the Netherlands), the page shows 5 but 2 seem to be similar articles, on https://fd.nl/search?q=sire+life+sciences&sort.value=publicationDate&period=all&customPeriod.start=1985-01-01&customPeriod.end=2016-11-10 . The article could be expanded by using those sources. I also found a newsroom on http://sirelifesciences.maussen.com/nl but it doesn't seem to be updated since november 2015. biotechnews.eu also has multiple articles http://www.biotechnews.eu/fileadmin/pdf/2015-najaar/biotech_151110.pdf . The last article states that SIRE Life Sciences is the market leader in life science recruitment in the benelux. I shall expand the article including the prior sources, also I will continue to look for reliable sources.

195.191.1.50 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep (if edited) The articles listed above are reliable and notable sources according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) 85.144.252.9 (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those links are particularly useful. Do you have a conflict of interest with the company? Grayfell (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Read like an advertisement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Anup [Talk] 17:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writen from a neutral, objective viewpoint 195.191.1.50 (talk) 09:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as completely damned as an advertisement before the words even start with the obvious company "TM" listed, and then it never gets better considering it literally lists what the company services are about, and the fact this was deleted only 5 ago is enough, once again worse when the account was an advertising-only one. Delete by all means and any republished PR which has been listed is only emphasizing the concerns. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this deletion of a draft article from last year. Is this what you are referring to, or was there another version of the article? Thanks. Shritwod (talk) 18:29, 14 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Grasso

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

Subject appears to have been elected to county government, and no higher. Not seeing encyclopedic notability here. bd2412 T 15:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable politician lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a bit hard to follow, but Grasso is a county-level politician, even if the wording at first makes it sound like he represents the county at the state level. This is not enough to create default notbility, and the sources are extremely lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. The nomination proposes a merge, not deletion. This is the wrong forum. Michig (talk) 07:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Camden Riot of 1971

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

This page should be integrated with Camden, New Jersey, specifically under the historical section. Very little (1 sentence) information is given about the riots on the Camden, NJ page. Move this information there. Scary Ghosty (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template by a user with few mainspace edits, and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own at the moment. --Finngall ^talk 15:28, 9 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Delorme

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

This article about a living person is in clear violation of COI policies, as described for instance in WP:PSCOI. It was plainly written by its subject, as you can see in the history, and it is laid out like a CV. I’ve mentioned all this in the talk page and gotten no response. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contributions do not rise to the level of significant impact in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I agree, but what about the COI issues? The editor who basically wrote the article is called Arnodelorme. These issues seem even more important to me. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about others' opinions on the COI issues here. The plain and simple COI guide says you should not edit articles about yourself, yet this entire article was clearly written by Arnaud Delorme, and is laid out exactly like a resume, which is not the purpose of encyclopedia articles. I don't see a way this article could be easily salvaged. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and stubbify. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with reasonable GS cites in well-cited field. COI is not relevant for delete except that BLP might be stubbified to remove excess promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as I concur with Xxanthippe, the high of 6,130 cites is enough and that's in Elsevier, certainly enough, and as a lead author. I will comment that I've accepted Drafts or articles at least started by COI for years, as long as they were notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is ridiculously promotional in its current state, the subject looks like a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 based on their citation metrics. Joe Roe (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what I'm hearing is that this article will most likely be kept because of the notability of the subject in academia, but someone (probably me) should go through it and take all the promotional-style content out and turn it into something resembling an encyclopedia article? I'd appreciate anyone's suggestions if that's the likely outcome. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the job of the proposer. You could remove everything below the lede. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, I'll think about what precisely I'll do, probably will be more in line with what you said than not. Meanwhile, I should wait until an admin decides officially not to delete the article, correct? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 22 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer Michael

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

A non-notable character created by a non-notable comedian. I can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources. -- GB fan 14:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Cannot find any significant sources either. The comedian himself, Stevo Timothy, does not even have a Wiki page himself. If ever he were to earn one, then Farmer Michael would probably be a subsection of it. Certainly not enough to merit an entire article at this point in his career. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 11 November 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 Sylvania, New South Wales#Commercial area. While this is an unlikely search term with the disambiguator, it will still be displayed as a suggested link when "Southgate Shopping Centre" is entered in the search box, or as a result on the search results page. Thus, it remains a redirect that may be useful to readers. SpinningSpark 18:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania)

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

fails WP:GNG. coverage is very routine. Also by international standards, this is a relatively small one storey shopping centre. There are probably at least 30 larger multi storey shopping centres in Sydney alone LibStar (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. We don't usually keep shopping centre articles with so few stores unless there is some special claim to fame, which there is none. Ajf773 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article will be expanded and the Southgate Shopping Centre (Sylvania) will be soon expanded and will become a multi storey shopping mall. There are many stores in the centre that should be named and there are over 60 stores and will soon be over 100 stores when the expansion is completed. BugMenn (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the source which is 2 years old mentions expansion but how can you say soon. Secondly it said it could not will include extra levels. LibStar (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Southgate Sylvania meets the WP:Notability and WP:ANCHORS. The centre also has a huge history of development and will expand soon after the owners purchase of the adjoining hotel. It is a special part of the suburb Sylvania and many locals visit the centre each year. Pindel4567802 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC) — Pindel4567802 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- WP:ANCHORS is not a policy nor a guideline, it is a consensus for inclusion of content on Shopping Mall articles. Has nothing to do with WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck vote by indef blocked sockpuppet. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BugMenn/Archive) • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fails notability as a stand alone article, but I would suggest some of the more notable elements could be merged or incorporated into the "Commercial area" section of the Sylvania, New South Wales article. Possibly redirect this article to Sylvania, New South Wales as well. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect with the "(Sylvania)". Unlikely search term. And there's a shopping complex also called southgate in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point with the redirect. Transferring some of the content here to the Sylvania article would still be useful -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sylvania, New South Wales § Commercial area, which already has content about this shopping centre. Any content worthy of merging can be accessed via retention of the article's Revision history. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect with the "(Sylvania)". Unlikely search term. And there's a shopping complex also called southgate in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that, on 11:37 13 November 2016 (UTC). The statement conveys the fallacy that being a likely search term is the only reason to keep a redirect.

WP:N states, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems states, "Instead of removing content from an article, consider...[m]erging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".
WP:REDIRECT#Reasons for not deleting states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...1. They have a potentially useful page history..."
WP:REDIRECT#Reasons for not deleting states, "...avoid deleting redirects if...7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article..."
Also, WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", where redirect is a form of editing to improve the page. Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Northamerica1000. Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose redirect with the "(Sylvania)". Unlikely search term. And there's a shopping complex also called southgate in Melbourne. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The essay Wikipedia:Repetition in Argumentation states, "repeating the same arguments does not help to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS." Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note in several AfDs you love directing others what to do. And therefore you come across as... LibStar (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which AfDs are those? Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 22 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le'Auntray Burch

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

No WP:RS sources found, interviews, local paper "local does well" coverage, so fails WP:NOTABILITY. Cotton2 (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few passing mentions here and there, but nothing that would show the subject is notable. Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete sources are not indepth. LibStar (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pediwal

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this musical group does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for an article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boyz After Money Always

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

NN hiphoppers failing WP:BAND --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Google search linked above does not yield any reliable sources. The entry at AllMusic is perfunctory and their lone album listed there was unreviewed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the AllMusic coverage, which Walter mentioned, all I found was footnote in this book.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nobody else has found the coverage I thought existed.,--Prisencolin (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is NO sign of notability whatsoever. There shouldn't have been an article in the first place.Scorpion293 (talk) 03:03, 10 November 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 Paul T. P. Wong. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning Therapy

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

I do not consider this a distinct subject. It is one of the theoretical concerns of its notable inventor, and has been written by his declared representative. Taking their word for it, as discussing in the article it is a variation of Logotherapy ,developed by "integrating logotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy. He then extended the integration to humanistic-existential therapy and positive psychotherapy." It is then stated that "The main difference between MT and Frankl’s logotherapy is that MT is more integrative and inclusive." and that "The biggest difference between MT and other meaning-oriented approaches is that MT incorporates the humanistic perspective of treating clients as fellow human beings worthy of dignity and respect and believing in their potential for healing and personal growth."

I don't think this claim defines anything: Unless I am mistaken, all psychotherapeutic methods make the same claim, to incorporate this perspective, thought they they may use slightly different words to formulate it. If in some way the actual practice of the method is different from others, the article does not explain it. Nor is the criticism specific: "Most of the common criticisms directed to humanistic-existential therapy are applicable to MT."

The only references to use the phrase in the title are written by Wong. I know Wong is consider a very distinguished psychotherapist, and his works get great attention. What make a therapist important is is his influence over his pupils and colleagues, and also his renown to the general public Based on his bio, Paul T. P. Wong is unquestionably notable under WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and the GNG.

The description of the method is already part of the section Existential philosophy" in the article on him , where many of the key phrases of this article are repeated. There's no harm in making a split for a portion of a fmous person's work, provided there is something specific to say about it. I do no see that here DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject might merit an article, but not in its presesent form, which amounts to advertising and promotion. There is significant duplicaiton of material already covered in Logotherapy. I am not a specialist in this area but it would seem that the article is an attempt to lend credibility to "meaning therapy" as a distinct offshoot of the Logotherapy technique developed by Frankl. Also, the main editor of the article is a paid employee of the Paul T Wong, according to his/her talk page. The main text strikes me as original research supported by opportunistic references. The actual term "meaning therapy" appears once in the voluminous reference list. I suggest Delete (+ ion) therapy. 104.163.140.57 (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I will revise accordingly and respond to the concerns you have raised afterwards. Evelyn Mak (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is hard for non-experts to judge a case like this, but nom is right that Wong is the principal user of the term (making it non-notable), whether or not the approach in fact leads to a distinct branch of therapy. The promotional tone and the paid editing are at least important warning signals that a conflict of interest appears to be involved here. Wong's approach is already sufficiently covered in his article, so merging is not an option. I therefore agree with nom that we should delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Paul T. P. Wong. (edit conflict) (had this open prior to the extraordinary amount of text was added below, which I will state for the record I have not yet read and will have to go through later -- given the promotional quality of the work, I'd recommend that, best case scenario, it be moved to Draft until completely revised) -- Wong does look to be notable, but I came to the same conclusion as DGG. It's both insufficiently distinct from logotherapy and egregiously promotional. Likewise the Wong article and second wave positive psychology (I'll go with DGG's evaluation that it's not promotional enough to TNT, but for SWPP and Wong's article, I'd advocate for either major cuts or for them to be moved to Draftspace pending revision to make them less promotional). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Article's Author;

I apologize in advance for the long response. I can understand the above critiques against the article, as I do not think it was written as well as it could have been. Although I am a Wikipedia newbie, and the fact that I am a current employee of Paul Wong is a strike against me as an unbiased writer (I am trying my best!), I will still try to show why I believe that this article should not be deleted, but rather edited (perhaps you can help using the information I present below).

I will (1) propose a title change and (2) show why Meaning Therapy (MT) is a distinct approach to therapy that is notable enough among authors, editors, researchers, and practitioners in not only psychology, but also coaching and the medical field to warrant a Wikipedia article.

1.0 Title of the Article: “Meaning Therapy” to “Meaning-Centered Counselling

In hindsight, the title “Meaning Therapy” (MT) may be misleading because it is a short form of “Meaning-Centered Counseling and Therapy” (MCCT).

The name of this therapy has evolved in Wong’s writings over the years—from “Meaning-Centered Counseling” (1997, 1998, 2005, 2006, 2008) and “Meaning-Centered Counseling and Therapy” (1999, 2010, 2011, 2012) to more recently, “Meaning Therapy” (2010, 2015, 2016). Furthermore, in terms of MT/MCCT’s unique nature of integrating existential psychology and positive psychology, its interventions have also recently been called “Existential Positive Interventions” (2016). Please see Wong’s CV for these publications.

