Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 September	22 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luca del Bono

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

Non-notable hotel manager. References are almost all dead links, aside from one primary source (the subject's purported company website) and two mentions in gossip-type columns that contain the subject's name only once, in articles that only tangentially mention him. Google Trends search[1] turns up "Not enough search volume to show results." Searching for subject mentions, I found only one additional reliable secondary source hit, a fluff piece promoting a new club in a hotel he was managing, in Travel and Leisure Online. I don't believe this rises to any level of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an entrepreneur not a "hotel manager." He's interviewed in the Italian business newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore.[2]. There's an article in Italian Vogue[3]. An Evening Standard article includes significant coverage.[4] His newest venture gets him a mention in the New York Times that discusses him.[5] He has a Bloomberg profile page.[6]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I take issue with calling him an "entrepreneur" - I know that whoever wrote this article called him that, but not one source calls him that. He's ID'd as either a "manager" or "advisor" to hotel management. At best you could make an argument that he's a consultant in the hospitality business. Just my two cents, on that term only. Rockypedia (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete ~~or TNT~~ See comment below. There is virtually nothing salvable in the article, although the sources found by Samuel J. Howard give a glimmer of notability. I find no mention of him in the list of "references" -- in fact, some of the links there are so irrelevant that I have no idea what was intended. If someone wants to completely re-do the article, it could be saved. But if it is in its current state at the end of the AfD process, my vote is Delete. LaMona (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I find no mention of him in the list of 'references'" Yeah, he's definitely there if you work through the list of sources. If you're concerned about the state of the article, you should improve it rather than blow it up. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I stated in the initial nomination - he's definitely there in exactly two of the sources - and in both of them, he's mentioned only briefly, and he's not even close to being the subject of the article. Hence the nomination. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @LaMona: can weigh in again now that its been revised?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. --Rubbish computer 17:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer:Ok, so I'm going to admit that this kind of annoys me. I've cleaned up, sourced and NPOVd the article since it was nominated and you'd still prefer it be TNTd? Note that TNT means you think the subject is notable and is verifiable and you still want to delete the article? So what's the issue you are trying to fix?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samuel J. Howard: The complete lack of verifiability in secondary sources. --Rubbish computer 17:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for pinging me after changes. Admittedly the article is much improved, but I still find it a stretch to declare notability for this person. He mostly appears in articles about others. This may be a case of too soon, since many of his ventures are new and haven't yet had an impact. I'm changing my !vote to weak delete because I'm still not convinced that he's notable, yet. LaMona (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like some of the information cited is tenuous, and this article needs revision, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvester53 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rubbish computer: What do you think about rewriting this article? I am going to research some sources online. Silvester53 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Silvester53: Go for it. --Rubbish computer 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and restart later if better as I found nothing better than some links at Books, browser and Highbeam. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister:, there are no links to Books or Highbeam in the sourcing? I'm not sure what you mean by "browser". Did you post this on the right AFD entry?--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they were my own searches and browser is Google browser. SwisterTwister talk 17:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any real notability. Just a relatively young businessman. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1) no claim to notability (2) for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. Better than most of the bios that come here, at he has a start on substantive coverage, but only that. --Bejnar (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kerstein

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

This is an article about a domain squatter, who got Microsoft to make a deal for the domain he was squatting on. This is a case of WP:BLP1E. This person does not have anything else to help meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I had no problem finding sources on line, so apparently meeting WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some as examples? The only ones I could find were press releases for his company, a quotes various news outlets probably from one of his various press releases, press releases are not reliable. I cannot find anything which covers him in depth except for the stories about his squatting. I am willing to withdraw the nom. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as although News, Books and highbeam all found links, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. Although it seems almost all the past commenters are either not active at all or only minimally active, I'm pinging possibly interested Starblind. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article also was created by a one-purpose account and strongly resembles Kerstein's official bio posted elsewhere, indicating to me that it was probably created for promotional purposes. Blah2 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Otherwise it is just a resume. Edison (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Edwardx (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTHOST; Wikipedia is not a resumé directory. Esquivalience ^t 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeeder

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

Just because someone is a Wikipedia editor doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to delete their article, but equally it doesn't mean we should make extra efforts to keep it, and by no possible measure is this person notable. That this article has been up for almost a year now, and the "references" still consist of two Gawker posts, two cracked.com posts and a single short Huffington Post article, strongly suggests to me that the reliable sources don't exist—the only mention I can find in anything even vaguely resembling a legitimate source is this article in Metro which (to put it politely) has something of a reputation for reprinting directly from blogs without factchecking. ‑ iridescent 17:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to keep the article, which I created. The sources currently used to construct the article, plus the external links (and perhaps others?) are enough to satisfy WP:GNG for me, but perhaps I am in the minority. The fact that this article about a Wikipedian is irrelevant. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Metro, Gawker, Il Post and perhaps Ijsberg Magazine sources are enough to meet GNG in my opinion; the coverage there is significant, independent, reliable etc. Additionally, a couple of these sources [7][8][9][10] may possibly be of some use. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the thoughts above. (I don't really have anything else to add as what I think has been said above.) —DangerousJXD (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Bilorv basically summarized exactly what I was going to say on this topic, so no need to be redundant. Rockypedia (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Bilorv's and Another Believer's comments. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 22:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage is sufficient for this to pass WP:GNG. sst^flyer 13:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every source is from the same span of time in November 2011 (i.e. no persistent coverage over a period of time, as required by WP:GNG), and [nearly?] all based on the same single source (the Gawker piece, which is credited explicitly in most of them and goes unattributed in a few others, despite content being consistent). Gawker and the others make some comments about the style of this set of images and talks at length about pornography on Wikipedia, what's considered pornography, etc., but the articles say almost nothing about Seedfeeder because almost nothing is known about him. What would this article look like as an FA? Well it would have to be about this collection of images rather than Seedfeeder himself, that much is certain, but more likely it would be part of something along the lines of Sexually explicit content on Wikipedia. If such an article existed, I would say Merge as these sources look to merit inclusion somewhere, but lacking a target, I have to say delete without prejudice to inclusion elsewhere when a sensible target can be determined. The only target I can think of is List of Wikipedia controversies, although these sources only sort of allude to controversy rather than constitute it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Rhododendrites's sound reasoning. This was one minor event that disappeared quickly. Some sort of merge or redirect could be done I suppose, but that's really it. freshacconci talk to me 21:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are unreliable and sketchy. Even if the article were to be cleaned up, the subject matter is still trivial and not very notable 184.88.131.18 (talk) 03:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Note: I added three of the four sources provided above by Bilorv to the External links section. I am unable to tell if this source is reliable. Yes, these articles still need to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article, but hopefully these sources (20 minutos, Les Inrockuptibles) help with establishing notability. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as per reasons above.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Los of coverage, and it is not all the same. This Greek news article (google translation here) appears to be different, and I saw sources in Italian, German and several other languages. Plenty notable with lots of global coverage. A dozen or more international articles in numerous countries on different continents is "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability", per WP:NRV and WP:GNG.New Media Theorist (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@New Media Theorist: You linked to three articles as examples of independent coverage. While they're obviously not reposts, two of the three refer back to that one Gawker article and the one that doesn't just happened to be published in the same span of a couple weeks as all the rest. @NMT or Surv1v411st, could you point to any enduring coverage at all (the "over a period of time" part of the WP:N "in a nutshell")? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rhododendrites, I had a look at the WP:GNG page, just as a refresher, and while I tend to agree that "over time" is a requirement, that phrase does not occur in the detailed criteria for notability-- it's just in the nutshell description. In any case, here's a shot at a timeline establishing coverage over time:

26 February 2013 Cracked.com article.
28 Feburary 2013 A Dutch news article
12 Nov 2015 Gawker article
12 Nov 2015 Huffpost article in english
18 November 2014 Spanish news article
29 November 2014 Metro UK article with content similar to Gawker
29 November 2014 Article on Austrian news site
30 November 2014 news article in Greek
5 December 2014 Italian news article
24 December 2014 An Artnet news article listing Seedfeeder's work as one of the "top ten digital artworks of 2014"
11 January 2015 A polish news article
9 Febrary 2015 A Vice article with a paragraph on Seedfeeder.

The articles above appeared over 23 months, which amply satisfies the "over time" criteria, I would think. The clincher for me is the Artnet link where Seedfeeder's work is called one of the top ten digital artworks of 2014, right up there with other notable digital artists. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting together this outline. It is too bad the energy behind this deletion discussion couldn't have been put to use better by expanding the article itself, as it would probably be GA-worthy by now. Thanks for supplying these additional sources! I will add them to the article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer, I'll take a shot at adding them later today!New Media Theorist (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cracked.com article doesn't even mention Seedfeeder except in the image credit (i.e. it's about images on Wikipedia); The Dutch news article is based on the Cracked.com article; Then there's the Gawker article; then it was picked up/summarized by other blogs so we get Huffington Post, 20minutos, Metro, DerStandard, News247, Ilpost, ArtNet, and Natemat all linking to Gawker and offering no new information about the subject of this article (e.g. they pulled the information from Gawker or followed Gawker to the same Wikipedia/Commons pages).

So we have picture credits and a brief mention in 2013, the Gawker article and derivatives (mostly concentrated in the span of a couple weeks, with one latecomer in Natemat, but none of them actually offering any unique information about Seedfeeder beyond Gawker, as far as I can tell), and another mention in Vice in 2015 (a paragraph about a couple of his images). I have to stand by my delete !vote in the absence of a sensible place to merge. Procedurally, Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues. (there's a debate as to whether paraphrasing another blog and adding a couple words or a paragraph on a tengential subject is republishing, I suppose, but it seems within the spirit of what WP:RS is trying to communicate there). Practically speaking, I again have to wonder what an FA about him could look like, short of going off on tangents, including OR, or close paraphrasing Gawker (even if we cite the other sources, they're all based on Gawker -- even the bulletpoint we could get from ArtNet, being included in that list, was requested by and included in the Gawker article). At the rate this AfD is going, even if the tide turns there are enough keeps that this would likely be closed as no consensus, but still I'll ask if anyone has any ideas for a possible merge target? We could use this material to, ahem, "seed" an article about Sexually explicit content on Wikipedia. I was surprised to see we don't have that, actually. That looks to be the bigger subject. There's the mystery of Seedfeeder's identity, the novelty of his specialization, but why I think it gets attention is because it's on Wikipedia -- all over Wikipedia, in fact, and isn't that interesting that this resource is a venue for what some people consider pornography? Hell, I might create that article even if this is kept :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Rhododendrites, I hear what you are saying, but I might note that the Artnet article is actually not a republication of anyone else's work. It specifically names Seedfeeder's work as one of the top ten notable digital artworks of 2014. It's an independent, reliable source that speaks specifically of the notability of the artist's work.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It should be noted that the supposed "External LInks" are non-English journalism, for the most part. Passes GNG regardless of what you think of his work... Carrite (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essentially agree with rationale provided by Another Believer, Bilorv, Zumoarirodoka, SSTflyer, Rockypedia, DangerousJXD, and New Media Theorist, above. I agree with Another Believer that there is potentially enough coverage here to hopefully get the article up to Good Article level of quality. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Britt Daniel. (non-admin closure) Yash! 01:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skellington (band)