On one hand, the original chapter on “Meaning-Centered Counseling” (1998) has been most cited, at 282 times according to Google Scholar. On the other hand, “Meaning Therapy” seems to be the term that is used more recently not only by Wong, but also by other researchers/practitioners (see examples below). However, it may be more appropriate to name the page “Meaning-Centered Counseling and Therapy” because it is the most complete title.

Please note that MT/MCCT is distinct from “Meaning-Centered Psychotherapy,” an approach almost entirely based on logotherapy developed by William Breitbart for patients with advanced cancer. The name MCP does not seem to have been used by Wong in his publications.

2.0 Distinct Approach ;

First, I will try to show how MT/MCCT is a distinct approach to therapy. Second, I will try to show that MT/MCCT has been recognized as a distinct approach by textbook writers and journal editors, researchers, and practitioners in therapy and coaching.

2.1 How it is Distinct;

Wong’s MT/MCCT is a distinct therapeutic approach (particularly from logotherapy and existential therapy) because it is pluralistic, integrative, and cross-cultural.

Pluralistic. MT/MCCT has been pluralistic from its inception (see Wong’s first article on MT/MCCT in 1997), whereas logotherapy and traditional existential therapy are not and do not claim to be (see the Wikipedia articles). The only other pluralistic approach to existential therapy is Mick Cooper’s “Pluralistic Counselling and Psychotherapy,” an approach focuses on diverse human desires. In contrast, Wong’s approach focuses on diverse aspects of meaning (e.g., cognitive meaning, affective meaning, spiritual meaning) and is more widely recognized.

Integrative. More than pluralistic, MT/MCCT is also integrative. First, MT/MCCT integrates existential psychology (particularly logotherapy) with positive psychology. That is why MT/MCCT is also known as “Existential Positive Interventions” (2016). Wong first coined the term “Existential Positive Psychology” (2009) in his entry for Wiley’s Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology (Vol. 1, edited by S. J. Lopez). Since then, other publications have emphasized this integration, such as Springer’s two volumes, Meaning in Positive and Existential Psychology (2014, edited by A. Batthyany & P. Russo-Netzer) and Clinical Perspectives on Meaning: Positive and Existential Psychotherapy (2016, edited by P. Russo-Netzer, S. E. Schulenberg, & A. Batthyany).

Second, MT/MCCT integrates logotherapy with humanistic psychology. The criticism section on the logotherapy page shows that Rollo May, one of the most prominent humanistic psychologists, was a big critique of logotherapy because of it authoritarianism (i.e., lack of empathy towards clients, not giving clients responsibility, etc.). However, MT/MCCT integrates the two by applying a person-centered (i.e., humanistic) approach to logotherapy, which is reflected in MT/MCCT’s motto, “Meaning is all we have; relationship is all we need” (emphasis added). In fact, Wong has been recently recognized by the Society for Humanistic Psychology (Div. 32 of the APA) with the [Carl Rogers Award] for the importance of this contribution to humanistic psychology. [Wong’s acceptance speech] gives more details about this integration.

I think the cross-cultural aspect of Wong’s approach also makes it distinct in both existential and positive therapies, but the above is probably sufficient in showing how his MT/MCCT is unique from other therapeutic approaches.

2.2 Recognized as Distinct;

Textbook authors, journal editors, and encyclopedias. Textbooks on counselling and therapy recognize MT/MCCT as a distinct approach. For instance, Mick Cooper’s textbooks, Existential Therapies the 1st edition (2003, p. 57) and 2nd edition (2016, p. 82) and Existential Psychotherapy and Counselling (2015, p. 15) all list Wong’s “Meaning Centered Counselling” as a unique meaning-oriented therapy. Another example is Nancy Murdock’s Theories of Counseling and Psychotherapy: A Case Approach (2012).

Handbook and journal editors have also recognized MT/MCCT as distinct, as seen in Wong’s invited chapters and articles. For instance, chapter 19 of Wiley’s Handbook of Motivational Counseling (2011, edited by W. M. Cox & E. Klinger) authored by Wong is completely on “Meaning-Centered Counseling and Existential Perspectives on Relationship Therapy (2013, edited by E. van Deurzen & S. Iacovou). Although it is titled “The Challenge of Communication: A Meaning-Centered Perspective,” the content shows the chapter is largely about his MT/MCCT.

Wong has also been invited to publish in Journal of Existential Analysis (2015), Journal of Contemporary Psychology (2012), Directions in Psychiatry (2013) and more regarding MT/MCCT. The fact that these are invited (rather than submitted) papers show that the editors recognize the importance and uniqueness of his approach.

Finally, Wong has been invited to publish in several encyclopedias, including The SAGE encyclopedia of theory in psychology, Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research, Encyclopedia of Psychotherapy, and Encyclopedia of Positive Psychology. The titles of his entries in these encyclopedias, may not always have the terms MT/MCCT or even Existential Positive Psychology (EPP), but again, when you read the content, it is very clear that he presents his MT/MCCT approach in one way or another (e.g., in his entry on humanistic theories includes a section on MT).

Researchers in Peer-Reviewed Academic Journals. Wong’s publications on MT/MCCT have been cited more than 400 times, according to Google Scholar (you have to add the citations of his publications on MT/MCCT manually as the titles do not always say MT/MCCT but the content is about his approach). Here are some examples of researchers that cite his work as a distinct approach:

This article on clinical work (2011) shows how MT/MCCT can be utilized in the context of additions. In fact, the author of this article is the Program Director of Sunshine Coast Health Centre a national Canadian rehabilitation center based on MT/MCCT.
This paper on hospice social work (2013) recognizes the impact of MCT as one approach (p. 21-22)
This article on palliative care (2006) notes MCC as one approach to counselling patients (p. 288)
This paper on cross-cultural clinical psychology (2013) cites MCT as a distinct approach to narrative therapy

This is not to mention articles that recognize MT/MCCT as an approach for HIV-related mental health services, caregivers of individuals with Parkinson’s disease, patients in general hospitals, persons with spinal cord injury, and so on.

Therapeutic and coaching community. Finally, practitioners also view MT/MCCT or Positive Existential Therapy/Coaching as a distinct approach. Recently, Wong was interviewed (link here by the well-known Ben Dean from Mentor Coach as well as Don Laird from Pittsburgh Psychotherapy Associates (link here). Wong shares about MT/MCCT in these interviews.

Wong has also given invited workshops internationally on MT/MCCT. Take, for example, the World Congress of Existential Therapy in London (2015), the BC Psychological Association (2014), in addition to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, and so on as detailed in his CV.

Finally, here are some practitioners that use MT/MCCT/EPP just from a Google search:

Personal Well Being Centre (Yannick Jacob) uses “Positive Existential Coaching” as the foundation for their entire approach to coaching
The Hart Center (Patrick Hart) has a whole page dedicated to MCC
Life Change Hyponotherapy (Mitch Lawrie) features the “PURE” model of MT/MCCT as one approach
Core Counselling (Diane Hancox) cites “MCT” from Wong as part of her training
Meaning & Mindfulness (Carol Knox) also features the “PURE” model in a post

3.0 Edit Rather than Delete;

The reason why this article was nominated for deletion was mostly because the nominator did not see the subject as distinct or notable enough. I can see why this seems to be so from the perspective of someone outside the psychological community. I hope that this response shows that MT/MCCT/EPP is recognized as a distinct approach to therapy.

I also recognize that the article in its current form can be improved, from its structure to the neutrality of its writing. I plan to continue working on it (would seriously appreciate specific pointers) and hope others will contribute. Evelyn Mak (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Mak, nobody is blaming you for your work. Outcomes here at AfD are decided basically on grounds of WP:Notability policy, i.e. whether a topic has been discussed by multiple independent reliable sources. Statements by Wong, including interviews, certainly are not independent. Whether "practitioners" are independent is for people to decide. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non-notable concept outside of its use by Wong. Lacks reliable independent sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I strongly believe that this article should not be deleted, as Meaning Therapy (MT) represents a distinct approach which is rooted in Logotherapy and Existential Analysis, while extending basic concepts from these approaches to include other relevant ideas and concepts, mainly from cognitive psychology and positive psychology. Furthermore, I do not see the author's writing as promotional as suggested, but rather explanatory. It illuminates this meaning-centered approach as one which is comprehensive enough to bridge humanistic-existential psychology (especially logotherapy) and positive psychology to promote further in-depth exploration and application of meaning in life issues in scientific research as well as clinical settings, in an integrative way. Such integrative view is timely and needed, as demonstrated by the two meaning-centered books I recently co-edited, in which Wong's chapters presenting the MT approach are included and cited by researchers (see Meaning in Positive and Existential Psychology, 2014, and the forthcoming Clinical Perspectives on Meaning: Positive and Existential Psychotherapy). Overall, I think that a decision to delete this page will prevent psychological theorists, researchers, clinical practitioners, and interested public from a valuable source of information regarding an approach which takes into account both theoretical-philosophical insights and rigorous scientific research on meaning in life. 22:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Pninit Russo-Netzer (talk)

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

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

The result was keep because the subject is notable. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chthonic law

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

This article appears to be a non notable fringe theory by a nonnotable academic. Does not contribute anything to Wikipedia. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellechapman (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Was already deleted.~~ ~~Nom probably meant to nominate Chthonic law, which is already at AfD. This page doesn't exist. Can we close this?~~ No wait, it looks like this is Chthonic law's AfD, but up top it says Cthonic law. I'd fix that, but I'm afraid it would break something. Smartyllama (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Michellechapman and Smartyllama, I fixed the link to the article that has been nominated for deletion. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notecardforfree - Hey, thanks for fixing the link. I realize that it was I who made a typo when originally listing this article for deletion and I apologize for the error. Michellechapman (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Michellechapman, thanks for the kind reply. I am always happy to lend a hand if need help navigating any of the processes here at Wikipedia. Some of the instructions can be be quite tricky. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks! Much appreciated! Michellechapman (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. There are a substantial number of books and journal articles that discuss this topic. In addition to the sources cited in this article, see: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Like many articles on Wikipedia, this could use expansion and updating, but it should not be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gregory Gagnon, American Indian Law: A Discourse on Chthonic Law, 89 N.D. L. Rev. 29 (2013).
^ Christine Zuni Cruz, Shadow War Scholarship Indigenous Legal Tradition, and Modern Law in Indian Country, 9 Tribal L. J. 1 (2008) ("This essay comments on the multi-layered experience of establishing an electronic law journal for the serious, scholarly treatment of the Indigenous (Chthonic) Legal Tradition ....").
^ Christine Zuni Cruz, Self-determination and Indigenous nations in the United States: International human rights, federal policy and Indigenous Nationhood, in Dialogue about Land Justice: Papers from the National Native Title Conference, Ed. Lisa Strelein 159, 162 (2010) ("It is the chthonic legal tradition that gives us our identity ....").
^ Imogen Saunders, International Disaster Relief Law and Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: The Forgotten Source of International Law, in The International Law of Disaster Relief, Ed. David D. Caron et al. 29, 39 (2014) (A chthonic legal system is characterized as being the law of people 'who live ecological lives by being chthonic, which means that they live in or in close harmony with the earth.'").