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

This is Britt Daniel's first band. Normally I'd redirect there, but the "(band)" disambiguator means its an unlikely search term. A brief mention on the band could be made in Daniel's article (and indeed there is already), but nothing else. We don't have articles on Mable Greer's Toyshop or The Empty Vessels so there would seem to be precedent not to include early bands of musicians who later became notable without independent sourcing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree ths band would need to independently notable to merit an article, though coverage of the band included in Spoon articles could count. I've considered writing The Dancing Hoods before, but its luckily already covered at Mark_Linkous#Dancing_Hoods. So, even if merged somewhere, I'd rather the content be kept than removed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Britt Daniel where although this is briefly mentioned, there could be a better section and I'm willing or to look into this later. My first searches at News and Books found some links but nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agreed with SwisterTwister: This info would fit well with the Britt Daniel article and it's interesting information that isn't there already, but doesn't necessarily need its own article. Fuzchia (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SisterTwister. --Rubbish computer 18:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War of Ages

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

A band of no objectively provable notability. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the linked album articles. By doing so I found the following already linked: [11], [12] and [13] at AllMusic and the Supreme Chaos review has multiple RSes. Also, AllMusic has a band bio. So just with that they clearly meet GNG let alone WP:MUSICBIO. All that is without performing an Internet search, which is stated by WP:BEFORE. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and several at [21]. Those were gleaned from the first fifty results of the Google search linked above. In short, this article and the linked album articles should be improved, but not deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this seems acceptable coverage and I haven't even started searching myself. Pinging past commenters Jayron32 and Amatulic. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a brief band bio (which isn't exactly "coverage", it's just a listing) in Allmusic as conferring notability, in the same way that Wikipedia doesn't consider a wine review in Wine Spectator to confer notability. That's the purpose of the publication, they review thousands of wines each year, so just about any non-notable wine will be reviewed eventually. I see Allmusic the same way. That said, while some of the sources Walter Gorlitz listed are ridiculous (directory listings, poster, etc.), there's a Billboard chart link, which does count for a lot and definitely meets WP:BAND. So yeah, keep and improve. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources found by Walter above. --Jayron 32 12:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAN NGxx3F

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

Per WP:PRODUCT this should be covered at the company article. Does not seem worth a stand-alone article without going into trivial and unencyclopedic technical details. Charles (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or maybe Merge into MAN Lion's City). As the article looks like now it may seem not very notable, with only mention of the 41 built for Singapore. However the product has been available in Europe since 1998, and without knowing the exact number actually built, the serial numbers had reached around 7-800 before those mentioned. So the total number built is probably somewhere between 500 and 1000, over a span of 17 years. I did not add any details from any other countries, as it was hard to find anything reliable. It appears that a lot was delivered to Spain, but I have no clue where to find a reliable source for anything from that country. Here is a list of some variations and bodywork, but it is very incomplete and is fully user-made (without any moderation), so it is by no means reliable: MAN NGxx3F (A24) on Phototrans.

However, I could agree that having a separate article for every single bus chassis model from MAN would mean a lot of very narrow articles about products that have a very narrow market. Even the naming scheme (type designation) used by MAN isn't very user friendly. When applied to the data of a bus, they even include the power output, and many people treat those as separate products, even if it's just different configurations. What is even worse is that many people, including the distributors across the world, have started using the internal VIN codes (like A22, A24, A34, A95, etc.) instead of the model names, and they are just a number and explains absolutely nothing. Anyway, it may not need an article of its own, but it absolutely deserves a mention, as busfans across the world seek to Wikipedia to learn about buses they see, ride or read about. The fact that this chassis model is derived from the Lion's City range of products makes it somehow okay to merge it in there. Then I would suggest making a section in the Lion's City article named something like "Chassis derived from Lion's City", or something similar, and then put this and the other related chassis types in there. This also includes the MAN NDxx3F and the MAN NLxx3F for consistency. As the NDxx3F article states, there are a lot fewer buses built, and in fact the article describes three different products that happen to have the same name or type designation. One of them was only built as a prototype and no serial production. The NLxx3F has, according to serial numbers, been built in around 5 000 units so far, but its connection to Lion's City is exactly the same as the NGxx3F, so letting it on its own because it is more widely known would be very inconsistent.

So to sum it up, I would like to keep the article as it is, and hopefully it will get some more text if anybody find a good source, or alternatively I accept that all three articles MAN NGxx3F, MAN NDxx3F and MAN NLxx3F (and the not yet created MAN NMxx3F) are merged into MAN Lion's City under a section about related chassis. Most of the info in the infoboxes can be discarded or just written into the other text. Those are the only logical solutions to me. To merge it into the manufacturer article as suggested seems not a good idea, as the Lion's City article is more related.Bergenga (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than technical manuals, the only sources I find are mirrors of this WP article. The two sources on the article are 1) the sales brochure from the company itself and2) a blog post. I can't do any better than that. Note that the (long) Keep !vote above is by the author of the page (Bergenga). LaMona (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I wanna keep this there is literally nothing anywhere to even verify its existence, Merging IMHO would be pointless and wouldn't really fit it in anywhere. –Davey2010^Talk 04:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is not a notable product. Deleting this article will merely create yet another red link in the company's article. (Actually, it would create three additional red links, as the company article gives a separate listing to three variations.) Frankly, that company article reads more like a product catalog than an encyclopedia article and would be much improved by the removal of its extensive listing of products. As for the individual products themselves, I don't see any notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not seeing any signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formula C (video game)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The1337gamer (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Idle speculation about future video game releases is not what Wikipedia is for. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I added more links and there is a demo available already so it's not just idle speculation (there is some content publicly available and the sources state when the final version is going to be released) Astiolo 04:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. – czar 05:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Marcus Shirock

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

Tagged for notability since 2010, he seems to be famous for one show which itself doesn't merit an article. Otherwise he has played small roles and voice roles - believe he fails WP:NACTOR Gbawden (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found some Books and News results but nothing good and his IMDb summarizes it that's not much for a better article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Edison (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete It's a nice piece, and well written. But it does seem to fall short of what is needed for notability. If there's no way it can be saved in some form, or changed into something else, then I think it has to go.Tippex for the soul (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film).. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Money (2016 film)

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

Article on a yet to be release film, under production. Notability under WP:GNG and WP:FILM may be weak for things that do not exist yet. Has two decent sources that refer to it being under production. Suggest we delete now and wait to see if film gets any coverage once it is actually made. New Media Theorist (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's in production, and not a major film. Not notable yet. Can't find the movie (even searching for "Martin Rosete") in The Hollywood Reporter. WP:CRYSTAL applies. John Nagle (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep) Do not delete The film is in post-production and was announced exclusively on Variety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ban003 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm cleaning the article of any of the promotional fluff. If I can find coverage for this then this might pass NFF if the production has been extensively covered. If not, then I'd suggest userfication. Sorry Ban003, but this is very promotional and given that your contributions have been brought up at the COI and ANI boards, I'm not sure that I can trust you to take care of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Userfy to User:Tokyogirl79/Money (2016 film). My search for sources was actually quite short because the two sources on the article are really the only places where this film has received coverage. It's possible that this could receive coverage in the future and towards that end, I volunteer to take this into my userspace and wait for sourcing. Right now it's just too soon for an entry since the production hasn't really received that much coverage, not enough to warrant an entry per WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if Tokyogirl79 wants to take this one on. Otherwise, I'd say Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Entering post-production means that filming has completed and production has thus moved into editing and audio correction, etc. When that happens and we have supporting coverage in reliable sources, we CAN have an article on a yet-to-release film. Being "major" is not the determinant... coverage IS. Sorry, but when a new stub can certainly be improved, needing work is not a reason to delete.The Dissolve Short Film The Wrap Just Film Variety Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy: do not delete, unless it isn't real, but also not keep, this article is earlier. 333 -blue 10:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I think the subject of this biography lies along the boundary of our notability guidelines and there is no clear consensus whether to keep or not among established users and policy-based argument. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang Yin

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)

Page previously deleted via PROD... I would prefer this went through AFD to gain consensus. Original reason given was: This article does not verifiably establish WP:PROF Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note PROD nominator has made no contributions to Wikipedia other than to propose this article for deletion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an associate professor, not yet at the level where notability is typical, and none of the junior-researcher awards listed contributes much for notability. But I think his citation record [22] is good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Positive social impact has been made through investigational drugs ^[1] Improvement and updates have been implemented to the page, which should have established WP:PROF. — comment added by Qr972500 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Qr972500 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

References

^ "Market Watch".

Keep. I think that this meets WP:GNG. See""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". For significant coverage, see [23], [24], [25] etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.82 (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF. Mmsumoer (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Delete I restored this article as it had been PRODed without discussion. While I agree that the article subject's citation record is impressive, this does not establish notability. Criterion 1 of WP:PROF, I would argue, requires more than a list. Of the sources referenced in the article, the majority are not independent of the subject. Those that are independent are little more than trivial coverage. Of course, being named in a Nature news piece is impressive, but it does not establish notability. My main concern with this article is one of WP:SPIP. The article has clearly been placed on Wikipedia as a promotional piece by either the subject or people close to him. These people are the same WP:SPAs that are arguing to keep above. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein's arguments.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If kept, it would be primarily because of the awards. However, I looked at some of the award sites and many of these are grants that are given to a large number of researchers -- eg the NSF career grant is given to 100-150 researchers per year. What bothers me, though, is that this appears to be primarily a self-promotion, and it has carried through to this AfD. The author of the article has added and deleted !votes here a number of times, which is contrary to the culture of transparency that should govern this area, IMO. With such an undisclosed WP:COI it would be necessary to keep a close eye on this article to avoid wp:promo. However, I don't think that the article is worth that effort. LaMona (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shuang Shuang

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

My searches found nothing good at all and there's hardly much info so I would've considered PROD but I took it here in case there's some non-English coverage though I doubt it as she seems non-notable. It has hardly improved since starting in January 2008 and this exemplifies its "personal page" feel. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a particularly notable individual. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no evidence for notability, and none would be expected. DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London television productions

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

My searches simply found nothing although the generic name is no help and it seems their website is closed so they may not be active anymore (archived website here) and even their social media hasn't been updated since February 2011. As an orphan, I'm also not seeing any signs of mentioning this elsewhere thus no alternative to deletion. Pinging past taggers FoCuSandLeArN and 5 albert square. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding coverage either, even putting a search focus on the then-forthcoming programme that was highlighted on the Wayback version of their former website. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas G. Grudnowski

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

My searches found nothing to suggest better independent notability or even simply improvement with the best results here, here, here and here and, since existing from November 2005, there's hardly been much change and I'm not seeing anything to support a full mention at one of the company articles. Pinging tagger Boleyn and possibly Wgolf (I'm not sure where he's been recently). SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had looked at a possible merge or redirect to the 2 companies he has worked for, but he's not even mentioned in their articles. Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Fair Isaac is a major company ,and its ceo is presumably notable also. But if we redirect it would be there--he was ceo, but I doubt he was anyway like that position in the much larger Anderson Consulting. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with DGG that it seems like the CEO of a major company should be notable, but I'm not seeing the sources to satisfy WP:BIO. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Channel

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

Notability not established Action Hero Shoot! 06:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely if this can't be improved as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points, little if any indication of notability. --Rubbish computer 18:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson's Cup

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

Not notable. Drewziii (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very clearly fails WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 09:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to what's been said above, all sources are first-party, and only link to the main sites. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 01:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Dewey

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

I can't find sources for most of the big claims in this article or any sources at all for that matter. Article has been practically unsourced since 2006. Brustopher (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I would be glad to keep if someone can find better sources. I can find a few mentions, and one possible review (London theatre record), but not more. However, if someone in the UK has access to 70's theatre magazines, there might well be more. LaMona (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per above points: weak as staying open to possibility of new sources. --Rubbish computer 18:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now likely as I found links at Books, News and browser but this can be restarted later if better. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

News World@ 11

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

My searches simply found nothing and much less something to suggest mentioning at MediaCorp Channel U's article, there's simply nothing to suggest keeping this sparsely edited article that has existed since September 2006. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced and, even if it were to be sourced, there is no claim to notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 18:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alastair Sweeny. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Along the Frontier

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

Non-notable book, SPA-written to promote Alastair Sweeny, no in-depth coverage found GermanJoe (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alastair Sweeny: I really couldn't find anything for this book and I searched via Google, an academic database, Highbeam, and Bing. I found this review, but I'm not sure that this magazine would be considered a RS. I also found this, but it's a pretty brief offhand mention. Ultimately this just isn't enough for its own article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl79's analysis. Remove link from the Alastair Sweeny article as well. PK T(alk) 13:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or plain delete). It is just an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alastair Sweeny. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlackBerry Planet

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

Non-notable book, SPA-written to promote Alastair Sweeny, no in-depth coverage found GermanJoe (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alastair Sweeny It's a book. I find a few mentions of it in tech news, and it is held in a good number of libraries (>700), but it isn't anything extraordinary, and can be covered easily on the author's page. LaMona (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alastair Sweeny - this book isn't notable by itself. Remove the link from Sweeny's article, as well. PK T(alk) 14:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alastair Sweeny. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Bonanza

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

Non-notable book, SPA-written to promote Alastair Sweeny, no in-depth coverage found (most ELs are out of scope) GermanJoe (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alastair Sweeny. I couldn't really find anything that went into specifics about this book. The only time it was really mentioned were in news articles where Sweeny was brought in to give an expert opinion, as they would name drop the book when they mentioned Sweeny. The most in-depth one was this one, but this wouldn't be enough to show notability and even then we could argue that the book wasn't entirely the focus of the piece as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to author page. Nothing notable about the book that can't be covered there. LaMona (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as there's nothing to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alastair Sweeny - this book isn't notable by itself. Remove the link from Sweeny's article, as well. PK T(alk) 14:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as others have said. It would have to be a very notable history book to need its own article. ASVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Bachelor'$ Marriage

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

Apparently non-notable book. The listed references are mostly links to advertisements for the book and non-notable reviews. I cannot see where the Times of India ref links to anything about this book. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this source, but ultimately there just isn't anything out there about the book in RS, at least not enough to where it'd pass NBOOK. It has some coverage in WP:SPS, but none that would be considered a RS on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book published only months ago, article is obviously promotional. Links are to sales sites and blogs. Not notable, at least not now. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to suggest better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margarete Gallinat

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. I found very few reliable sources and only trivial mentions in those. ~~Also potentially a WP:BLP.~~ Staberinde (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Staberinde (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She shows up as a guard in many | Google Book search results, so the claim that she was a concentration camp guard is not controversial or new. Google book results, along with the role, also establish her as notable.New Media Theorist (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct book search would be something like that: [26], which gives far less results. And simply establishing that person existed is not sufficient. There needs to be significant coverage to establish notability.--Staberinde (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI added numerous references, and even found her birth date in a Dutch PhD thesis form the UNiversity of Amsterdam. I think she's notable per WP:GNG, and this may also be a case of many references being pre-internet, seeing as the events she is notable for occurred 70 years ago. Also, per the birth date, she would be 119 years old now, so there are likely no WP:BLP issues.New Media Theorist (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: on basis of crimes against humanity. Otherwise, I agree the article is meagre. Quis separabit? 21:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Comment - I originally closed as Keep but the nominator wanted addition input here (which I agree with!) so I've reopened and relisted this. –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but her name does show up a lot, including in some non English sources. I think most sources on her are probably offline. That said, there are enough sources in article already to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article had zero sources when first brought to AFD, it has now been sourced adequately.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Currently it is a bad stub. I am left asking what happened to her after 1945, when many concentration camp guards were tried and executed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is starting to look like WP:SNOW, time to close?New Media Theorist (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Technically the wrong venue but nom's withdrawn anyway, EricEnfermero the correct venue is WP:MFD :), Cheers, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Reseaux® Pro Group

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

No independent sources are listed, and after a search, I didn't find any sources that could be added to help meet WP:ORG. There are some mentions in French sources of a Reseau Pro, but that seems to refer to a different organization. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing I wasn't paying attention. Looks like this is still in draft space. EricEnfermero (Talk) 15:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to House of Anubis. Fuck knows how I ever missed that!, Done (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tasie Lawrence

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

Fails GNG - I've managed to source the article with Twitter statuses so far but outside of Twitter there is barely anything on the actress, As she was born in Brighton I even checked most Brighton newspapers (online) but again there's absolutely nothing, Not entirely sure whether she meets NACTOR but either way she certainly fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside the article states her name as "Anastasia Katya Breezy Dhanraj" but "Breezy" isn't a name so even the twitter statuses could all be made up!. –Davey2010^Talk 15:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious redirect to House of Anubis as all signs suggest she is best known for this and thus no outstandingly necessity to actually delete. SwisterTwister talk 20:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Lavin

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

Only notable for one event, and as such does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. Article is mostly a play-by-play of her Jeopardy! game. Perhaps deserves a mention on the corresponding Celebrity Jeopardy! page, but nothing more. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep - The fact that she was a Fulbright fellow may make her notable. Gparyani (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or simply delete as I watched this as I usually watch Jeopardy! but I'm split if this should be a separate article simply because of an attempt at humor. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:ONEEVENT. --Rubbish computer 18:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modify the article to focus mostly on her background and her winning a Fulbright scholarship, which IMO establishes notability (but some people may say otherwise, but it certainly does establish significance), and whatever else is in the Personal life section, and less so on her Jeopardy event. Gparyani (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:1EVENT the rest is just filler, no real coverage otherwise (had it not been for ...) --Bejnar (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:1EVENT. Not enough else to show any notability outside that event. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Valerie Sherrard. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah's Legacy

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

Non-notable novel, unsourced article written by company SPA. No in-depth coverage via Google (just the usual catalogue listings and short summaries). Article makes no specific claim for notability (no awards, no significant non-plot details). GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Oddly, this does not seem to be one of the more esteemed books by this author -- and the article for the author herself is very weakly sourced (Valerie Sherrard), and would probably barely survive an AfD. LaMona (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, like LaMona I am at a loss as to why this article was created ahead of Sherrard's more notable titles (although I do think that her author article would easily survive afd, it just needs a lot of work:)). But I digress, this book does not (quite?) meet WP:NBOOK as I have only managed to find this - [27], a journal review of the book and this - [28], being shortlisted for the 2008 Red Maple Award (a minor book award). Coolabahapple (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see a Redirect, above sources could be used to bolster author article.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Valerie Sherarrd as I found nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valerie Sherrard - this book isn't notable by itself, unless it won an award that isn't mentioned in the article. Remove the link from Sherrard's article, as well. PK T(alk) 14:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Copus

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

British actor and rower, second nomination. First AfD was a keep in July 2006, but the article got speedy deleted under A7 in September 2006. Subject had a string of small roles in TV series/movies and a couple of films between 2001 and 2007 when he was ~10-16 years-old. Worldrowing.com indicates that he participated in two high level competitions in 2009 and 2013 placing 5th both times. There are a handful of sources mentioning him as a rower, but nothing in-depth. It's harder to find other than passing mention of him as an actor. Article creator is totally frank about him being subject and says on his talk page: "I am now getting back into acting. As I currently have no PR agent, I thought I'd be proactive and do it myself." I can't find sources to add to make the article meet the general notability guidelines. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 19:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's amusing and humorus how AfD has changed since the first one with most of the votes saying his number of movies were enough...but what about coverage and his current career? No, he's not notable or even an outstandingly notable actor obviously. Pinging users Harry the Dirty Dog and NawlinWiki. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mandela Effect

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

The only "evidence" for this effect appears to come from one site created by a self-described "full-time paranormal investigator with somewhat renegade ideas." While there are a few citations, they all appear to trace back to said site, which is backed up by little to no scientific evidence. Seems to be a fringe theory that doesn't meet the notability guidelines, seeing as the only time it got any exposure was eight years later in a debate about the title of a children's book series. Oneforfortytwo (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. I thought that Yogi Berra was already dead. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand you voting delete, but don't say there's no reliable sources. All of the ones in the article are tried and true reliable sources, such as the The A.V. Club.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now unless this can be mentioned elsewhere as the best I seemed to find was this. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University

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

Non-notable university faculty. I have doubts about the value of redirects in cases like this. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It could be notable, especially if the faculty got major awards, but this appears to be little more than a bad translation of their home page in the form of lists. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ottawahitech (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found some links at Books and browser but nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We all know that AfD is not a vote, but with this many participants I must fall back on the automatic headcount as a first approximation of the outcome. It is: Keep: 50; Delete: 22; Merge: 13; Redirect: 4. This tells me that while a majority thinks that we should keep the article, we don't have a clear consensus to do so, particularly because (as Collect points out) many "keep" opinions are from relatively new accounts, which always raises some concerns. Because so many opinions have been offered, and the issues raised here are ones of editorial judgment (is this a significant enough event for a separate article?), I can't reliably assign determinative weight to one or the other's side's arguments. This leaves us with no consensus, allowing the article to be renominated after some time has passed and the lasting significance of the event, or the lack thereof, can be better assessed. Many people who voice other opinions point out that this might at some time be better covered as part of the article about the related book, Call me Dave, and it might be useful to discuss this proposal at the talk page before starting any new deletion discussion. Sandstein 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piggate