Keep While it's clearly an obscure bit of legal/philosophical arcana, it has many reliable sources that establish notability. Alicb (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notecardforfree. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 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 Arya 2. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arya 2 (soundtrack)

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

Redundant with major relevant content already present at main article Arya 2. Fails WP:CFORK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arya 2: parent article is not WP:TOOBIG. From what I've seen, soundtrack articles are mostly merged/redirected to parent article in afd. Therefore, a merge discussion could have been more appropriate. They can be nominated for deletion when an editor (or group of editors) reluctant to participate in discussion keep reverting bold-merge/redirect resulting out of zero participation. Anup [Talk] 12:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Arya 2 per User:Anupmehra. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:41, 9 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kimatsu

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

Non-notable small company for air conditioners and/or more recently kitchen equipment. Details about other activities are solely based on the owner's claims. A search for English-language sources revealed only a few directory listings, self-published profiles and some false positives. No independent in-depth coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. GermanJoe (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Actually, it doesn't meet even WP:BASIC. I couldn't find any independent reliable source for this company. Anup [Talk] 12:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company. Nothing found via the tailored Wikiproject India search and only the usual social media/listings from a standard Google search. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as this is in fact A7 and G11 material in that there's literally no actual claims of significance and the article only conveys advertising information. SwisterTwister talk 08:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable company, fails WP:NCORP as in fact as above unable to find anything to show notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 08:42, 14 November 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 All in One. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-in-One

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

This article has no source, is by design original research (extensively uses weasel words,) is incorrect on several accounts, provides no evidence of notability and is more of a dictionary entry. Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes, agree, the term is generic and this appears to be just one person's idea of what it might mean. Also be sure to remove from the disambig page All in One, thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to Desktop computer#All-in-one as confusing, when I hear this term I tend to think of an iMac or multifunction printer. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All in One. Likely search term, has multiple possible meanings, redirects are cheap. Least WP:ASTONISHING result here is for readers to on a disambig page. ~Kvng (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect appears to be the sensible option. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:44, 16 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gregoire Nitot

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Power user 2016 (creator, WP:SPA, likely undisclosed paid WP:COI per WP:DUCK) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). The subject does not seem to meet WP:OUTCOMES for businesspeople, neither - all we have here is a CEO of a mid-size firm, have won a minor business award, and got a lengthy interview in a niche Internet portal. Nice career, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia, IMHO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing on page is paltry, primarily primary. And a news search [9], which ought to turn up numerous mentions of any notable contemporary businessman, produced a mere handful of mentions, none indicating notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely advertising and I concur with the nomination's native aspects and analysis, there's simply nothing else convincing to suggest the article is otherwise better and improvable. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless anything at the Polish Wikipedi article would meet GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:03, 15 November 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 Alexf (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Creek Dam

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

Fictional place from a game...no indication of notability. Article completely unreferenced and written in an "In-universe" tone. John from Idegon (talk) 06:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (fiction) as well as WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might qualify for speedy deletion under A7, but I'm not entirely sure whether or not things held on an online game server count under that criteria. Either way, it fails notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the requirements of notability for fictional-related contents. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just delete. There's nothing here other than fictional in-universe game play details. Lack of references only emphasizes the problems. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Latest additions by the article creator have moved this into G11 territory. Request the next passing admin to snow close this. John from Idegon (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:37, 10 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Kylian

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Drm310 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, bit player at best Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure. Promotion-style language on the page as well: "She is proud of her work in Black November…" and "her beautiful voice is featured in the season 2 of the Amazon series Red Oaks". --FuzzyGopher (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total failure to come anywhere near close to having reliable sources of any kind. IMDb is not reliable, and only can show someone has acted, not the higher criteria we have that their acting has been noticed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 13 November 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 the consensus is that he was mayor of a town that has reached a large enough size for him to be considered notable. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James H.B. Ayer

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

Per WP:NPOL. Further notability above and beyond a position in office is needed for a WP:BLP. Additional reliable sources could not be located. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Quite leaving aside that WP:BLP has no relevance to a subject who died over 150 years ago, I rather think that WP:POLITICIAN would support the presumptive notability of a man who was mayor of what was, at the time, a city in the top 25 in population in the United States and a national leader in industry. That a casual Google search wasn't fruitful is unsurprising, and commend other permutations such as "James Ayer" + Lowell. Ravenswing 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this article as it is consistent with the goals of WikiProject: Lowell, Massachusetts. As stated by Ravenswing, a mayor of Lowell, by virtue of holding that office should be considered notable. Please see the Wikipedia list "List of Mayors of Lowell, Massachusetts". You will find that prior to the creation of this page, James H.B. Ayer was the first mayor of the city without a page. Thank you for the consideration and discussion of this page. Bill McKenna (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; 100K is large enough for a mayor to earn a presumption of notability per WP:NPOL. Yes, the article does need improvement, but for a mayor who served in 1851 you're not going to find a ton of sourcing just sitting out there on Google News — but that doesn't mean sourcing won't exist for a mayor of a place that large, it just means you have to dig more deeply into archival sources. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lowell had well under 50,000 people when Ayer was mayor. We should have much better sourcing than the local historical society to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what population a place had at the time a person was mayor; even New York City once had a population below 50,000 too, but we still keep articles about the mayors it had before it crossed that particular tipping point. What matters is that the population it has now is large enough to demonstrate that there is some substantive interest in the place's history. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 13 November 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 13:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sehrawat (clan)

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

The page belongs to Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure WP:GNG. Must discussed and deleted per WP:NOT. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is pure misrepresentation to say that All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. For example, see Tomar clan. This habit of using boilerplate text when nominating via AfD or PROD - which you do often, Krishna - needs to stop. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It certainly does exist as a Jat clan - see this and this. - Sitush (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They do need to be discussed individually unfortunately, although the vast majority are being deleted at AfD. I couldn't find reliable sources to verify that this one is notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:57, 16 November 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 Soufrière, Saint Lucia#Local attractions. The page history will be available for the selective merge and can be completed from there. (non-admin closure). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anse Chastanet

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

Advertising for a resort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs) 15:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not listed in any daily log. I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 1. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but wildly rewrite. The main subject of the entry is the beach itself, which merits an entry. There are earlier non-spammy versions to revert to. Hairhorn (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Soufrière, Saint Lucia#Local attractions - There's maybe two sentences of RS-sourced, encyclopedic content here, and maintaining even a stub would more likely invite promo rather than encyclopedic expansion. Google turns up mountains of travel-blog fluff or mere passing mentions. It may be possible to build a decent article about the beach if someone has access to more sober offline sources, but everything that's worth keeping from the current offering could happily live at the town's article. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the selective merge proposal, with redirect. That is most likely to prevent a recurrence. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that very little further comment will be added as this is a marginally notable topic. If nothing more comes up, the merge and redirect should satisfy most concerns. It will eliminate the spam, conserve what little is worth conserving, and reduce the risk of future spamming. If the section ever gets expanded to the point where it justifies a separate article, it can be split back. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made the sole keep vote above and the merge proposal sounds fine to me. Hairhorn (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soufrière, Saint Lucia#Local attractions as suggested; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No objections to speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quintavious Johnson

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

The subject does not meet the General Notability Guidelines of Wikipedia for biographical entries, as significant coverage has not been given in reliable sources. Is the appearance on a popular TV show sufficient? Soulparadox (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How long are we waiting for? --Soulparadox (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Siberian March Band

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

I could not find any evidence of notability online or in provided references. RollingFace99 (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as just passing WP:GNG, managed to fix some of the references including: British Embassy in Georgia, Music OMH, and the arts desk Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Performing at an embassy or opening for another band at a local show is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. RollingFace99 (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They did not just perform at the embassy they did a tour of the country of Georgia, and taking part in notable shows reported in reliable sources is ok for GNG. Thanks for adding extra references to the article, the Kentish Tower one is good as a rs, its very good to see a nominator finding and adding references .Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mizens Railway

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

Non notable minature railway... no notable sources, majority original research. Nordic Nightfury 07:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of other articles on miniature railways, many of them smaller than this one. Can't see any particular reason to single this one out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 9 November 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. I've reverted the original non-admin close after it was closed as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" by Davey2010. As this had no opposition, it should have been treated like a PROD when it first went seven days without opposition. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Litwak

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. He directed an indie film, which won a minor award. This may make the film notable, but he doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE, as far as I can tell. At best, his bio could be merged to Pawo (film), through the sources are poor. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure).TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martine van Loon

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

"The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. She was in some notable ensembles, but notability is not inherited, is it? With that in mind, I don't see which part of WP:MUSICBIO she fits in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 9 November 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 13:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurolines routes

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

Non notable route list, Has been unsourced since its creation (2012), I can't find anything on these routes except a few timetables, We don't have articles like "List of Arriva routes", or "List of First routes" and so I see no special case here, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 12:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find one that is notable. Nordic Nightfury 10:05, 15 November 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 Canlubang. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palao

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

Original author manages to keep it a secret where this article is about. The Banner talk 13:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/keep: as far as I can tell, the article describes a sitio, an area within a barangay. It's (paraphrasing) an administrative sub-division without its own administration, used for organisation purposes (possibly equivalent to a neighbourhood or district within a town). I think it probably satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) - it's populated and legally recognised. The article could do with some love, however - I had to read several other articles before realisation kicked in! 80.189.168.37 (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm basing my "keep" on sitios in general - I haven't yet been able to find any confirmation that Palao is a sitio ("Palao" seems to be a surname as well as a possible location, and my Spanish is poor, and my Tagalog non-existent...) 80.189.168.37 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can be speedy closed as redirect to Canlubang, as original author redirected the page. The Banner talk 10:43, 16 November 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. It's clear now that nominating any secondary school for deletion will result in an automatic keep, unless the school has been proven to be a hoax. So until a discussion is held about this, I'm closing this as keep, with the suggestion to not nominate articles on secondary schools for deletion unless you can absolutely, 100% prove it does not exist. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 03:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight English Boarding School

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

It's a secondary school, but no reliable evidence for existence has been given since creation of article in May 2014. Time to delete until such sources can be found. PamD 17:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's reliable evidence for existence. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on non-Anglophone schools. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 9 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirinyaga University

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

I understand schools get some sort of "free pass" for notability, but this just doesn't seem sufficient enough to have it's own page. I could not locate any third-party sources for verification of notability. Per WP:NCORP it should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well it is not just a school, it is a full blown university with several faculties including, health, IT, economics and others. It looks quite professional when I look at their homepage. According to WP:NSCHOOL and especially WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES notability is assumed when the existence for the institution can be assured by RS. A google search reveals that this university definitely exists as it is mentioned quite frequently in English speaking Kenyan media. Examples are here: 1, 2 or 3 all of them nationwide Kenyan newspapers. There are hundreds of articles which confirms that this university exists and operates in English media alone. There is a Researchgate page with them with some publications and people here. Google scholar gives 92 results with publications which seem to be associated with a person from this university. They apparently were renamed and had the name Kirinyaga University College before (and before that Kirinyaga Technical institute). Looking for that gives quite some more sources too. Schools and especially universities dont get a free pass, but we assume notability because further coverage exists very likely; in that case probably offline as well as in non-English sources. Since this is a fully functioning and sizeable university I think the article should be kept per the aforementioned SNGs. The fact that the current article is a stub doesnt matter in AFD. Dead Mary (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tidied the article up and expanded it a bit with more infos and some sources. It is still a stub but has a little bit of actual content and some third party sources now. Dead Mary (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a university per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a university. It exists. It is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 17 November 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 as WP:G5 by RHaworth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Amri Zainuddin

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

Zainuddin has only participated in junior competition in badminton, plus we lack basically any sources for the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G5 Author is a sock of Muhd FUad. -- Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BackSlash Linux

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. None of the third-party sources mention the distro, even in passing. Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Appears to be the author's own software. Hairhorn (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even a single independent source (official website is a free, cu.cc domain). Fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 03:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable vanity distro. No coverage whatsoever in any independent sources, reliable or otherwise. Kolbasz (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never used Linux, but I can tell that virtually all in the 12 pages of ghits for "BackSlash Linux" are concerned with the use of special characters in Linux as a whole. The three exceptions I can remember were this article, an official site, and sourceforge (download site). May be notable someday. Definitely doesn't look to be yet. BTW I've deleted a version of the article in Hindi under A10. Peridon (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is a high level of IP vandalism in this AFD, the most recent of which I've reverted. Note, though, that there was also a merge vote mixed in with the vandalism. Hairhorn (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No coverage at all in indepedent reliable sources except one/two.Vanity article.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 18:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this all can be summarily placed as both an advertisement and business listing, both of which are not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 16 November 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Rix

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 07:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are basically directory listings that include all actors no matter their impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note this 2016 BBC obit for a notable actor name Colin Rix [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he seems to have had minor parts in a lot of TV series and a few films over the years but nothing that elevates him over numerous other jobbing actors. The BBC obituary isn't for the article subject, it's for the very notable Brian Rix. Neiltonks (talk) 16:51, 10 November 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. postdlf (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cricket records