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

Whether of not this comical brouhaha is worthy of a standalone article, there is nothing in the sources to suggest that the witless cliche 'piggate' has been used by even the most lacklustre of hacks. TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be that you're living somewhere where they censor Internet. I've come across articles by various news sources, all containing the word "piggate". Fojr (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the UK. I reiterate my comment about witless hacks.TheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also live in the UK and thought that "piggate" has been made up, but it turns out to be a trending twitter tag for the story and, yes, there is some news coverage of the claim (much without reference to the term "piggate"). However, the term is a neologism and Wikipedia is not a news outlet. The story is not proven and is hardly the "scandal" that the article claims. The real story may well turn out to be a rivalry between Lord Ashcroft and David Cameron and perhaps this episode may be worthy of passing mention in a discussion of that. For now, it's WP:TOOSOON to tell. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a breaking news story, possibly stemming from Ashcroft's sour grapes at being passed over for a ministerial role by Cameron. It may be worthy of a mention in the main article about Cameron depending on how it evolves, but not its own article.Neiltonks (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So far this is just a random allegation. If reputable sources later claim that the incident contributed to the Conservatives losing an election or something like that, then it might be worth mentioning in the article on that election or on Cameron's page. Despite the allusion in the name, this is not like the Watergate scandal where the story of the transgression was long and layered and had a serious impact on American life. Triangl (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on whether or not Cameron favours pulled pork. Its real topic is though a self-sustaining media story that has become massive in under a day: a monumental spat between one of the grandees of the Tory party and its current leader. Whether the allegation at the base is true or not doesn't matter to us: it may be either the basis of the biggest UK libel action in years, or else the biggest unanswered insult to a serving PM similarly. Pretty much every political commentator from serious moralists like Frankie Boyle to right-wing tub-thumpers like Suzanne Moore and Toby Young have chimed in today. Every news outlet except the BBC has been giving airtime to a particularly lurid allegation about the leader of the Tories and that is exceptional. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is becoming a major topic of discussion and deserving of its own article. It is certainly a scandal that a well-known public figure is making these allegations in a major news outlet and 'piggate' is the term that is attached to it more often than not. I found this article by searching by that term after finding that no mention of it was made on the main David Cameron article. Arianna the First (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It's easy to find coverage in mainstream media like The Guardian and there's already a survey of the world's media coverage. A sensible way forward would be to make this an article about the book (which is clearly notable) and the resulting brouhaha. Andrew D. (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Have you seen the sheer volume of media coverage generated on this today? Nor that this will dissipate quickly. No objection to a rename as Snoutrage though. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like Snoutrage very much...does this mean Dave has been snouted?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTNEWS with perhaps a one or two line mention on the Page for Cameron - fun though this is I can't really see it lasting. Also all the other names for it are funnier. Artw (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep, as the media turning on Caneron does not seem to be a thing that is going away and the roots of that have some depth. Would not be against the merge/rename at a later date thought. Artw (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event may become significant, particularly as David Cameron will not stand for election again and Piggate may be his political epitaph. The international reach of the coverage has been significant. Review the decision after legal action (if any) from David Cameron or the release of the book. Grumpy Marmoset —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you're arguing for a move, not for a deletion. Take it to the article's talk page. —Ashley Y 21:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This will definitely become notable. The sheer volume of coverage already within the first twenty-four hours will ensure that. However, depending on what other revelations are made in Ashcroft's book, I'd be open to it being merged or renamed. Peaky76 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Ashcroft's polling was shown to thorough and reliable. If he published this allegation he probably has the pictures. Piggate is a good term for it. We should be wary of Conservative interns seeking to bury the story.Reluctant Corrector (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Very notable event, huge amount of coverage true or not. 73.152.128.104 (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Piggate' has been a topic of discussion in multiple major national daily newspapers including The Guardian, The Times, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Express and more, including hitting the front page of multiple daily newspapers. As such is not a matter of petty low level rumour or gossip, but a serious matter of discussion in British politics (despite the humour being made of the situation) as it affects the way the British public view David Cameron as a Prime Minister. This page should chronicle the allegation, noting heavily at this moment in time that is an allegation where evidence has not emerged yet, discussion of the allegation, the impact of the allegation, and criticism of the allegation in a neutral fashion. This accusation, true or not, has and will continue to affect David Cameron's reputation, and thus this deserves to be an article. This would also be a topic of discussion if David Cameron decides to stand for prime minister in a third election campaign. Adhoc1914 08:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Lord Ashcroft's book should have an article and piggate can be part of that.Mongreilf (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Extraordinarily notable, with a plethora of coverage. As the "Time" article on this very subject says, "David Cameron’s ‘Pig-Gate’ Scandal Isn’t Going Away". Even the Russian Embassy is getting in on the act. (Incidentally, somebody needs to add #snoutrage] to the article). The article easily meets the notability threshold and we have an obvious precedent in the Lewinsky scandal. It would be silly to delete this article and, given the world-wide coverage, it doesn't need to be merged either. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second that "this event may become significant, particularly as David Cameron will not stand for election again and Piggate may be his political epitaph." Of particular interest has been the international media attention and the item has been trending for over 48 hours now in the UK. I do not favour the comments that such an event have been humorous - indeed I do not consider such a personal attack to be funny by any means. Nevertheless, the event will need to be recorded for reflection and analysis. An alternative idea may be to add it to the main David Cameron article.—Preceding undated comment added 12:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhzuckp4 (talk • contribs)
- This is actually in discussion on Talk:David Cameron. One problem is that article is ridiculously long already, and this may or may not be significant in the context of a whole life. At present there's one line about it - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this is a disputed political page it is still a relevant event that is being discussed in the UK and abroad. At a push it could be renamed 'the piggate incident' but scandal is what the newspapers are using when reporting what happened. The other hashtag used is #Hameron but this is more of an 'urban dictionary' style however should be included in the article. I feel that the flagging for deletion is primarily for political reasons. marcusbm (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Reliable Sources are all over this one, in considerable detail - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, without prejudice to revisiting the issue in a few months time if the story develops. Wikpedia is not a news site. Also concerned about giving undue prominence to unproven salacious allegations about a living person. WJBscribe (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Call Me Dave, where the topic can be adequately covered in the context of the book to which this relates. Stand alone article is not needed, and it doesn't look like there's any content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yesterday I'd have hesitated, but the indications are that this topic will have some longevity. Deb (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of articles is not necessarily a good reason to create or keep an article. There is a scandal or controversy of some description pretty much every week in public life these days. Remains to be seen whether this will be major, especially as other "revelations" from this book are still being drip-fed ahead of its publication. The title alone is very dubious. Mezigue (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Modest Proposal by nominator This is clearly a notable story. However unlike many blahgates, the source of the brouhaha is not really capable of sustaining a standalone article..."immature overprivileged arse does something witless while drunk in Oxford shock horror...NOT" & I would suggest that the article should be redirected to an article on Michael Ashcrofts biography of Dave: the book is surely notable. I am rather puzzled by the fact that Ashcroft's biog as yet makes no mention of this highly entertaining affair, btw. And ints either PigGate of Pig Gate or Pig-gate... making it clear that there are two gs in the pronunciation... something that undelines the clumsiness of the term. TheLongTone (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. This is just a tabloid scandal on a slow news day. Even when there's no news, the papers still have to fill the column inches and this is the kind of thing they fill them with. Moreover, all the news reports are simply recycling the same allegation that is apparently made in a book that has yet to be published; there has been no independent corroboration of the allegation and the text of the book could change significantly between now and publication. The combination of BLP issues and lack of verification mean that at the very least we should wait until the book is published, and then these allegations should be discussed in an article about the book rather than in a stand-alone article. Addendum (19:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)): this event fails WP:DEPTH—there is no depth to the coverage (just rehashing of the original claim, reaction to it, and reaction to the reaction), because there is no depth to the story; all we have is a sensational claim. On the comparison with "Plebgate", Plebgate caused the resignation of a cabinet minister and later led to criminal charges against several police officers, libel proceedings, caused long-term damage to the relationship between the government and the police, and raised concerns about the politicisation of the police and the police's role in society. Nothing remotely like that can be said for this "controversy". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ Merge to a Call me Dave; ~~more overarching article on the reaction to the Ashcroft book~~ with more information released today, it's not just about the pig any more. Though that's the funniest bit. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because it is in national newspapers does not mean it is a big story - there is no need for a standalone article for this Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense to say that this is "just another tablois scandal on a slow news day"; it involves the Prime Minister rather than some "reality TV" nudnik.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just look at all the references. Aethyta (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of all the notable references. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) - There are two other language versions of this article on Wikipedia, also named Piggate. One is in French, and it was, probably yesterday, substantially enlarged. So you cannot eliminate this topics. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEOLOGISM for a start. Also WP:NOTNEWS, and not notable in and of itself. If there are ramifications to this incident, then they could be added to the Cameron BLP. This could also fit in an article about the book - but it can't stand on its own two feet. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into David Cameron, or something like List of scandals involving UK Politicians or something. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or List of scandals involving pigs which would be part of Pigs in popular culture.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This isn't about Cameron and what he did; this is about a major media storm across all print and broadcast media. Piggate has been associated with this, probably on the grounds that every scandal now gets 'gate' added to it. --AlisonW (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this is a very very minor and insignificant scandal. Although, more than Piggate, it should actually be known as Pigmouth. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant news story, plenty of sources reporting the story. Uhooep (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this appears to definitely meet WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer 16:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if Plebgate gets its own article, so should piggate.--Autospark (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Autospark: this is not a good reason. Anyone can create articles on any topic, but more importantly, Plebgate incorporates ~60 sources which span across two years. This '-gate' is two days old. Do you have any points to make regarding Piggate itself? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this is all over the papers, but so are lots of things, and we don't add an article for every single story that appears in the news. If this is still a thing in several month's time (as plebgate was), then I might reconsider, but for now it's of no encyclopedic value. — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this excellently cited article. It is a credit to wikipedia. Stroller (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete: there might be 26 sources in the article, but they can't possibly establish the notability requirement of "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" (emphasis added) because the 'scandal' is currently two days old. I'd say there are enough reliable sources to include information on this topic in the article David Cameron, any future articles about Ashcroft's book (or perhaps in Michael Ashcroft) and maybe even The National Anthem (Black Mirror), but at this moment in time I do not think this warrants its own article. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge, textbook case for WP:NOTNEWS, "reactions" paragraph is an actual trivia section and the remaining lines can be merged to other articles, namely David Cameron and a yet to come page about the book itself. --Vituzzu (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is already mentioned on main Cameron article. Trivial content describing social media reactions to a sensationalist claim that is obviously untrue. Apparently people think these reactions are clever,e.g. "Swine 9/11", as utterly hilarious as this is, it doesn't need a separate article.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete~~Already !voted. Twitter frenzies are not worthy of a separate article, the allegations have already been mentioned in David Cameron. The construction of a separate article gives WP:UNDUE towards the controversy. In addition the title is disgraceful: to compare this to Watergate is both ignorant and morally dubious. While we have to accept that Twitter is a vessel of ignorance, Wikipedia should not be. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you think the act is fictional. But the surrounding furore is not fictional and many reliable sources are discussing the act, its legality, its ramifications for trade, motivations of the principals, and so on. Given that, your recent removal of cited sources is an attempt to preempt this AfD. The fact that you think an article should not exist is not a valid reason to remove cited information from it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Anameofmyveryown: Discussing the legality of something that is only alleged and for which there is no actual evidence would exhibit WP: UNDUE.

@Reaganomics88: It's not me who's discussing it, it's the sources.

@Reaganomics - I know it's expecting a lot from someone with such a blatantly POV username, but your repeated blanking of significant and sourced sections here is unacceptable in an article, and especially so during an AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: However emotionally frustrated you may be please keep in mind civilty when interacting with other users. As for the part of your comment that focuses on content rather than other users, sourced or unsourced, WP:UNDUE is WP:UNDUE.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a government and PM who have taken a strongly moralistic tone with the plebs. The illegality of the claimed photograph here is based on laws which they introduced. To discover that the PM behind them has been involved in their breach is highly relevant. Besides which, the legality of porking the pork is some essential background to any informed discussion of the issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is widely described in the mainstream press and it's definitely a significant story. bogdan (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On notability grounds, and as mentioned by a fellow editor above, might define Cameron's political career when he stands aside at the end of this Parliamentary term. Additionally, this scandal has become an interesting reference point for several articles such as one claiming a significant amount of work time lost yesterday due to people being distracted by the unfolding coverage. Also, because it's hilarious (I know that's not really a valid reason to keep an article). --Topperfalkon (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of working time is a reason to keep it - at least when the Independent ran an article today specifically discussing it "harming productivity". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think many editors misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS, which states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". Clearly meets WP:GNG. See this discussion for another WP:NOTNEWS based deletion rationale, which resulted in a SNOW keep. Needs to be improved and I don't oppose an appropriate rename. AusLondonder (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it leads to his downfall, and if it's too large to cover in his article, then there'd be a case to retain it. As things stand, it's at best a redirect (and then only if it's retained in his article). Bromley86 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It will determine Tories' policy for at least five years and influence the 2020 elections, no matter what provenance it has. Then, wikipedia cannot defend any interests of any political party, no matter how crystal they want to be perceived. Kicior99 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Support keeping this article, and have created a separate article for the book Call Me Dave AusLondonder (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, and redirect to David Cameron for now, and later to an article about Lord Ashcroft's book. Not everything needs a freestanding article, and the charge can be better covered in broader context in other articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge necessary content with newly created article on the book Call Me Dave. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major world event, is part of a shift in perception of the party, and has resulted in unique coverage. This is not just any scandal; this is a major world leader with a particularly bizarre accusation. The Bill Clinton haircut controversy is considered notable (yes, I know Wikipedia:WAX), and had comparable coverage over a comparable period. Obviously there is no way to know how notable the subject will remain in the long run, but this is presently more than just another news story. Jbbdude (talk) 06:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Clinton article was recently nominated for deletion; that discussion came to the conclusion to keep the article, for reasons similar to those cited here. Jbbdude (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an even closer parallel, which is commonly linked with the topic in question – Ed Miliband bacon sandwich photograph. Andrew D. (talk) 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This story continues to grow and there is no other easy reference for the background. Endless newspaper and news magazine coverage (Foreign Affairs, etc.) makes it essential to have an overview that is readily available. Nlight2 (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's too big to sweep under the rug. Whether we like it or not, this allegation by Lord Ashcroft about the UK Prime Minister is a part of history. It has generated a life of it's own with it's own name. 99 percent of UK homes (at the time of writing this) know about this event and will talk about it long after Cameron leaves Number 10. And when the next generation hears about this "Piggate" thing then they look it up, I just hope they get the facts first from Wikipedia and not The Sun. Pounamuknight (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew Davidson. I've always wondered if I could ever say that. Now I can. Begoon ^talk 11:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could have been just one of millions of spurious character assassinations made against public figures, but it's spiralling into a life of its own, and isn't going to disappear very soon '''tAD''' (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Call Me Dave. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but that's an article that will be speedy deleted under CRYSTAL once Matthew Parker gets to hear of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a scandal affecting the leader of an important Western country. It is almost comparable to the Watergate scandal that affected the U.S. in the 1980s and Wikipedia has an article on that so I believe an article should exist on this topic also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfdjh57895689589jgfh (talk • contribs) 12:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with your opinion, but the difference was that Watergate made Nixon resign. That made that example significantly more important '''tAD''' (talk) 13:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be extensive coverage on this, and I suspect it will be referenced a lot in the future when people are criticising Cameron. --ERAGON (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename - the response has made this a notable event, not sure is Piggate is the best title though. Maybe something like 'Michael Ashcroft's allegations about David Cameron' would be better.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also open to the idea of merging with Call me Dave.Jonpatterns (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The idea that Wikipedia is a good repository for such dross is something one well ought take a stand on. The allegation is weakly sourced (single book) and as such is not something favoured in any WP:BLP article. As for being "almost comparable to Watergate" - that sort of claim is sufficiently absurd than anyone closing this should weigh it precisely for what it is worth. Collect (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, this has a just become a channel for everyone who has every had a gripe with Cameron. Is sufficiently covered already.--Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer At latest count, 7 of the "keep" votes are from people with extremely few edits, and another 5 are from people with under 250 total Wikipedia edits. It is likely that some might well be deprecated in any close. Collect (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full details omitted. You have only mentioned the 'keep' voting editors with not many edits, but omitted the 'keep' voting editors with many edits. Also not mentioned is the edit statistics for delete voters.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK then -- of all the delete votes, none are from "new users" with very few edits, and only one has under 250 edits. If anything, I think your request reinforces the disparity being obvious. For "very few" edits the count is 7 to nil for Keep, and for under 250 edits, the count is 12 keep to 1 delete. I am sure the closer will note this <g>. Collect (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that one delete voter attempted to vote twice. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and merge into bio and book article, once the latter is written. --Anthonyhcole (talk • contribs • email) 15:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Call Me Dave. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandals with "-gate" suffix Deku-shrub (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the tone is neutral and free of speculation about orgasm, romantic attachment, erect v. flaccid, ejaculation etc. I salute everyone involved in this fine article. FivePillarPurist (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a legitimate rationale for deletion and a pretty obvious failure of WP:BEFORE given the numerous mentions of "Piggate" and "Pig-gate" in reliable sources.[29] Hack (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article about a notable event Deku-shrub (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Twitter frenzies are not worthy of a separate article, the allegations have already been mentioned in David Cameron. The construction of a separate article gives WP:UNDUE towards the controversy. In addition the title is disgraceful: to compare this to Watergate is both ignorant and morally dubious. While we have to accept that Twitter is a vessel of ignorance, Wikipedia should not be. --Reaganomics88 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:UNDUE states that the opinions of a tiny minority should not be given the same weight as more mainstream opinions. The concept that David Cameron placed a private part in the mouth of a dead pig is no longer the opinion of a tiny minority.

I think it's safe to assume at this point that this AfD has failed, so the question now becomes "do you want to help improve the article?". If you prefer to perform AfD-by-proxy by removing sourced material then there is little anybody can do to help you. Conversely if you accept that the article will continue to exist then a balanced article becomes possible. If you believe that the act is fictional then obtain reliable sources stating that belief and put them in the article: something along the lines of "The veracity of the act has been called into question (sources)". Would you like me to do this for you? There are many sources making statements about the veracity of the act, the techniques of denial, the propriety of publicising an act without also publicising the corroborating evidence, and so on. I can go thru these and collate sources that would enable a balanced article to be written. That would be the best way to approach it.

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC) (Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Also, voting twice does not help your cause either. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY AT 16:53, 23 SEPT 2015

If we count "delete/merge" and "delete" as "DELETE" votes, and we count "keep","Keep/merge","keep/rename", "merge", "merge/redirect", "redirect", "rename", "speedy Keep" and "Strong keep" as "KEEP" votes, then as of 16:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC) the votes are given below. Apologies to anyone I omitted or got wrong:

DELETE

(Delete) 13 - Absolutelypuremilk, HJ Mitchell, Amakuru, Bromley86, Collect, Cullen328, Mezigue, Neiltonks, Panyd, Reaganomics88, RichardOSmith, Triangl, WJBscribe,
(Delete/Merge) 2 - Bilorv, Vituzzu
Total: 15

KEEP

(Keep) 26 - Adhoc1914, Aethyta, Anthonyhcole, Arianna the First, Artw, Autospark, Begoon, bogdan, David Gerard, Deb, Deku-shrub, ERAGON, FivePillarPurist, Ghfdjh57895689589jgfh, Grumpy Marmoset 20, Jbbdude, Lhzuckp4, marcusbm, Nlight2, Pounamuknight, Rubbish computer 16, Stroller, tAD, Topperfalkon, Uhooep, Zbrnajsem,
(Keep/merge) 3 - Andrew D., Mongreilf, Peaky76,
(Keep/Rename) 1 - Jonpatterns,
(Merge) 1 - Rsrikanth05,
(Merge/Redirect) 1 - §§Dharmadhyaksha§§
(Redirect) 1 - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing),
(Rename) 1 - Black Kite
(Speedy Keep) 5 - 73.152.128.104, AlisonW, Anameofmyveryown, Andy Dingley, Reluctant Corrector,
(Strong Keep) 2 - AusLondonder, Kicior99,
Total: 41

OTHER

Cannot tell (various) 4 - TheLongTone, Rsrikanth05, Hack, Ashley Y
Total: 4

That gives us:

41 Keeps (or variants thereof, including 3 merge/redirects)
15 Delete (ditto, including one delete/merge)
04 Others

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but this is not a vote. Also, as has been noted above, many of the keep !votes are potentially from single-purpose accounts (e.g. Adhoc1914)... they should perhaps be tagged with {{subst:SPA}}. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially? WP:WEASEL, perchance?..:-) However, speaking seriously for a moment, you'd have to go thru each editor, note their votecount and their date of joining...and as of this mark there are sixty-two editors listed. Ouch. It's a valid exercise if you have the time, but you'd have to do it for yea and no alike to be valid, and Lord that's not going to be easy...

As for the not-a-vote thing, that door swings both ways. The fact that "keeps" outweigh "deletes" by two-to-one adds weight to the fact that there is no consensus for deletion and, failing an entirely-plausible-honest-guvnor last minute rush by newly-minted SPAs voting "NAY!", there isn't going to be either. As this AfD grinds its weary way to "no consensus for deletion", the question moves to "how do we improve the article"...and that is not going to be easy either. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is extreemely misleading at best to describe my proposal to redirect as meaning "keep". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The topic has received significant coverage in numerous relevant non-trivial, independent, third party and secondary sources. It is a very notable event with a large amount of mainstream print and broadcast news media coverage generated in multiple major daily and national newspapers, and news magazines, therefore meets WP:GNG. In addition, the worldwide, international media coverage is also significant. The article is well-sourced and there is clearly enough information and coverage for it to stand-alone and does not need to be merged.

'Piggate' is the most common and widely used term that is attached to it. It is not low-level rumour or gossip, but a major world event and scandal of a well-known public figure that is a major topic of discussion in British politics and abroad as it affects the way David Cameron's reputation as a Prime Minister is viewed by the public. The indications suggest that this topic will have long-term significance.