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

Delete. Absolutely pointless. Why do we have categories? Jack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN categories and lists go hand-in-hand. This is a table of contacts rather than an article, and serves as a collection of all the pages in one place to aid navigation. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:LISTPURP as a useful navigational aid to various cricket records list articles. For example, this list article received 2,763 page views in the last 90 days, whereas Category:Cricket-related lists has only received 256 page views in the last 90 days. As such, this article is more useful for Wikipedia's readers compared to the category page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - clearly needs some work to bring it up to useful scratch - subsections where appropriate and probably to avoid the anglo-centric bias of placing counties before countries, which seems rather bizarre. In general there are some stylistic issues with some of the naming practices as well. I don't personally like lists of lists myself, but they have some potential usefulness I suppose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cricket is rather a minor sport and this list is not necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

minor sport? LibStar (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsfan 1234, you might want to change what you just said. Cricket is one of the sports with the most fans and watchers in the world. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No closing admin is going to take a !vote like that seriously, I daresay. I'm not even sure it was meant seriously, it's such a ridiculous position. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination statement is such an utterly clueless misunderstanding of WP:CLN but I daresay speedy criteria apply here. But yes keep, nonetheless. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator should look at List of named minor planets (alphabetical) and many more lists. Such lists are necessary especially for the readers, since technically not all readers are users and vice versa. Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Busty Heart

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

Essentially a promo spot that appears to be largely maintained by the subject herself, in violation of WP:COI. There are obvious notability issues as well. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Subject lacks significant notability. Top search results include her crushing cans and watermelons with her breasts... Meatsgains (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think we're obligated to keep articles on people who get significant coverage, but, at the same time, I don't think we should ignore the coverage. Sykes has gotten a bit of coverage as one of the Celtics' most famous fans: [11] from Boston, [12] from the Olean Times Herald, and [13] from The New York Times. Each of these sources indicates that she got further coverage, including on television and radio, which are not easily found online. I understand the argument that the article is promotional, that it was written by an editor with a COI, and that her main claim to fame is kind of questionable. However, there are better sources available than "check out this funny clip of a woman who has big breasts", and the promotional aspects can be fixed. There's also some stuff on HighBeam Research, such as [14] and [15]. Not the most compelling coverage, but it shows that there's other stuff to write about, too, such as her entrepreneurship and the assault lawsuit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is at best one event notability. Nothing lasting or justifying having an encyclopedia article on this person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the fact that notability is not temporary, I linked news articles from 1986, 1998, 1999, 2008, and 2012 that provide coverage of a variety of topics, including entrepreneurship, an assault case, and her legacy in sports fandom. How is that "not lasting" or "one event"? I'm not sure what event this is even referring to. BLP1E might come into play if she got coverage for a funny video on the internet and nothing else, but that's clearly not the case here. Like I said above, people are ignoring available sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more or less per NRP. The New England equivalent of Morganna, the Kissing Bandit, with more than enough news coverage in the 1980s, which establishes notability even though it is now difficult to trace online. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to meet the minimum criteria for "enduring notability." Having large breasts and feeling "self-conscious" about them is not encyclopedia worthy for an otherwise unremarkable person. And the fact that the Celtics won in 1986 and she was in the stands is a false cause fallacy of absolutely no merit, whatsoever. Did her large breasts cause them to win? NO. Did she do anything exceptional to help them win? Apparently not, so it is pointless and without merit. The article mentions that "Busty" “parlayed 15 seconds of fame into a 30-year-career” and became a regular at Celtics games. But the fact that she attended games in and of itself is not noteworthy. And her 30 year career seems to be no more than a collection of snippets on tv and bit parts in a couple movies, no different from a million other hopefuls. "Crushing beer cans by slamming her breasts on top of them" seems more suited for the Guinness Book of World Records, not an encyclopedia of international repute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8002:BC40:E467:ECDD:68F8:8DE2 (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I had to come back for this one. I'm going to be blunt, it stinks high heaven. I'm thinking Speedy Delete. Articles like this are killing WP. Let me play Simon Cowell, get this thing off the stage.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. M. Pearson (talk • contribs) 05:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm back once more. I'd ask the admin. out there responsible for this article, is this what you want WP to become? Big breasted women crushing beer cans? Maybe they should change it to Wiki-EVERYTHING, because that seems to be where they're headed. My cranky advice, don't waste time on no-brainers. Leave the kid gloves for those cases that deserve it. This article is starting to embarrass itself. I can feel it. What? You're irked by my lack of decorum? Yeah, no kidding. Get rid of it!--J. M. Pearson (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting. Are the people (all 2 of them) who voted to keep serious? "A bit of coverage as a Celtics fan" might be the most feeble notability argument I've ever seen. And no, the "promotional aspects" cannot be fixed - and why would anyone, other than the subject, want to bother? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 11:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, not whether the person deserved to get that coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has significant coverage in the news over time. I'm sorry that you don't like her, but "I don't like it" isn't an argument to be used at AfD. The article needs work, but it can be added to with the tons of sources out there about her. This article isn't going to "ruin" Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia that we are building about what people have considered notable over time--and if you feel that what she is doing in in "bad taste" then take comfort in the fact that this article can help document the way that women have navigated their lives in the 20th and 21st century, which is not an unworthy topic. The subject of the article is notable enough to be the main topic in multiple news and print sources and that should really be the end of the discussion since she passes GNG. Here is a sample of some RS covering her: Cosmopolitan, 100 things Celtics Fans Should Know and Do Before they Die, Huffington Post, Boston Magazine, Post Tribune, The Washington Post, and Boston Globe. These are all over time, some as far back as 1987 and up to the present day. I'm not including all of the Daily Mail and Mirror type write ups, of which you can Google and see a lot of. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SPIP: "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article." Several of the examples listed are behind subscription walls, and can't be checked easily; most of the others are structured exactly the way publicists structure promo pieces that they send around to publications on slow news days, hoping to get a few column inches; and the book entry is, by its own admission, a "brief reference". Perhaps that's good enough to pass WP:GNG, but not WP:UCS, in my opinion. It appears that consensus is now leaning toward "keep", and that's fine - I don't have strong feelings either way. I would just point out that the bar should be higher than simply GNG when the article is mostly promotional, and largely maintained by the article's subject herself. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what WP:SPIP has to do with the sources I provided, DoctorJoeE since aside from the brief mention in the book, they are mostly about her. I took some care to select sources that showed she would pass GNG. It's pretty easy to get access to HighBeam, so if you'd like to be able to check those results when they get turned in at AfD, I suggest applying for the rights at the Wikipedia library like I did. It's pretty useful since it's a great broad source of information. I really don't care who started the article or who is maintaining it when I'm arguing whether or not the subject is notable. Those are separate issues which should be handled through channels outside AfD. If you know that there is a COI, please tag the article appropriately and report the issue. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did, some time ago. Subject removed it. But again, I really don't care. I just thought that when there are multiple issues, they should all be considered. Perhaps I'm just naive. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think you're naive: it's your way of handling the situation, DoctorJoeE. My approach to the process is to separate page issues (that don't concern notability) from the process of discovering whether or not a subject is notable when I'm working on an AfD. Also, I'm big on fixing/tagging a problem as soon as it appears on Wiki so we can work together to fix them. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:NOTNEWS; Wikipedia is not a tabloid and I don't see anything beyond sensatinalised coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against early recreation if sources are found. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hanhart

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

Minimally sourced article about a recording engineer which contains little to no substantive information. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. His major claim to fame is a producing credit on a charity single; even if verifiable (not verifiable online, but a copy of the book may be useful), this single claim is not sufficient to merit inclusion. Regardless, does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG standards. As ever, a music industry professional is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because they can be nominally verified as having existed; they must garner reliable source coverage by which their passage of an WP:NMUSIC criterion can be confirmed. Jimmysquirrelpants (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above searches find quite a few mentions in reliable sources, particularly books, but no significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. Qwfp (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am confused. He is the producer of Perfect Day which reached the UK #1 position and is the fourth million seller of the year 1997. Why would this not be viable under CREATIVE or WP:NMUSICIAN, given the number of books covering this achievement? Lourdes 04:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lourdes, if you can find additional sources, I'd go with your argument. Generally, producers are so common as to be run of the mill, but this might be an exception. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bearian, the sources I've been able to find only have his mentions and document his song becoming #1, but nothing in-depth. For example, [16][17][18][19][20]. I don't know what to make of it actually. Lourdes 06:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting editors to give a quick look to the sources I've put and comment on whether this qualifies the subject under CREATIVE or WP:NMUSICIAN, given a song he produced reached the #1 position on UK charts (see discussion above). Lourdes 05:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Close call, but delete. The sources are just mere mrntions. Additionally, there are numerous producers of #1 singles without a Wikipedia page. The feat itself probably doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Finally, most of his credits appear to be for engineering work, rather than production, which is even more run of the mill. 2600:1:F10E:944A:48B5:AB0E:F528:5D02 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks. Just two issues with your comment. CREATIVE or NMUSICIAN does not require significant mentions in sources; just confirmation about the achievement provides the probability that significant sources may be available. Secondly, it doesn't matter if there are numerous producers of #1 singles without a Wikipedia page. It's a big world anyway and other stuff can exist. What would your views be on these points of mine? Thanks. Lourdes 03:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, requesting editors to give a quick look to the sources I've put and comment on whether this qualifies the subject under CREATIVE or WP:NMUSICIAN, given a song he produced reached the #1 position on UK charts (see discussion above). Lourdes 03:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article is really just a stub and not well written either. It needs major work. Apart from the mentioned #1 song though, I think his main contribution is as producer/engineer for the first 5 Marillion albums (many of whose songs charted back in the '80s), Tin Machine (David Bowie), Asia, etc. That to me is much more notable work than a single song. 87.13.127.6 (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE WP:NMUSIC shouldn't apply here. The book sources are just going to lead to mere mentions, not anything substantive. Additionally, it appears that the majority of his work is simply as mixer/engineer, which is far less notable than a producer. The editor above is correct re: Marillion, but any sources relating to this are just mere mentions, and not enough to rise to the level of notability. 100.11.26.241 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks. Just two issues with your comment. Please consider CREATIVE or NMUSICIAN (and not the overall NMUSIC); and NMUSICIAN does not require significant mentions in sources; just confirmation about the achievement provides the probability that significant sources may be available. Secondly, it doesn't matter if he has done other work aa mixer/engineer. What matters is whether the sources confirm the requirements of NMUSICIAN, which in my opinion it does. What would your views be on these points of mine? Thanks. Lourdes 02:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT --- @Lourdes, relative to what was said by a couple of people above --- it seems unlikely to me that "the achievement provides the probability that significant sources may be available." It is, IMO, highly unlikely that those sources exist. My guess is that every single source would amount to a simple notation that he was the producer on a successful single. Quite frankly, if Hanhart possesses the notability suitable for a WP article, it is likely via his work with Marillion, and not the Perfect Day single. That said, in searching for anything substantive related to that, I come up empty. It's also all just notations that he worked with them, as opposed to anything substantive. I lean delete here, but I can see reasons for keeping as well. Mystic Technocrat (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead and I comment since we're close to a closing, and I'll note although the last sentence is the best of significance here, it's not quite enough to suggest his own convincing article hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok. I tried at least :) I understand the views given above. I'll suggest to the closing admin to delete with a comment of no prejudice against early recreation if sources are found. Thanks. Lourdes 03:25, 20 November 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. Sufficient consensus after article's improvements. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Choate, Hall & Stewart