This event may become especially notable as David Cameron will not stand for election again and Piggate may be his political epitaph. Alternatively, this would also be a topic of discussion if David Cameron decides to stand for prime minister in a third election campaign. Either way it will determine the perception and policy of the Conservative Party for at least five years and could influence the next general elections in 2020. Tanbircdq (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could, but then it could not (and probably won't). Making guesses based on what's likely to play a role in the 2020 general election sounds like crystal-balling to me. Robofish (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per Tanbircdq. Autarch (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep- this is a scandal that seems to have garnered enough attention in mainstream media to warrant an article. However, we don't know yet whether it will become well-known in future or whether it's just a passing news fad that isn't notable long-term. Best to keep the article for now in my opinion, but the outcome of this AfD may need to be revisited in future. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 18:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:NOTNEWS for goodness sake. Rcsprinter¹²³ (gab) 19:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rcsprinter123, have you read WP:NOTNEWS? AusLondonder (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is there any reason not to assume it is David Cameron's people who are pushing for deletion? Whether or not the allegations are true, this has become another piece of Twitter #gate history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadethesage (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we comment on content, not on the contributor. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And because we assume good faith, and because most of the people who want to delete the article have hundreds if not thousands of edits, while some of the keepers (like yourself) have none or barely any outside of this AfD. Is there any reason not to assume that you're one of Lord Ashcroft's "people", or working for Labour etc. because you're pushing to keep? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 06:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A major news story with widespread implications, and the source is highly reliable. Wikipedia pages exist for events such as Lewinsky Scandal and similar, therefore I don't see a reason to delete this one. Powermugu (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Response the Lewinsky scandal was an actual scandal (even though Clinton denied it to start with). There was an actual story, complete with facts. 'Pig gate' is an unsubstantiated rumour (for the minute at least). Wikipedia should not jump on bandwagons, nor have the attitude that it should get a new article out and published as soon as possible. Once facts have been established, either way, then it might be time to look at the inclusion of a separate article regarding this gossip (that's all it currently is).
Keep, WP:GNG is met. Darmokand (talk) 21:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Objectively written article based on numerous credible references. JJARichardson (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with a view towards a likely Future Merge with Call Me Dave. "Piggate' is simply the reaction to an allegation made in a (indisputably notable) book, which also has its own article, complete with a "reception" section. Neither article has much content yet, but it's difficult to see any encyclopedia-worthy content for Piggate that isn't fundamentally a description of reactions to the release of that book. It is possible that "Piggate" will evolve into a substantial and sustained phenomenon separate from the book (e.g. Cameron repeatedly facing embarrassing questions from notable people, being followed around by people dressed as pigs or an actual photo appearing and further hilarity ensuing). Since the articles could develop in substantially different directions over the next couple of weeks I think voting for deletion at this stage would be premature. But I think it's far more likely the term should ultimately be a redirect to the Wikipedia page for the book, as suggested by various others. Dtellett (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Call Me Dave, or else Delete. It's an amusing story, but we don't need articles on transient Twitter jokes (Anyone remember Ed Balls (Twitter meme)?). There's little reason to think there's going to be more to add here, or that this will have a lasting impact. Some of the 'Reactions' section could be merged into the article on the book, but should be kept in proportion with the rest of the article and the more newsworthy material. Robofish (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has attracted worldwide coverage and has probably put everyone off of Pork for life!, Anywho meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also wouldn't be averse to merging this article eventually with the article on Call Me Dave. No doubt there's a lot more interesting and pertinent material within the book that may ultimately flesh out its article. Until that point, merging all of this text without loss of information might violate WP:UNDUE, and it remains the case that this particular narrative about a major public figure occupied large portions of the world's serious press for several days. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Whether or not this allegation turns out to be true. Or will eventually become merely a footnote in the row between Lord Ashcroft and David Cameron, the fact remains this is part of Twitter #gate history and should be kept. Little Panther (talk) 10:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC) (moved from Talk: Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - The term has been used throughout the media both domestically and internationally. IJA (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This shouldn't even be a question. This is a major news story concerning the elected leader of one of the most influential nations in the world. As such, it has been covered and reported on by a staggering array of news outlets, ranging from the "upper crust" to "your mom's blog". There really is no question that this belongs on Wikipedia. Sprhodes (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not going away, has lots of reliable news sources. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Borderline new-ish, but seems worthy enough an event and is sourced; whether the claim are true or not, it at drew enough attention and reflects on either the accused and/or the accusers. Aaron Schulz 04:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsubstantiated gossip doesn't deserve its own article. Should be (and has been) mentioned in the article about Cameron, perhaps, and on Lord Ashcroft's article. Revise if evidence actually turns up. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its absence would be more notable than its presence. This has dominated political conversation.Wikiditm (talk) 07:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To summarise

This is not a vote of course, but there does seem to be a general consensus in favour of keeping at the minute, in light of heavy documentation and discussion by the media as a political scandal, comments from notable figures, and the fact that it concerns one of the top world leaders. A good number of the negative responses lend credence to a merge with the book article, rather than actual deletion, or centre around the triviality/ truth of the claim. The debate seems to have rotated in favour of keeping as the story has developed, but I think we should still keep things open for another three days of debate in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion--ERAGON (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The weekend press should be interesting. There's definitely a deeper political story going on with Piggate just the famous and amusing bit, I'll be surprised if someone doesn't write up something well-researched on the topic - David Gerard (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Black Mirror coincidence has just resulted in a revival of that show. [30] --ERAGON (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Michael Ashcroft's book makes a number of allegations, the most substantial of which concerns Cameron's knowledge of Ashcrofts residency status. The business about where he allegedly put his dishonourable member is merely the most lurid and amusing. In view of this it seems right and proper that coverage of the affair belongs in Call Me Dave; in point of fact the existence of an article on PigGate and another on the book (which would surely be incomplete without discussion of the topic) risks a POV fork at worst and a substantial duplication of content at best.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible, but also WP:CRYSTAL. We can merge the articles as and when the possibility you describe becomes a problem. But for now, all that's getting media coverage is Piggate, Piggate, Piggate - David Gerard (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Absolutely astonished that this is even being considered for deletion. It is vital to democracy itself that Cameron be held to account. Piggate has dominated political and much other conversation all over the UK if not the world. Deleting this would simply suggest that David Cameron, Rupert Murdoch and their greed, selfish, evil superrich friends control everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.178.144 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the book. This is the right call, although it will take a strong closer to make it during the hoopla. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an unpublished book? A book with less sourcing than this story? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is so far the bit of the book that's actually achieved notability - David Gerard (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An unpublished book certainly, but it would be futile to say that it is not notable thanks to this affair.TheLongTone (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely to become a notable book, but if this one story is enough for the (unpublished) book to inherit notability just from this, it's a non sequitur to think that it would then make the lead story non-notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a legitimate article about an event that occurred. It is perfectly valid in every way. Huritisho (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Call Me Dave. I must confess this particular scandal largely passed me by as it's been a busy week during which I've tended to get most of my news from the BBC. But reading up on this event I really don't think it's notable enough at present for a standalone article, and could be sufficiently covered in the article about Ashcroft's book. No doubt it will turn out to be one of many claims made by the author about the Prime Minister, so let's focus on making Call Me Dave a comprehensive article once it's published. Piggate is currently less than a week old, and may well become next week's fish and chip paper. If that doesn't happen and it continues over several weeks/months then we can always create a separate article on the topic later. This is Paul (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like like a political attack or satire, makes wikipedia a laughing stock and has massive BLP issues as well recentism issues. I can see no reason to keep, half a paragraph in the Cameron article would have sufficed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just how does this make Wikipedia a laughing stock? It's not Wikipedia with its willy in a pig's mouth. As for BLP issues, as is made clear, it is clearly stated that it is an unsubstantiated allegation.

Redirect to Call Me Dave for now as although there's plenty of sourcing for this, there may not be enough for a separate article such as Watergate itself and it may be best connected to the book. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to an appropriate article. Pretty much textbook WP:NOTNEWS. At present there is nothing to suggest that this will be of any lasting significance. A Twitterstorm does not create notability. Also there is the concern about poorly-sourced and salacious details about living people. Kahastok talk 10:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Call Me Dave, which appears to be the only source of the allegations. Other sources are just recycled comment and opinion. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hate all scandals automatically being called "whatevergate", "piggate" or "#piggate" is what this is called as far as most people are concerned. And it is a very real thing and has caused a great deal of difficulty for UK broadcasters as they had to carefully explain the whole sordid matter in news broadcasts without falling foul of the broadcasting guidelines, laughing or throwing up. So the name has to remain, although a redirect would be sufficient if it gets merged elsewhere, and our coverage of this event has to be retained in a complete but not excessive way. I find it hard to say whether it should be merged as it is hard to tell how much substance there is to the core allegation and how much is just an unsubstantiated allegation made by, um, lets end that sentence here shall we? So I guess my !vote is keep or merge+redirect as you think best but definitely do not delete it completely. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this has been mentioned by multiple major news outlets, just a google news search for Piggate shows articles from the Daily Mirror, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Huffington Post, Russia Today and even the Sydney Morning Herald from the other side of the world. This could also be David Cameron's bacon sandwich photo moment, of which the photo has its own article. This photo also definitely swayed some peoples' opinions of Ed Miliband during the election period. Seagull123 Φ 18:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge with Call Me Dave. Brythones (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUMMARY AT 23:14 27 SEPTEMBER 2015

If we count

"delete/merge" and "delete" as "DELETE" votes,
"merge", "merge/redirect" and "redirect" as "MERGE" votes, and
"weak keep", "weak keep/merge", "keep","Keep/merge","keep/rename", "rename", "speedy Keep" and "Strong keep" as "KEEP" votes

then the tally is given below (apologies to anybody I got wrong).

DELETE

(Strong delete) 1 - Rcsprinter123
(Delete) 15 - Absolutelypuremilk, HJ Mitchell, Amakuru, Bromley86, Collect, Cullen328, Mezigue, Neiltonks, Panyd, Reaganomics88, RichardOSmith, Triangl, WJBscribe, 98.122.20.56, RichardWeiss
(Delete/Merge) 4 - Bilorv, Vituzzu, Brythones, Robofish
(Delete/redirect) 1 - Kahastok
Total: 21

MERGE

(Merge) 5 - Rsrikanth05, Carrite, Mean as custard, TheLongTone, This is Paul
(Merge/Redirect) 1 - §§Dharmadhyaksha§§
(Redirect) 2 - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing), SwisterTwister
Total: 8

KEEP

(Weak keep) 2 - Aaron Schulz, Chessrat
(Weak Keep/Merge) 1 - Dtellett
(Keep) 35 - Adhoc1914, Aethyta, Anthonyhcole, Arianna the First, Artw, Autospark, Begoon, bogdan, David Gerard, Deb, Deku-shrub, ERAGON, FivePillarPurist, Ghfdjh57895689589jgfh, Grumpy Marmoset 20, Jbbdude, Lhzuckp4, marcusbm, Nlight2, Pounamuknight, Rubbish computer 16, Stroller, tAD, Topperfalkon, Uhooep, Zbrnajsem, 97.126.235.119, Davey2010, IJA, JJARichardson, Little Panther, Sadethesage, Seagull123, Wikiditm, Darmokand
(Keep/merge) 4 - Andrew D., Mongreilf, Peaky76, DanielRigal
(Keep/Rename) 1 - Jonpatterns,
(Rename) 1 - Black Kite
(Speedy Keep) 5 - 73.152.128.104, AlisonW, Anameofmyveryown, Andy Dingley, Reluctant Corrector,
(Strong Keep) 8 - AusLondonder, Kicior99, 92.1.178.144, Autarch, Huritisho, Powermugu, Sprhodes, Tanbircdq
Total: 57

OTHER

Cannot tell (various) 4 - TheLongTone, Rsrikanth05, Hack, Ashley Y
Total: 4

That gives us:

57 Keeps (or variants thereof)
21 Deletes (or variants thereof)
08 Merges (or variants thereof)
04 Others

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This "summary" is unhelpful, misleading and contrary to WP:AFDEQ: "Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page". RichardOSmith (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus has shifted away from deletion as the case went on- after seven days most of the later debates seemed to focus on whether or not to merge with the book, rather than a full-on delete. The only real delete arguments are the not news, notability and truthfulness lines- but I think the notability one has been achieved through the sheer volume of journalism that has gone on, and the truthfulness of the allegations is actually kinda irrelevant as far as we are concerned. It is a debate which, true or no, has had an impact on the reputation of one of the world's top leaders, and that is that. Is there an admin in the house to make a final decision on the matter? I am in favour of flat out keeping, but if people want to keep for now and start a merger request that is also fine.--ERAGON (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Naturally there is a lot of excitement about such a titillating (prickillating?) topic, but WP:NOTNEWS says that current twitterings should be ignored until something of enduring significance happens. If a political figure were to resign, or even if they took a hit in the polls which reliable sources attributed to the "scandal", the topic may have encyclopedic significance. Meanwhile, it is just prattle. Recreate the article in three months if reliable sources still refer to the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as Piggate may be a ridiculous smear campaign which doesn't deserve any attention, it is a ridiculous smear campaign which has received significant coverage in RS; hence, it probably meets WP:GNG. NickCT (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete/merge - Very temporary and quickly subsumed media coverage. No international interest (every non-UK country on Google Trends has an index of 0 on "piggate"). Subject matter itself is obviously ridiculous, and is only covered by media outlets tongue-in-cheek. Even we regard it as news, refer to WP:NOTNEWS. Unclemilt2 (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Yes it has been in all the papers, but it is a typical storm-in-a-teacup short-term media frenzy that will be forgotten in a month or two. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a gossip sheet. To those saying "meets the GNG", please read the fifth bullet-point of WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not." JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Burhan Bashir Bhat

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

Biographical article of 3 year old child who was killed in firing by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir state of India. Obviously 3 year old child is non-notable, there is article named Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir to add such incidences. So as per WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, article should be deleted. Human3015^TALK 13:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 13:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep this Double murder of father (described as a "former member" of terrorist group Jamiat-ul-MujahideenJamiat-ul-Mujahideen) with child in his arms certainly received substantive [31] national coverage in India. I think it can be kept, but only if the article's author or another editor takes the time to turn it into a better written, NPOV article on this as a double murder, or as one in a series of such murders as described in the Indian press accounts. As presently written, this is POV attempt to use Wikipedia as a political advertisement and should be deleted or merged.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if the coverage is sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - sufficient coverage....--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: don't we usually in these cases, where there obviously is not coverage to write a regular bio, default to an article title like "Murder of XX"? Pinging (Human3015—E.M.Gregory—SwisterTwister—BabbaQ). -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think coverage is not enough to rename it to "incidence". Only 4-5 lines can be written on this incidence. It can be part of parent article of Human rights abuse. Such incidences of killings are nearly daily thing in Kashmir. --Human3015^TALK 10:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly it should be renamed in a more standard way. There is enough in the major papers for a brief good article on this double murder.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, sufficient coverage, but I agree with the conversation above. Kharkiv07 (T) 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and it's WP:NOTNEWS as the nominator points out, there was WP:SENSATIONal coverage at the time, mentioning Aylan Kurdi, although the two have nothing in common. There is no WP:LASTING impact. Another victim of a long civil war, today big news, tomorrow forgotten. Kraxler (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up For Students

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

Unsourced. I will withdraw it once RSes are found. Eat me, I'm a red bean (talk · contribs) 13:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Page was created by a now blocked user Candleabracadabra and the page was auto-patrolled.—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources I could find such as this, this, this and this. Seems to pass GNG. Article needs a major revamp though. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Jeb Bush as the sources are minimally but redirect if there isn't a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's a borderline WP:GNG keep, but appears to definitely meet WP:BASIC, since while there references which are just passing mentions, there are quite a few of those: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move - based on the references above (though not the one about dancing!) I think the article could be kept, but it is just one of two organizations currently authorised to adminster the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program [32], which is subject to legal challenge,[33] so maybe a merge/move/redirect might be a more appropriate solution. See also Scholarship Tax Credit. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bodrog

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

No hits in google new archives, hits in Google are most all social media or adverts. No evidence of notibility --Nuujinn (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing at all as well! SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article has no references and we can't seem to find anything to help. PK T(alk) 14:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Chen

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable person - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Previous AFD in 2014 closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as he would be best mentioned as part of another article. Pinging past users Tom Morris, Kierzek, I am One of Many, SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

National Union of Students in Iceland

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

Non-notable organisation, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic JMHamo (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This article reads like a press release and makes no claims to significant notability. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'll wait for a better article to come and I found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure). JMHamo (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Ferrier

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR... JMHamo (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Fails WP:BIO, reads more like a CV~~ JMHamo (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cite it for style, or failure to use in-line sources, but certainly not for failing bio. He has been recognized by the French Ministry of Culture and awarded multiple prizes. He was selected to design the French pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo [34], among many others. There are works analyzing his style [35]. SusunW (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bizarre nomination posted less than one minute aka sixty seconds after the entry has been started. Failure to capture one individual wiki user's interest is not a sufficient reason to delete anything. Entry has been started by an apparently new contributor, and the deletion request will simply risk deterring people from contributing to wikipedia which seems a very strange thing to wish to do. The speed with which nominator nominated so many entries for deletion [36] means that either (1) he reads several times faster than the rest of us or (2) he nominates things for deletion without reading them. Either way, this presumably runs counter to Wikipedia's stated ambitions for itself.

Nominator spells out only one objection to the entry. Jacques Ferrier entry has been substantially expanded since nomination submitted, and since we must be sensitive to the nominator's style preferences, let us hope it no longer reads "like a CV" ("résumé") in his eyes. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. The editors calling for deletion make the powerful argument that independent, reliable sources are lacking. Those opining for "Keep" counter with subjective claims of importance and concerns about systematic bias. Though such claims are tenuous without at least a some sourcing to back them up they cannot be completely discounted and at least a couple of mentions have been adduced. Given the tenor of the discussion, therefor cannot see that a consensus for deletion has been established at the present time. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The Burning Bush

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator with reason "it is the only reformed theological journal in singapore", which does not show notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is in the Christian periodical index http://cpi.acl.org/cpititles.html

WP:NJournals has the provisions:

"Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may well exist. Some journals may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for the work they have published. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of quality of publications: The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: To a degree, journals are the sources upon which much of Wikipedia's contents are built. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable."

Considering its worldwide circulation, 20 year history, and 1 of the 2 theological journals in Singapore, out of over a dozen institutions, I'd say it's pretty successful. Further, it contains a ton of historically and ecclesiastically valuable content such as a primer on the doctrine of preservation, festschrifts, memoirs, chronological milestones, legal exchanges (with reference to Singapore Judiciary), and annotated critiques of academics' works in universities and seminaries.

"It is possible for a journal to be notable according to this standard and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. Often, this will be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources."

for these reasons, I propose KEEP Bpc.sg (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bpc.sg, in your first point you seem to argue that NJournals is only an essay. That is correct, but if we choose to ignore NJournals and apply WP:GNG instead, then The Burning Bush fails even more. A 20-year history does not necessarily make something notable, if it hasn't been noted in all that time. This seems to be the case here, as GScholar indicates just a few citations to articles in this journal. The "worldwide distribution" is rather modest, I fear. WorldCat indicates that just 5 US libaries list it in their holdings (with a world-wide count of 8 or so). Being one of only 2 theological journals in Singapore is not a valid claim to notability. And whether or not we find the content valuable is besides the point: what we need is that independent reliable sources remark on the content (whether in a positive or a negative way). The second point you quote from NJournals is irrelevant if the journal is not notable (it just says that the journal's homepage can be used as a source for non-controversial info if the journal is notable). --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I get your point on the independent reliable sources now. Actually it is very hard to find them because there are no independent historians at the moment. Everything, usually positive contributions, is usually done under the auspices of the church, college or denomination. More often than not, it is only when there are negative remarks that such sources surface. Have added in. Bpc.sg (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be honest, if I had thought it was notable, I would have created the article myself. I saw it listed as a redlink at List of theology journals, and considered creating it, but I didn't think it would meet the notability threshold. Its publisher, Far Eastern Bible College, certainly does, and I created that article instead. St Anselm (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Interesting list there. Perhaps, the publication, given its representation of the college and prodigious output on VPP, could have some "imputed" notability? Bpc.sg (talk) 02:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Far Eastern Bible College.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This has the feel of a minor (but regionally significant) theological journal. Theology being something of a niche subject cannot be expected to appear in general arts citation indices, which are in any event much less well developed than scientific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable theology journals aqre routinely included in, for example, Scopus of the Arts and Humanities Citation Index. There is also the specialized ATLA Religion Database, which contains many small theology journals and is specialized in this "niche subject". This journal is in none of these databases, not even the ATLA one. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Peterkingiron. This is the most important source for the (admittedly small) field of Asian Calvinism. The essay WP:NJournals says "Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject". Now, worldcat only shows 8 holdings, but that does include institutions in the Netherlands and Taiwan, and it's missing Harvest Bible College. St Anselm (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. But even if we assume that only 1 in 3 libraries is actually correctly listing their holdings of BB, we still have only 24 libraries subscribing worldwide, which is really a negligible number, even for a very specialized subject. There are quite a number of Calvinist theology libraries in the Netherlands, for example. --Randykitty (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Independent sources added. Scholarly articles are representative of college and has historical and eccleasiastical value. The journal also contain a wealth of articles relating to the Verbal Plenary Preservation debate. See **http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/Textual_Criticism_101_Theological_Faith_Based_versus_Naturalistic_Rationalistic_Louis_M_Kole.pdf
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University and the KJV: A Critique of From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 1-24.
- Timothy Tow, "Death in the Pot!," The Burning Bush 7 (2001): 35-37.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "A Plea for a Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 9 (2003): 1-15.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "The Emergence of Neo-Fundamentalism: One Bible Only? or "Yea Hath God Said?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 2-47.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Judges 18:30: Moses or Manasseh?," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 48-53.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "John Owen on the Perfect Bible," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 74-85.
- Prabhudas Koshy, "Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on the Corrupt Septuagint," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 93-95.
- Quek Suan Yew, "Did God Promise to Preserve His Words?: Interpreting Psalm 12:6-7," The Burning Bush 10 (2004): 96-98.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Sola Autographa or Sola Apographa?: A Case for the Present Perfection and Authority of the Holy Scriptures," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 3-19.
- Timothy Tow, "‘My Glory Will I Not Give to Another’ (Isaiah 42:8)," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 67-68.
- Carol Lee, "A Child of God Looks at the Doctrine of Verbal Plenary Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 69-81.
- Jeffrey Khoo, "Bob Jones University, Neo-Fundamentalism, and Biblical Preservation," The Burning Bush 11 (2005): 82-97. Bpc.sg (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I don't see any "independent sources" that you mention above in the article. The list of articles that appeared in BB does not prove anything either. GScholar (which does include even minor theological journals, because it strives to be complete) does not show any evidence that any of these articles have been noted outside of the BB itself. --Randykitty (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had not been aware of this journal until I found a notice that this article was nominated for deletion. I find the journal to be a distinctive and significant voice for a specific theological circle. I have already cited journal in a Wikipedia article and expect to cite the journal again. It is linked to a number of other articles here. I may not agree with all of it, but I think it deserves a place here in Wikipedia. Pete unseth (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you by any chance have any policy-based reason to keep this article, apart from the fact that you like it? --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - File this under the policy of iAR if you wish, but I am loath to delete articles on journals. We are a source-driven website, and if any journal is used as a source there should exist an opportunity to make that title a blue link with at least a minimal explanation of the nature of the journal being cited. Since this publication has, in one form or another, been around since 1971, it is not one of those less defensible promotional pieces for brand new academic journals, but is rather a good faith effort at providing historical coverage. For this reason, I advise we look the other way on sourcing in this specific case for the good of the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wile I sympathize with this sentiment, it makes deciding which journals to keep and which ones not a very difficult and subjective one: all one needs to do is create some references here and there on WP and, presto! A notable journal is born. In the present case, I think some of today's edits argue that this is merely the house journal of a (small) seminary. --Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peterkingiron, (talk), Pete unseth, and Carrite for your appraisal. I think there is no question on the historical and ecclesiastical value. To build on Carrite's point, I think Wikipedia does allow for subjective appraisal since a given set of "objective" rules cannot be all-encompassing. What Carrite said echoes the expert opinion of professional archivists I've spoken to in real life. Because appraisal is both an art and a science, a checklist, while it is good, can only provide a guideline. It is ultimately up to humans to make the call. I applaud Randykitty's call to stay objective but not everyone is as objective as you are. For example, Calvary Baptist Church in Bucyrus, Ohio [37] chose to link to [38] instead of [39]. The same goes for [40] (p3) (it's reproduced).