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

See my extensive PROD and changes here and also here which showed this was not only being used as an advertisement and that alone, the one source that was added post-PROD is actually only a republished company PR, I will state again that not only had my own searches not found better, Newspapers Archives once again are simply showing job hirings and other company events. Simply being from 1899 and one of the largest means nothing if the company is and has only been known for working and being involved with its clients, and therefore we would still need actual coverage, and convincing ones at that, for an acceptable article, and stating the obvious: non-PR. As I still confirm my PROD, I will note again this was clearly being used by multiple new accounts for only this article. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, assuming it's all true. We have tended to keep stubs on older law firms. This also meets my longstanding standards for law firms. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a business directory. I see no claim to notability here. It has survived for more than a century, but that is not enough without other coverage. MB 00:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing indicates whether or why the subject is notable. It appears to be just another law firm.--Rpclod (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ -- I've looked for sources, but was finding only directory listings & references to a somewhat notorious figure that ones worked there. Simply being an old firm is not enough. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't see the required secondary coverage so that we can write an article. Notable law firms receive coverage about important clients (for example like [21], [22]) or they receive coverage if they have been involved in any notable cases. In this case, I only see passing mentions or routine hiring news in business journals. Hardly any significant coverage in a mainstream media source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I still don't see enough for a keep, but this is honestly borderline. There may be sources out there which need some digging. At this point, I guess a no-consensus close and a revisit after a year would be a good outcome. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another of our myriad articles on major topics (in this case a law firm) that merely needs sorucing. Even a quick search on google books turned up the fact that Alger Hiss worked there (in a bio of Hiss). This is a notable, powerhouse law firm, and has been one for a century.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sourcing Here's an article in the WSJ, citing the Boston Globe on Choate, Hall taking a pioneering role among law firms moving into investment banking Watch Out Hedge Funds, Here Come the Law Firms, [23]; here is a searsh of Choat Hall on WSJ.com with over 30 hits [24]; here his s search of Choate Hall on NYTimes.com with over 70 hits (break-out quote from the first hit in that search, a 1989 article about Boston Brahmin law firms asserting that even among such a group, "Choate, Hall & Stewart is considered stuffy.) Point is: the sources to prove notability and build a good article exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More on sources. Here [25], for example is an article I clicked on in the course of scanning the over 50 hits a search of "Choate, Hall" called up form the Boston Globe. The article describes ethical questions raised about the undisclosed by apparently massive fees earned by partners involved as trustees accused of dawdling for years in settling the charitable trust left by a wealthy client to charity - the longer the estate took to settle the more the lawyers earned and the less the charities ultimately got.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with deleting article on a major law firm is not only that the links form the many notable former members are useful, although this is true. But that the big law firms are major power players in political and civic affairs, and articles about power players and the games they play are useful. So, yes, Nom's accusation that someone form the firm appears to regularly visit this page to make it serve as a PROMO is very likely true. But deletion is a lousy solution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources include 184 hits at JSTOR, some among the first 20 (I only scanned the first 20 listings, not any of the articles) with what appeared to be significant discussions of this firm.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Choate, Hall is a major player, and they been around awhile (100 years). Article is just a stub but I expect a decent small article could be made onj the subject. Herostratus (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of items have been around for 100 years and still aren't notable. This article has been around since 2009 years and is still ... a stub. If the subject was notable why doesn't the article reflect it?--Rpclod (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno -- why don't you work on it? Instead of sniping at it. The stub is not hurting anyone. The 100 years just means they've had that long to leave a trail of notable events. I'm sure they have. Big white-shoe law firms are important in the business life of a city. Boston is an important city. They've been at it 100 years... hey look at this, found in 10 seconds of searching: Charles Choate was in on the Great Molasses Flood lawsuit. I'm confident there's lots of material here for a good article. Important entity. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There, I added some stuff from the suggestions above, so now it's not a stub anymore. Herostratus (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements; the notability is still borderline, but I don't see a burning need to delete at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No objections to speedy renomination, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Delinquents (Austin Punk Band)

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

Non-notable band. The only "claim to fame" for The Delinquents is the selection by NME as "single of the week" for their debut single "Alien Beach Party". Even if verifiable (not verifiable online, but print archives of the magazine may be useful), this single claim is not sufficient to merit inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would say the band is more notable for their collaboration with Lester Bangs, which received a fair amount of coverage, and continued to do so long after its release ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30]). This is already mentioned in the Bangs article, there doesn't seem anything really to merge here, so I would recommend we delete this and update the entry at The Delinquents disambiguation page to link to the Bangs article. --Michig (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 9 November 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anadel

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

I still confirm my extensive PROD after removed by author. Non-notable band. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81, your PROD message is not extensive, so would you care to elaborate? czar 00:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concerns that this article has unreilable sources and possbily non-notable. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of more sources, I would recommend a redirect to the developer's article, but since the group isn't even mentioned there, deletion is the best solution. A redirect would be warranted if secondary, reliably sourced info on the group was included in the main article. czar 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Makara

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence of a problem. Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Ōno

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

ANN role analysis:

1) Oruphaliru Redspirit (Eien no Aselia - main)

2) Faury Carat (Aoi Umi no Tristia - main)

With only two main roles, and neither of the productions the subject's been in are notable, Marina is not notable enough to warrant her own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were strictly by anime/manga, then no, but her biography on JA wikipedia is fairly sizable and sourced; she has lots of roles in the adult video game industry and as a gravure/AV? model, so those criteria should be checked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JP wiki does not state Marina as an AV model, unlike Sola Aoi. AV models, as far as I'm concerned, need to have at least won an award for their pornographic work before they're considered to be notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 November 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 Ojamajo Doremi. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi Suzuki

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

Role analysis:

1) Sena (Sailor Moon musical - minor)

2) Doremi (Doremi musical - lead role)

3) Kasumi (Bakuryu Sentai Abaranger - supporting)

Subject has only Doremi as a main role; failing WP:NACTOR. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No anime roles, just musicals based off of series that have anime. So this really need to be checked with theatre articles. Her Japanese Wikipedia article is a stub as well. Starring in the Doremi musical gives her at least one major lead role but if that's what she has done, then recommend a Redirect to the Doremi musical. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Redirecting in this case works too. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the argument by AngusWOOF and the nominator concurring. No need for a standalone article. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ojamajo Doremi; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ojamajo Doremi, not notable at the moment but a plausible search name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 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 Meowth. Don't usually close on 1 !vote however participation's been extremely low and the !keep was pretty much a redirect so am closing as redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inuko Inuyama

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

ANN search results:

1) Midori no Makibao (Midori - main [show itself is non-notable])

2) Meowth (Pokemon - main antagonist)

3) Manta Oyamada (Shaman King - main)

Subject is argubably best known as Meowth on the internationally acclaimed Pokemon series, but not necessarily known for anything else. Subject's page should probably be redirected to Meowth. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This is very much like the situation for Mike Pollock, where she has one strongly notable role in a broad franchise. She did voice a main in Shaman King, and voices monsters in Love & Peace (film). But it's pretty much all Pokemon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no objection to converting to a redirect. – Allen4names (contributions) 15:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. I want to put a Pokemon joke in here but can't think of one. Alas, the subject is not notable, but we can preserve the history in case she ever becomes such, and it is a possible search term. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanaho Katsuragi

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

ANN search results:

1) Crayon Kingdom (Cloud - main)

2) Doremi (Ms Seki - supporting)

3) Digimon: Data Squad (Kudamon - supporting)

4) Fafner (Yoko Hazama - supporting)

Subject only has Cloud as her main role; rest are supporting. Subject has yet to garner enough main, significant roles to assert her notability. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prince Cloud is main, but it isn't clear what else she is notable for, except maybe as Setsuka in the Soulcalibur video games? Is Setsuka one of the main ones in that franchise? In Doremi she is the girls' teacher so that's supporting for sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Setsuka is a significant role in the Soulcalibur series, but even then, that's only two major roles. I would, however, argue that Crayon Kingdom is not a notable anime to begin with. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Nagano

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

ANN search results:

1) Honey Kisaragi (Cutie Honey - main)

2) Precure (Komachi Akimoto - main)

3) Doremi (Reika Tamaki - supporting)

4) Digimon (Miki Kurosaki, Lady Devimon, Suzie Wong - all supporting)

Given that the subject is only known for Honey and Komachi, she is not notable enough and does not pass WP:ENT. The article's claim that the subject is "famous" for her roles are completely unsourced and baseless. Also, the users in the previous (those from the keep camp) have zero capability in role analyzation, so please provide your unbiased view on how we should deal with this article. Please also view Anma Finotera's arguments from the first AFD. I propose deleting this article or redirect to Yes Precure 5 (Komachi is arguably the subject's most notable role). --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PreCure one is notable: once a PreCure, always a PreCure for the franchise. Cutey Honey Flash ran for 39 episodes so it isn't a minor Cutey Honey production, and she's the title character. Suzie Wong's main cast for one of the Digimon series. Is that enough to meet WP:ENT? JA Wikipedia article is a stub with mostly filmography. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzie's a significant character in Digimon Tamers, sure, but even Digimon wiki lists Suzie as a secondary character as opposed to the main 3 (being Takato, Henry and Rika). On the other hand, an article that is lacking of reliable sources and also essentially a credits dump are grounds for deletion as well. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly certain that the Seiyuu Database and the Voice Artist Databse can be used as references in the article so keep with no prejudice against renomination in the near future. – Allen4names (contributions) 06:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're just as unreliable as Anime News Network's encyclopedia, though. I don't see them as reliable secondary sources. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're acceptable as reliable sources, as with MADB, as they are not user-generated/submitted, but they still don't help notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's what I was going to say. Said sources don't help assert a subject's notability at all. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NACTOR 1 for protagonist of Cutie Honey Flash, protagonist of Cutie Honey F and main role in Yes! Precure 5. According to the sources, she has held ten protagonist roles, numerous supporting roles, some of them significant, and several main voice roles in video games. The Steve 03:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A voice actor merely having voiced as two main roles is not enough to warrant an independent article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Three The Steve 08:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, three? There's Honey and Komachi. That's it. Just TWO. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two TV shows and one movie. The Steve 11:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not disagree that the subject's only two main roles are Honey and Komachi? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me actually check the sources: According to this one, she has 10 main roles, that one says 11, and this says 11. I'll go with "more than 3". The Steve 23:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Multiple reprisals of a single character only count as ONE role. The subject has reprised two roles repeatedly. That's TWO main roles. Steve, I'm starting to doubt whether or not you know how to count roles. Maybe you should observe related AFDs before you participate in them. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on how to count roles. I use the sources. That is what wikipedia does. The sources show 10. Please show me source that shows her with two. The Steve 01:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, what? I just LITERALLY pointed out that the (only) TWO main roles of the subject, Honey Kisaragi and Komachi Akimoto have multiple reprisals. That's why you counted 10 main roles as opposed to 2. But the truth of the matter is, again (please don't make me repeat this - it's really, really irritating), multiple reprisals of a single character only count as ONE role. I have done my own research before nominating these articles for deletion, alright? It's not WP:BEFORE, like how I just started out. I play a different ball game now. I think it's an undeniable fact that you don't know how to count roles. Here, I'll do the work for you. Watch.

1) Honey Kisaragi

2) Komachi Akimoto

As you can see, the reprisals add up to at least 10 counts. But so what? It's still TWO ROLES. It's a fact. Steve, please bother VIEWING whether or not they're reprisals, as opposed to a separate role.

I am reasonably sure that's not what NACTOR means. A TV show is a separate role from a theatrical release movie, even if the character is the same. Superman in Lois and Clark is a different role from Superman in Justice League. They have different infrastructures, different directors, and different writers. Clark Gregg has one role in Agents of SHIELD and another in Thor, even though they are the same character. The Steve 02:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of the aforementioned roles are as notable as Superman and Phil Coulson. In any case, redirecting to Yes Precure 5 might work, because the subject has reprised as Komachi more than any other role she has voiced as, and per Angus, being cast as a Precure is notable (but merely having voiced a single notable role does not account for independent notability). I'm afraid I can't say the same for Honey Kisaragi, however - the subject has not repeatedly reprised as Honey, having been replaced in other Cutie Honey animated productions that precedes and succeeds Cutey Honey F. In the case of Cutey Honey F, the subject has voiced in a 39 episode series + a movie. So, having analyzed these two roles, I still don't think the subject is notable enough to have her own, independent article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now, to counter some of your other points, Steve:

"[Ai has had] numerous supporting roles, some of them significant"

And they are? An empty claim means nothing unless you show me what they are.

"[Ai has voiced for] several main voice roles in video games."

Yeah well, having voiced as just Komachi in a single Precure game isn't what I'd call "several main roles in video games". --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I stand by my !vote. Ai Nagano has starred in two TV shows, three movies shown in theatres based on those shows, and three theatrical release crossover movies (out of 8) based on the franchise. You may continue to argue if you wish. The Steve 02:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think that's enough to establish notability, since there's no news coverage regarding them to further assert how notable those productions are. I don't deny that Komachi is a notable role, though. In any case, do you have any counterarguments for my counterarguments? If not, they will be disregarded in this AFD. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see that Newtype USA was added to the references, these are noted people in the field who give reviews. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she is discussed in "Actor Spotlight" in Newtype USA as suggested by that reference then this is a obvious keep. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is what I call legit arguments, rather than unneeded sympathy for the subject or the article creator. I'm withdrawing. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:54, 15 November 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Hatfield

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

Every reference in this article 404s except for one self-published essay on a no-name website, and it is not at all clear that this person meets notability criteria. -- LWG ^talk 01:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although since the subject is dead, how can the article have BLP issues. In some ways it seems to involve an end run around BLP issues with other subjects, dumping accusations here where they can pass in with less scrutiny. No evidence to show sustained and long-standing impact, or actual reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, forgot he was dead, so BLP doesn't apply. Nonetheless this article makes some controversial assertions without any sourcing whatsoever. -- LWG ^talk 22:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LWG and Johnpacklambert: Do either of you happen to have a little time? Access to older newspapers? I ask because this book was a major scandal during the George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000, a sort of October surprise - except that it was quickly exposed as a fraud. Certainly an article is warranted. the first link I happened to click was an article about a documentary film made about a minor NYC journalist who seems to have so hated G. Bush that he imagined the allegations were true and sought to promote the book for years (or something like that - I just linked it into article). then I checked the NY Times. Wow! the Editor at St. martins resigned over this here's the NYTimes search [31] Loads more in the proquest archive, although hatfield often used initials instead of first name.

Point is this is going to take some time to unpack. Hoaxes are complicated beasts, and I suspect that the other irregularities in Hatfield's life limned in the article may pan out as well. All I have searched so far is "James Hatfield" + "Fortunate Son." Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LWG: Went in and quickly sourced Hatfield's death to WaPo. WaPo article has lots of details. It may be that the article has been PRODed previously not because topic is non-notable, but from some sort of other motivation. Certainly needs improvement. sigh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still do not see good grounds for keeping the article. Hatfield was a crook and a conman, but not receiving the level of coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two bluelinked books (each a hoax, one a James Bond hoax, the other a George W. Bush hoax). His suicide covered in major newspapers nationwide. All and all he's a pretty notable "crook and conman" whose activities have continued to attract media attention in the years since his death. I frankly cannot see deletion as an option.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's [32] a solid, open-source article from Texas Monthly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only by the fact there are in fact over 1,000 library collections for the 1 book listed, and that's sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 21:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on fact there are in fact over 1,000 library collections for the 1 book listed, and has received sufficient media attention since his death. Shotgun pete (talk) 6:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National APIA Panhellenic Association. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Phi Lambda

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

Non-notable organization. Article is promotional and does not establish notability. Best reference is a local newspaper that does not pass WP:RS. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to National APIA Panhellenic Association, of which Delta Phi Lambda is a member, in lieu of deletion. I was able to find only one reliable source about the subject:
1. Melancon, Merritt (2008-08-16). "Sorority about 'finding a place'". Athens Banner-Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
  The article notes:
  When Anh Ngoc Nguyen came to the University of Georgia in 1998, she felt pretty isolated - a Vietnamese woman surrounded by a sea of Caucasian kids from metro Atlanta.
  There weren't many Asian students on campus, but Nguyen also didn't know how to connect with those who were here.
  Ten years later, Delta Phi Lambda, the sorority Nguyen founded as a way to fill that void, has grown to become the second-largest Asian-interest sorority in the country, with 10 chapters in universities stretching from Florida to Chicago.
Cunard (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Please explain how come this article is being considered for deletion. DFL1998 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National APIA Panhellenic Association; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:28, 19 November 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. postdlf (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian engineering college rankings, 2016

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

This list is completely not required. Apart from that, the rankings differ from agency to agency, which does the survey. Unlike other lists for ranking for Top viewed YouTube videos, the count can confirmed directly. Although the source cited is the official of Indian government, the ranking may vary as said before by the parameters considered etc. No such lists ever existed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure - if that list is official (MHRD is "ministry of human resource development", which I guess means education) then I tend to think it holds much more weight than a random institute's ranking. The problem is, I could not confirm the existence of this ranking on mhrd.gov. I do not think it is a hoax (here is an RS) but it would be good to have the primary source.

If it can be confirmed, I think it passes WP:SAL with a rename to List of Indian engineering colleges by MHRD rank. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This meets none of the notability criteria that a year-specific ranking list should meet. utcursch | talk 20:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Parry (poet)

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

Puff piece. Used to be worse. I challenge you to find enough reliable sources that actually discuss this person--and not sources like this, not Amazon links, not links to wordpress blogs, not links to the minor theater companies for which he may have directed a play or two. Or sources that discuss his notability as a supposed priest or practicing pagan. There was a previous AfD, from another era, which might as well have closed delete and included comments by the subject. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AfD is here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David William Parry. A quick glance at the history suggests that the subject may have edited this themselves. Drmies (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I am, all things being equal, an inclusionist, and while one of the reasons is that I am painfully aware of how more or less unexamined biases limit Wikipedia's coverage and undercut its mission of being useful to all readers, what I find after looking for sources myself and looking at archived versions of those mentioned at the first AfD is that he has been mentioned briefly; for example this article in The Guardian is about someone his group invited to give a poetry recital in the UK; it only briefly mentions Parry. Many of the mentions are in connection with the accusations of far right political activity. Of these the most neutral that I can find is this report in The Wild Hunt, a pagan newsletter/blog. The most extensive is archived here; that's the longer of two Searchlight mentions that were adduced in the first AfD by an IP signing as David Parry himself as being evidence of notability. It's most of a paragraph, and it might confer notability if we did notability by association, and if Freya Aswynn's article hadn't been redirected in 2010 (last pre-redirect version). I'm puzzled by the statements made by some participants at the first AfD that there is sufficient third-party coverage of Parry to cross the notability threshhold. I'm not seeing it; after searching under all the various religions he has claimed (I left a note on the talk page because the article is very unclear, calling him a Wiccan and then without explanation a gothi, and according to his Facebook page and the IP's edits, he prefers to be called a Quaker-Wiccan, but I also see blurbs for recent recorded talks describing him as having recently become a Gnostic bishop), nothing led me to extensive independent coverage. Moreover, the thrust of the brief independent mentions gives me qualms on BLP grounds. I am tempted to stick the AfD notification template on the pages of all the participants in that first AfD, including the IP, because it would be sad to lose another article on a prominent pagan, but I am scratching my head here. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that is the most common reason for deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COmment I voted keep before based on several independent references. So I suppose I had better find them again and list them this time. There are a couple about plays he produced: [33] [34] a mention in a conference he organised [35], and another interview [36]. Most of the rest have now become deadlinks. And the other references are insubstantial or related to the subject, or unreliable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources presented by Graeme Bartlett. Also dead links can be fixed and saved. WP:GNG. Nothing have really changed from the last AfD that was done a little more than a year ago and resulted in a No consensus decision. BabbaQ (talk) 11:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Bartlett, I appreciate you revisiting the discussion--thanks. I looked at your links and would love to change my vote based on them, but I can't. BabbaQ, please bear with me for a moment. Digital Journal is, apparently, a site/blog that "blends professional contributions with user-submitted content". All three articles are written by the same person, two use the same photo, two claim that the subject "took time out of their busy schedule" to talk to them, etc. That the play Citizens Of Hell was in any way noteworthy is not yet established, of course--and the other note was on the "First International Conference on the Nephilim", also questionable. As for Day.az (the "official" name of Today.Az), I don't have that much faith in a news portal; it isn't much written about in the press (or at all), which one would expect if it's a reliable source that's been around since 2003, nor is there anything I can find on that website that indicates editorial board, oversight, etc. So while I don't really doubt the information in that article (thin as it is--just an interview), I do not think it adds much to notability. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, please note the following pages – 40, 71, 73 – in this source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B04VScpJhcQMVVQ2c1ppS3NWRmc/view?usp=gmail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posen607 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tough call - poets are often hard to find good quality reliable sources showing notability. But given the poor quality sources, I think that this poet is probably non-notable even amongst the poetry field. The above link by anon seems to just be publicity material, which therefore isn't considered independent. So unless someone finds better sources, I'm going with delete on this. JMWt (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, please note the following page (bottom left) from the Church Times https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=9cb166b72c&view=att&th=1582b3654e03f8db&attid=0.1&disp=inline&safe=1&zw
Dear all, please also note the following page from Weekly Russian Newspaper: http://angliya.com/2016/11/02/a-vy-budete-pytat-cincinnata/ The page is in Russian, but you may translate it to English with Google Translate. Many thanks
Dear all, I am also providing another link to a newspaper (UK Pluse) which includes an interview with David Parry: http://pulse-uk.org.uk/weekend/tsintsinnat-vozvrashhaetsya/ Similar to the last link, the page is in Russian. However, Google Translate does the job quite well. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posen607 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, please note this new link (http://centralasiamonitor.com/eurasia-appoints-david-w-parry-as-chief-editor/) and the ones above. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posen607 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for insufficient independent sources. I also disagree that it's difficult to find sources on poets--but even if it were true, that wouldn't be an argument for inclusion. If we don't have enough reliable sources to write a full, balanced entry, then we really shouldn't have an entry. I'd much rather something be missing from the encyclopedia than present and misleading readers about whether we can speak reliably to the topic at hand. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear all, please have a look at the following pages as well. It seems that no one is paying close attention to the links provided here and on the main page. http://www.ayoungertheatre.com/review-cincinnatus-the-barons-court-theatre/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Magazine

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

This article has no sources other than the magazines own bare-bones web site (which does not seem to have been updated in this century). After a web search I could find no mention of this publication anywhere other than the previously-mentioned homepage (though there are apparently several magazines with this name of varying notability). Even if this magazine were notable, virtually none of the article's present content is usable and it would need to be started from scratch anyway. -- LWG ^talk 01:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entire article is a copy-paste farce, plus the magazine no longer exists. How this entry has stuck around since 2009 is beyond words. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: The article is incredibly poorly written and offers no reliable sources to back it up. Scorpion293 (talk) 03:20, 10 November 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) 11:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Anderson

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

Anderson's main claim to fame is being Miss Utah USA. This in and of itself is not enough to establish notability. There is some media coverage of speeches she gave as much as 3 years after she was Miss Utah USA, but the coverage mainly focuses on the story of her younger brother who died as a result of alcohol and drug abuse and her using this story to discourage such activities. It amounts to coverage of her speaking events, and not her, and does not seem enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Salt Lake Tribune article I mentioned in the Chukanov debate discussion does mention Anderson, but only because they were hunting down women with Utah connections who had some connection with the Miss USA competition. Here is the link [37]. Not everyone quoted in an article in a newspaper is notable, and that seems to apply here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that there is no analysis of the alternatives to deletion, and the nomination is at best an argument for merge, this AfD should have been promptly speedy closed WP:NPASR or moved to a talk page as per WP:Deletion policy for wrong venue.
The Trump coverage in 2016 shows what should be general knowledge that the world at large considers Miss Utah USA titleholders to be topics of enduring interest, and that Wikipedia should normally cover all such titleholders. Whether or not this coverage must be standalone articles or merged mini-bios is not a matter for AfD, as per WP:Deletion policy such is a content issue that does not belong at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic has been covered in multiple reliable sources that can be used to verify that this topic is not a hoax, and that show that the world at large has reason to look to Wikipedia for the information about the topic found in reliable sources. Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable pageant winner with no third-party sources. Search on Google turned up mainly a hiker and many other individuals with this name. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only external links talk about the visits that she did as part of her rôle as Miss Utah 10 years ago...this does not seem to confer any kind of real notabilty and fails WP:CCS --Domdeparis (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unremarkable individual with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 16 November 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 Eastern Lightning. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Weishan

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

Redirect to Eastern Lightning as person do not have an independent notability except being a founder of movement. Abbottonian (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The subject is the founder of the religious movement Eastern Lightning, which is not a company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what we haven't got room for this? The sheer amount of refs books, more books, plain Google, ...you don't get to found a cult of this seriousness and size and not pass WP:GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: does the comment above indicate that the nominator marked this as a company deletion? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- rather than plain redirect -- to Eastern Lightening, which he led for 10 years before seeking asylum in USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect and merge to Eastern Lightening Extensive press coverage [38] might support a stand-alone article if anyone were to create one, but it is probably more efficient to have this physics-professor-turned-cult-leader and his cult in a single article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: @Peterkingiron: but we do have an article, following the Chinese Wikipedia version. The efficiency argument might hold for anyone in Category:Founders of new religious movements, but each of them has their own back story. This is the most notable (particularly since the Macdonalds murder) para-Christian cult in China. And the founder's claim to be "Almighty God" was the original name of the movement. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to have written: If anyone were to create a good, well-sourced article. I also wrote "might." I did not look closely enough to see whether there was sufficient material in those articles to support a stand-alone article. But neither did I spot any profiles in RS media; profiles in major media might be persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge to Eastern Lightning. There is enough here for a stand alone article and as I understand it from Lightning from the East: Heterodoxy and Christianity in Contemporary China Eastern Lightning does not mention him in its materials, rather the Chinese Government is the one which names him as the founder. Jbh ^Talk 12:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC) For sake of consensus. As Montanabw says, it can be spun out again if needed. Jbh ^Talk 23:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Eastern Lightening. Can be spun back out later if needed. No sense creating a redlink and more AfD round 2 cases. Montanabw^(talk) 19:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franjo Babić

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

Non-notable individual, Croatian writer specifically. All links invalid. Only non-mirror site link I could find via Google search is this one, which is wholly unsatisfactory. He doesn't even have an article on Croatian-language Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 19:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a better source, for what it's worth. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's his entry(in Croatian) in the Croatian Biographical Lexicon, so I believe there is a reasonable presumption of notability w.r.t. WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage by literary critics presented by 86.17 and entry in a notable Croatian encyclopedia. As someone who died 70 years ago, it's not surprising that very little coverage of him exists online. Daß Wölf 21:51, 12 November 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) 11:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Apparatus Service Association

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

promotional artile for the association. Refs are its own publications, and various notes. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with DGG. It looks promotional and the refs don't establish independent notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing really to look at here. International 80-year-old organization that both publishes a magazine and sponsors an annual conference...there is good reason to think that many readers will be interested in this Wikipedia article. With this new article, other articles that reference the topic can now be Wikilinked. Long list of references is found in the article without any attempt at an international search going back 80 years, and the topic is also covered by Bloomberg.
Nomination has no evidence of a problem that needs the attention of AfD volunteers. The claim of "promotional" is a proof by assertion, and must be assumed to be a WP:IAR argument, not a reference to WP:PROMO. Unscintillating (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. The "coverage" by Bloomberg is a directory listing which we do not use for notability (otherwise a lot of stuff will become notable, leading Wikipedia to become a directory). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don-Bur

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

I declined a CSD A7 for this, but efforts to find reliable independent sources are proving fruitless. It's a very familiar brand, albeit not quite Fruehauf or Boalloy in terms of non-truckie name recognition, but those of us who regularly wear grooves in the UK's motorway network this will eb a well known name. And yet: I cannot source it. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not quite Fruehauf, but there is plenty of material to show their notability. It is a rather specialist field so it is difficult to separate grain (independent press) from chaff (PR fluff), but most of these seem legit to me:
- Don-Bur launches VOSA-compliant load restraint , transportengineer.org.uk
- Don-Bur shows 52-pallet lifting deck trailer at CV Show, transportengineer.org.uk
- £3m expansion creates 40 new jobs at Don-Bur, Stoke Sentinel
- Don-Bur invests £1 million in facilities, Stoke Sentinel
- No tears thanks to contract for revolutionary trailer, Stoke Sentinel
- Don-Bur ontwikkelt een 4 m hoge Teardrop trailer, www.truck-business.com
- Don-Bur maakt Euro-versie Teardrop trailer , TTM.nl
- Teardrop or pipe dream? , transportengineer.org.uk
- DHL and DON-BUR launch a new Curtainsider Teardrop trailer, Fleet.ie
- Don Bur factory fire in Stoke-on-Trent caused by drying system, BBC
- DHL Supply Chain makes Don-Bur Teardrop standard www.commercialmotor.com
- Press Release: Deutsche Post DHL introduces first Teardrop Trailer in Germany and France, DHL
One may question how much of this coverage is about their most famoust product, a teardrop trailer, which is AFAICT used by DHL fleet worldwide, but a company producing a notable product is probably notable enough to have a short factual article such as this. Keep. No such user (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERITED. Unsourced article, started by undeclared COI editor. Refs could probably go to Teardrop trailer (truck), itself, AfD'd however, as unsourced. Nordic Nightfury 15:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see this more as a case where a particular product might be somewhat known in the country, but the company isn't. The coverage in BBC for example is about a fire in the factory. Most of the other is mostly local coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam & WP:TOOSOON. Sources presented at this AfD are mostly local, along the lines of "homegrown company does well" etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Ashby

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

Delete: fails by a wide margin any threshold for notability as an actor. Quis separabit? 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near being a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you search under HighBeam, there are a number of articles that have good coverage of her, in addition to what's in the article already. Passes GNG. I'll add the sources. She was also known as a pinup girl in the 1970s. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable actress under WP:NACTOR. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Though a pinup girl (and normally I lean delete on these), she also had some film credits and enough coverage to pass GNG, particularly in the pre-Google era. Appearance in a James Bond film alone is a big step toward meeting NACTOR. Montanabw^(talk) 06:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She had reoccurring roles as Rachel in Tessa Diamond's mid-1980s television series Gems, reoccurring role as Louise in 'Allo 'Allo!. She appeared 16 times in that show. According to Russ, and Sally Kane in their book Shout at the Moon, she is known as a Bond Girl - [39]. She had a part in Octopussy as well as A View to a Kill. Also some good credited roles in TV series' such as Suzy in Drummonds, Moira Montauban in Bergerac and Imogen in Minder, and more! I'm easily satisfied that she is notable but this is another article that needs some work to get things up to scratch. Karl Twist (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) Also renaming the article to The Big Spell (TV series) per the suggestion of Whats new? herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Spell (Sky1 Game Show)

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

Per WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. Article lacks sources and seems to be a promotional page for a game show coming out in January of an undisclosed year. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed a similarly named Big Spell competition held in Singapore that we actually have an article for: 2nd RHB-The Straits Times National Spelling Championship. Only thing is, it's only for the second. This says it's been running annually since then. Someone with time should probably rename and reformat the Straits article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe this article is about the UK adaptation of The Great Australian Spelling Bee. [40] [41] It will likely become a notable topic either closer to its air date, or when more production details and casting news are covered in third party sources (if they're not already). -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've just re-written this article after finding a number of references to the upcoming program. It is a UK adaptation of an international format. The original nomination was for an unreferenced two-line article, so any further comments for deletion may wish to consider the re-write. Additionally, should the article be kept (which I support keeping), I suggest a page move to a more appropriate title such as The Big Spell (TV series). -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 November 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 Lists of Transformers characters. Sandstein 13:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trypticon

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the character is in 3 TV series, 6 different comic book publications, video games, and was produced as a toy. I feel as though notability isn't really in question here. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia's Notability guideline works. It's a measure of coverage in reliable, third party sources, not some subjective idea based upon the amount of appearances. This article lacks such sources. TTN (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comment, unless a suitable target for redirect can be found. Aoba47 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated below: ~~Delete~~ as fancruft & non-encyclopedic content. Insufficient RS to meet the requirement for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters. Anyone searching this term will find the appropriate page from this list. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD sure has come a long way from the first nomination. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of Transformers characters as a suitable target. Possibly delete prior to redirection as the current content is not useful at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 16 November 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 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament. I sympathise with the argument that this page should be considered an integral part of 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament. However, the policy position is that subpages are not recognised as a valid construct in mainspace. So much so that the ability to create subpages in mainspace has been suppressed in the software. Some may think that this is unnecessarily bureaucratic and restrictive, but that is how the community in English Wikipedia want it to be and it has been confirmed in many discussions. All articles must be justifiable in their own right and not rely on another page as the "parent". Consensus can change, but a single AFD is not the place to change it. The bottom line is: if you have material that cannot be shown to be notable in its own right and you don't want it to be open to deletion on notability grounds then it must be included on a page whose subject is notable. SpinningSpark 22:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament qualification

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

No evidence of any notability, no independent sources with indepth coverage of this youth qualification tournament. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#U-17 World Cup qualification tournament put up for deletion (the not really correct section title isn't my idea), with so far universal agreement (apart from me) that this is notable, and not a single policy-based argument why this is notable (only inherited notability and otherstuffexists arguments). I expect the same kind of arguments here, I hope that some people (and whoever closes this) will do the effort to actually check for sources and indicate, based on the sources, whether this qualification is notable or not. Fram (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament, the article for the tournament proper. Waste of everyone's time having this discussion when the main article is so small that there's no need to create a separate spinoff for the qualifiers. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate it when I'm all set for an epic battle between the forces of light and the powers of evil (who is who depends on your position of course) and then someone comes along to offer a voice of reason. Fram (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves as one stage of qualification for the U-17 World Cup, which is the most significant tournament at this level. Clear consensus from almost everyone except nom that this is notable, which they even admit. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that notability is not decided by what the members of a project decide, but by what our general guidelines say? This tournament is two levels away from the world championship for U-17, which is again three age levels removed from the actual football world championship. How far down does is this inherited notability supposed to go? Fram (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above; not notable enough for a separate article. Giant Snowman 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the main tournament is notable, then the qualification to that tournament is also equally notable. All current qualification and pre-qualification tournaments for U17, U19, U23 and Senior Men's have articles for most if not all confederations (and most of the Women's as well), the issue is really whether to apply notability as far back as 2001. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be deleted. It is a notable tournament, so is the qualifying. Kante4 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further reflection . . .Merge and redirect with the parent article. If notability is not inherited, then simply consider the qualification stage as a separate stage in the overall event and combine the articles (introduction/qualification/group stage/knockout stage). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, Yes there are general guidelines, but notability is actually decided by the outcome of individual discussions and processes like this at AfD. Arguments invoking "three age levels removed from the actual football world championship." are facile and unrelated to the issue.Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would be a local consensus trumping the global consensus. Notability can not be overridden at AfD level, what you would need is a subject-specific notability guideline that gets accepted by the community (not just the project). Otherwise all you need to do or have is a lively project or a good way of canvassing to nullify WP:N completely. As for "facile" arguments; "If the main tournament is notable, then the qualification to that tournament is also equally notable." No, not at all. A qualification is almost invariably and logically less notable than the main tournament. While those qualifications may be notable as well, it should be demonstrated, not inherited. As an example: the qualifications for a Grand Slam tennis tournament are usually notable, the qualifications for much smaller tennis tournaments usually are not notable, even if the tournament itself is notable. Fram (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - no need for this fork. space can be saved by turning the results lists into matrices alongside the group tables. Fenix down (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What others said. Article could be improved but it is notable. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The qualification phase is an integral part of the competition, as it shows how a team is qualified to play in the final phase. The CONCACAF officials didn't just organize the final phase. They actually sat in conventions to discuss the format, the draws, the dates, etc for the qualifying phase. That page is NOT "the qualifying of the qualifying of" FIFA U-17 World Cup; it is a qualifying phase of a continental youth competition, organized by the continental governing body. This is like the Extra Preliminary Round in the qualifying rounds of the FA Cup should not be regarded as the qualifying of qualifying of .... qualifying of (13-fold of qualifying) the Cup final. Sofeshue (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet again, none of this makes it notable. Of course it is the qualifying phase, and of course it was organised by Concacaf officials. None of this matters one bit for this discussion. Fram (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't find any specific notability criterion for individual sport tournaments. But I would definitely assume that any continental tournament, organized by the continent's governing body, is notable. You claim that this tournament lacks in-depth coverage, that is a void claim. One thing I am sure, there is a lot of reporting in China about the AFC U-16 Championship, including the qualifying phase. 2001 was a long time ago, when internet was far less developed compared to now. That you cannot find a lot of coverage for this tournament doesn't mean that they don't exist. But even apart from that, it is notable because it is an integral part of a major continental youth tournament, just like we document all past FIFA world cup qualifications and FA cup qualifying rounds. Do you expect the 1888–89 FA Cup qualifying rounds to receive any in-depth coverage or to have any longlasting effect? It is notable, thus included, precisely because it is an integral part of a major football tournament. Sofeshue (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:N will do nicely, not everything has or needs a specific notability criterion. What we need is coverage, without coverage it isn't notable. That we may have other articles which lack notability is a well-known fact, but not a reason to keep this one as well. Notability is not inherited. And we have plenty of articles on pre-2000 subjects where we have no problem at all finding coverage online (and of course you are welcome to give offline references as well). Fram (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said, the tournament is notable by its very nature. And for coverage, there is RSSSF. Nobody is going to fly to the Caribbeans or Central America and dig into their newspapers for reports of individual matches. Yes, for a big sport as football, there should be a clearer inclusion guidelines for individual tournament and individual editions of that tournament. That the Footy community currently lacks such guidelines does not warrant articles covering a major continental youth tournament being deleted. Sofeshue (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common consensus is that if the tournament is notable enough, then so is its qualifying tournament. Joseph2302 09:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Many tennis tournaments are notable, but the qualifications are only notable for the really major ones. The same goes for many sports. There is no such "common consensus" you claim. 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  - The lack of documentation of those tenis qualifyings is because much less editors focus on them and even less editors are willing to take the time to write on wikipedia (building a lot of tables is not easy work), NOT because of their (un-)notability. They are indeed notable, and should stay here, IF someone covers it first. Sofeshue (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - ??? Do you really claim that the qualifications of e.g. 2016 International Tennis Tournament of Cortina, 2016 Morocco Tennis Tour – Mohammedia, 2016 Vietnam Open (tennis), ... are notable events? That is totally misguided. These qualifications don't get coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, if even that. These would never be kept at AfD, but luckily no one is misguided enough to create articles for them in the first place. Fram (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - ??? Are you really claiming that those diligent editors of seasons of the FA Cup qualifying rounds, all the way back to the 1888–89 season, are so misguided? I've given the coverage, importance argument before the Relisted breaker. And I am in no mood to engage in an angry quarrel with you. Feel free to insult. Sofeshue (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the 2001 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament, it's way too small to be a separate article and should be like the 1999 version of it with the qualification before the final round. Also what about adding the 2003 CONCACAF U-17 Tournament qualification article to this discussion as its the same state. Matt294069 is coming 00:37, 22 November 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, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Raman

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

Almost entirely unsourced biography. The one references doesn't meet WP:RS. Full of WP:PEACOCK language (the legendary K.R. Gowri..., He played key-role in distributing [sic], etc.) Overly promotional. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. A fundamental problem with this article is verifiability. The subject would pass WP:POLITICIAN as a MLA, but I don't find him mentioned in the citation given nor in independent searches. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I did find one mention of P. K. Raman in the listed reference — but it's as the losing candidate in his electoral district that year, with no indication given whatsoever as to whether he was an incumbent or not. If somebody can actually find a similar table for 1949 which shows him winning his seat, that would aid his passage of WP:NPOL, but the source provided here as of right now entirely fails to verify the claim being cited to it. I'm willing to withdraw this comment if somebody can actually locate real verification that he actually served in the state legislature — but in an encyclopedia where we have seen hoax articles created about people who were claimed to have served in a legislature but actually did not, we can't keep an article in which the claim of having served is unverified. Delete, unless somebody can locate at least one source which confirms his service. Bearcat (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - The only reference says completely the opposite of claim in article. K. R. Gowri Amma beat P. K. Raman 14248 to 7261. With no other sources appears to be totally non-notable. KylieTastic (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source might say she beat him in 1951, but the article claims he had been the incumbent since 1949. There is no contradiction there. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas Philopater the location the source is linked it says "P K Raman was elected" when he lost according to the link. The claim that before that he was the incumbent and "He defeated the legendary K. R. Gowri Amma in that contest." is unsourced.

According to the link he lost in 1951. That he was elected in 1949 is unsourced. But those two statements are not in contradiction to one another. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andreas Philopater - who said those contradicted each other? The only contradiction mentioned is that the actual statement that has the source linked. i.e "P K Raman was elected" followed by the sources that says he was not. KylieTastic (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I took "says completely the opposite" to mean that the one contradicted the other. If that isn't what you meant, nothing I have said is relevant. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in this case since, although MLAs are in fact notable, I'm not finding an actual source, and there's nothing else otherwise better, and this is clearly because it's from nearly 2 centuries ago. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1949 is two centuries ago? Did we pass through a wormhole and nobody told me? Bearcat (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A rounding error? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I also meant the fact he was born in 1888, but the fact there was both no Internet in India in the 1940s and 1950s, and any newspapers available, would quite likely not be available now. SwisterTwister talk 19:08, 14 November 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 03:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Lin Weaver

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

No evidence of any significant work. A temporary exhibition in a museum does not meet WP:CREATIVE DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My PRod was removed with the reasoning " took part in exhibit at major museum". Thats not enough in my book. Pyrusca (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, sourced with non-viable niche citations and artist's own website. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I concur with the nomination, absolutely no meaningful and convincing substance for artists notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 9 November 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 . Cavarrone 11:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alyse Eady

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

Eady has two main points of interest, neither of which are at a level to justify having an article. One is that she was Miss Arkansas. This beauty pageant win is just not enough to grant default notability. Her other set of notability is as a local TV news anchor at a local station in Little Rock, Arkansas and then in Atlanta, Georgia. These positions are sourced to blog entries and PR pieces, and there is no coverage of her in this postions from independent reliable sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another non-notable pageant contestant (not winner, but runner up) turned TV anchor, with no viable third-party sources. Yawn. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think subject meets at least WP:BASIC. Sources: Amarillo Globe News, Washington Post(subscription required), States news service(subscription required), Arkansas Business (subscription required). The next three sources are also beyond paywall but I couldn't access them. They however seem to have some coverage of subject: Arkansas Bus.2, Arkansas Bus.3 Arkansas Bus.4. Anup [Talk] 15:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more Paris news. Anup [Talk] 15:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Niche sources such as Arkansas Business don't establish notability. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 05:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are few other sources beside Arkansas ones and together they imo answer the question of notability. And I don't believe I was able find all available sources about subject. Anup [Talk] 12:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Weak keep: She won Miss Arkansas 2010, was first runner-up at the 2011 Miss America pageant, and became a local newscaster. There are two Miss America Organization references (WP:Primary source), two Miss Arkansas Organization references (also primary sources), a youTube of her pageant performance (from a primary source), a dead link, and a reference of her new anchor and reporter day job. First, I watched the youtube video. I think the puppet animals sing better than she does. It was funny but I can see why she chose another career. It seems the pageant links are prone to rotting. "2011 Miss America Pageant Returns to Planet Hollywood in Las Vegas!" returns PAGE NOT FOUND 404 Error Page. "About Alyse", 404 Not Found. "MAOT History"; 404 Not Found, and also THV 11 returns OH, SNAP!The Page you requested cannot be displayed. Primary sources do not count toward notability and even with that two references from the same source would count as one so this subject does not pass WP:GNG. If we use local TV jobs as an acceptable criteria, even with her yodeling, ventriloquism, and tap dancing act, we would have to accept something like 54,000 articles to cover them all in the US, then we would have to cover the rest of the world. This means the local news anchor job does not meet WP:notability because there is nothing "worthy of notice" or "note" – that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" about a local news anchor. As cute as her puppets were, there just is not actual notability for article inclusion as her temporary fame of Miss Arkansas has faded. A Google search brought up her ex-THV11.com job , her Fox 5 job, and getting married. I found that she, along with three others, won a National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences (NATAS) Mid-America Emmy Award for "Historical/Cultural – News Story/Feature". That to me is still not significant and if kept this article would more than likely just remain a permanent stub. Otr500 (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anupmehra has found several articles that show notability. The subject passes GNG and the article can be improved with those sources. In addition, I'd like to point out that a "niche source" can establish notability, especially in conjunction with other sources. Also, a tip for Otr500, The Internet Archive is your friend. When you come across a deadlink, do Wikipedia a favor and try to resolve it using the Wayback Machine. I'll try to clean up and add to the article today so that we may have a WP:HEY situation. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, comments, and reasoning for !vote change: With all due respect and a hats off to your efforts, I see the adding of references that just makes an article subject look more notable. The reference can't be fully accessed without paying, and there is nothing wrong with that when needed, however, the reference can be found at The Washington Post: "Names & Faces: Bob Dole, John Lennon, Miss America" with free access. I would suggest and ask (please) don't use paywall references when not absolutely necessary. I see these type references sometimes used in ref-bombing.

As for as using WayBackMachine, I list what I find when searching for notability. I am NOT going to take the time to search out archives on Primary sources unless I see I can improve an article that has notability. If there are volunteers I can ping a message on every dead link I run across (hundreds) and that person can help me. I really don't see that happening.

I struggled with this because I don't see a state win as notable for a BLP, and the vast majority of "career stub" state pageant pseudo BLP's are anything but notable. She placed 1st runner up in Miss America that did get national coverage. Since I do not have an issue with any notable article (pageants or otherwise), and I do not just give fly-by !votes but keep up with them, I reexamined this one. I think that, a first place winner in a National pageant (many times inheriting the title), can be a secondary elevation towards notability ("famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.), when added to the other content and references (even though weak), and the efforts of Megalibrarygirl, are reasons for my change. Please note that I do not support that just placing 1st runner up a sole criteria for notability. I certainly don't think a state win notable, and this article will still very likely remain a career glorified stub, I will give in to efforts which is actually just for the "Hey" of it. Otr500 (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Gregory Gagnon, American Indian Law: A Discourse on Chthonic Law, 89 N.D. L. Rev. 29 (2013).

[2] Christine Zuni Cruz, Shadow War Scholarship Indigenous Legal Tradition, and Modern Law in Indian Country, 9 Tribal L. J. 1 (2008) ("This essay comments on the multi-layered experience of establishing an electronic law journal for the serious, scholarly treatment of the Indigenous (Chthonic) Legal Tradition ....").

[3] Christine Zuni Cruz, Self-determination and Indigenous nations in the United States: International human rights, federal policy and Indigenous Nationhood, in Dialogue about Land Justice: Papers from the National Native Title Conference, Ed. Lisa Strelein 159, 162 (2010) ("It is the chthonic legal tradition that gives us our identity ....").

[4] Imogen Saunders, International Disaster Relief Law and Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice: The Forgotten Source of International Law, in The International Law of Disaster Relief, Ed. David D. Caron et al. 29, 39 (2014) (A chthonic legal system is characterized as being the law of people 'who live ecological lives by being chthonic, which means that they live in or in close harmony with the earth.'").

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]