[41] does link to them on at least 4 items under on the left navigation menu: Dr Jeffrey Khoo, Divine Inspiration, Divine Preservation, Divine Identification. [42] (p5) is not listed in any citation count. Also, [43], [44] (p349), [45] (p116)

I think this journal is quite influential in the subject area of verbal plenary preservation, given the prodigious output on the topic so much so that it has been criticized. With regards to the articles, topics relating to John Sung, Calvin [46] (from Calvin Seminary!), confessionalism and revivalism in the BPC by third party (http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/The%20Burning%20Bush%20Vol%203%20No%202.pdf), as well as timelines in http://www.febc.edu.sg/assets/pdfs/bbush/TheBurningBushVol18No2.pdf all have rich historical value to Singapore church history and ecclesiastical importance to Calvinist and reformed circles in the region.

Since under WP:NJournals, only one criteria needs to be met:

The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
The journal has an historic purpose or a significant history.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, I would say it pretty much hits 1 and 3: influential in VPP subject, serves a historical purpose to Singapore church history.

Bpc.sg (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bpc.sg, but given there is only a handful of citations and such, I cannot consider this influential and even less historical. It's as wide a miss of NJournals as can be, not to mention GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy regarding WP:NJournals mentions being "influential in its subject area". If we use metrics that focus on theology in North America and Europe, it will rank lower. But I believe it is influential and authoritative in documenting a stream of churches and theology in Singapore. I have argued elsewhere for a greater number of articles on non-North American topics. By these, and other criteria, I believe the article on The Burning Bush should be retained. There are not many voices on this page, but the number of people calling for deletion are not overwhelming. I vote to keep it Pete unseth (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NJournals indeed mentions that, but in order for that to apply, we need objective evidence that it is indeed influential, for example by being highly cited (relative to its field). Theoloy is a low citation-density field, but even taking that into account, I don't see any evidence that this has any influence on the field of theology at all, not even in its narrow subject matter. I am all for a greater number of articles on non North American topics, but in order to remain a serious encyclopedia, we need sources and independent evidence. --Randykitty (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be my recommendation, I would have expected some decent coverage after twenty years. I reject the non-standard approach that the keepers are trying to apply. Yes, there can be exceptions in exceptional cases, I don't see any evidence that this is one of them. --Bejnar (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rasool shahsevani

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

I do not think this meets the guidelines of WP:BLP. Referring to the subject of the article as an international genius is not neutral and the sources that were given are difficult to verify. Additionally I have broader concerns about the notability of this person. I think in order to bring this page into compliance, it would have to be fundamentally rewritten. Therefore I am proposing its deletion. Mww113 (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "#1 ref" has the name of the subject mentioned at two places. "#2 ref" Mentions Shahsavani at 1 place. "#3 ref" does not mention the subject. The above written "Find sources" link does not give any sources. No third party reliable sources which discuss the subject in a little detail or has significant coverage about the subject to establish notability. So, fails WP:Notability & WP:Sources. Peppy Paneer (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as there's simply nothing to suggest better at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To answer Falcadore's question, strong modifiers to a keep or delete mean nothing at all when closing these things. A week modifier does, however, bear noticing, but the primary issue is strength of arguments, not "counting snouts". Courcelles (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Furry

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

No notability demonstrated. Grahame (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor party functionary and unsuccessful local government candidate. The Young Australian of the Year award is regional only and does not demonstrate notability in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
strong delete obvious autobio created by a single purpose editor. None of the positions held confer notability. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: I'm curious to know what exactly a "strong" delete is. Does it serve any purpose beyond hyperbole? --Falcadore (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you will sometimes also see people vote weak keep or delete. LibStar (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an answer. You can't say we have "strongs" becease we have "weaks". That doesn't explain a thing. How does a strong delete differ from a delete? --Falcadore (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete autobiography of a non-notable person. Probably created for a future ballot to create notability Spoonalious (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable achievements, nor any notablity established for any positions held. --Falcadore (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foyr

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

Does not meet wp:notability, reference cited seems to be more PR related and does not focus the notability of the subject Shrikanthv (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, startup that does not appear to meet WP:CORP. —Kusma (t·c) 11:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing to suggest better and even with Indian coverage not being easy to find, it's imaginable this is set for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo González Ibarra

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

Open and shut case of an unacceptable article as it never clarifies what his political positions are or were and my searches found absolutely nothing with the sole link of his campaign simply taking you to his LinkedIn and it appears the article was started by his family in December 2008 (Spanish naming customs, if that's the case here, suggest "González" may be a close connection as a brother or son). Pinging possibly interested user Dravecky who removed the speedy and added the COI tag. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, that speedy decline was December 1, 2008, so that's a callback. Still lacks sources nearly seven years later but I'm not currently in a position to research whether such sources exist so I won't !vote at this time. - Dravecky (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a candidate who didn't win he fails WP:NPOL. Coverage I can find is mostly mudslinging by political opponents (which I won't post because it's ugly) so fails WP:GNG as well. Deleted as spam from eswiki in 2008. Vrac (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only claim here is that he was an unsuccessful candidate in an election, which is not a claim that satisfies WP:NPOL. If it can actually be shown that he ever actually held another notable office besides that fact, then I'm willing to reconsider — but it's not a keepable article as currently written, since it doesn't make or source a substantive notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor Shouts

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

My searches found nothing at all to suggest this got even minimal third-party coverage and their website is now closed (archive.org suggests it may have closed in early 2012) and there's simply no improvement and it has unsurprisingly not changed since starting in February 2007. I had actually found this article but put it aside to nominate later and this could easily be PRODded and maybe even speedy but I wanted comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't seem to be particularly noteworthy. Mww113 (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, search brings up nothing about this magazine except for wikiarticles and this [47] who was apparently a (co-)creator/contributor(?) to the magazine from Feb 2007 when the wikiarticle was created by a SPA of a different username to 2008 when it was discontinued?Coolabahapple (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Black (company)

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

I actually live very close where this company is located (and pass it quite frequently but never knew it was there) and I can't say I'm all that familiar with it and my searches simply found nothing good with the best here (business listing) and here (two links, one a local TV news story and the other press release for a sponsorship) and here (a few more mentions from online magazines). The awards and magazine features are admirable but there's simply nothing to suggest better improvement (article has existed since April 2007 with hardly much change) and simply appears to be a local company. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know diddly about men's grooming products other than that I have seen this one at multiple high end stores. Clearly notable, scores of articles which can be used to improve the piece. green diary, GQ Magazine Wall Street Journal American Financial Review, ad week, buzzfeed, Men's Journal. One of those cases where the "length of coverage" is not offset by the overwhelming "depth of coverage". That every one of these sources mentions the products tells you that it is a notable company--there are thousands of products to choose from but repeatedly Jack Blacks is chosen. Some have one sentence, but some have more. Add to that Addison Magazine's piece on the 15 year anniversary of the company or this one from [www.examiner.com/article/jack-black-a-men-s-grooming-fave-introduces-new-intense-therapy-lip-balms the Examiner] or this one from Country Times both of which give background on the company's founding and there is certainly plenty of room for expansion and improvement of the article. It concerns me greatly that the discernment to evaluate notability is not a requirement for being able to nominate files for deletion. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources offered by SusanW but what I saw were mentions, blog posts (the Addison Magazine is a "post" by a college student), and one very short article on the company. The only possibly notable source that I see is one about the founder of the business. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per LaMona and nom. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at all the sources supplied by SusanW. The Addison article is reasonably in-depth, but it doesn't really meet WP:NCORP, and the local nature of the publication ("The magazine of the North Dallas Corridor") down-weights whatever significance it may have. None of the others even come close. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Please nominate the article space page (Parker Sonnet) instead of the talk page. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 10:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Parker Sonnet

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

Not notable. AmritasyaPutra^T 06:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trustive

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is fully notable as the best results I found were this, this, this and this and it seemed to have gotten the most attention around 2007. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches turned up some hits but were either brief mentions or press releases. Can't see how it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keifer Phill

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

Is a member of the U-19 US Cricket team notable? A junior player, in a very minor sport in the US. No evidence he's a professional. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as although I'm not familiar with cricket and he seems to have participated at championships and tournaments, I'm not finding not much about him aside from links here and a few more here. Here I thought you never involved yourself with sports, DGG. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it sometimes, when I see something odd enough, but I don't go chase them down the way I do other subjects. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCRIC. I think under-19 international cricketers (who haven't played at senior domestic level) would only be considered notable if they do something outstanding, like captain their country or be one of the best players at the World Cup. IgnorantArmies (talk) 04:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per IA above. Johnlp (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Unbound

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

My searches found nothing to suggest better notability or general improvement with the best results being here. At best, this should be mentioned elsewhere SwisterTwister talk 01:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the group appeared in one storyline of the Shadowpact series, and they weren't notable enough to be mentioned in that article's plot summary. Doesn't seem like there's any point in merging. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Khamoshiyan (song)

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

Song fails WP:NSONGS for no multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. One claim is of "Mirchi Top 20" #6 position. But there is no clarity on how these charts are prepared on their website. Also, TOI publishing this top 20 list shouldn't be considered as secondary source as TOI and Radio Mirchi are part of same Times Group. Other reviews from BH, Koimoi, Rediff even if seem notable on first glance, fail NSONGS as "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability"; which is what is happening here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted no consensus NAC, because the argument for deletion appears to be rather well founded. Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Khamoshiyan: While there are some good sources and around 15 million hits on YouTube, everything can be covered in the main article. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources about the song? Where are they? And just the way our page hits don't count, YouTube's hits shouldn't count either; especially with click fraud. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dharmadhyaksha makes compelling arguments regarding the one claim to fame, the charting. Do not believe that passes the criteria for WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Not being very knowledgeable about the Indian music scene, can someone tell me whether the Radio Mirchi list qualifies under WP:CHART? I don't see any Indian charts listed on that page, and when I search Indian music charts on Google the Radio Mirchi list is one of the first results. If the chart is calculated, say, mathematically, then I think this song probably qualifies under WP:NSONG, and there shouldn't be any independence concerns. mikeman67 (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mirchi's website doesn't state anything about how their charts are prepared. With no clarity or transparency we can not consider it to be notable enough to match WP:CHART. Although if this can be established then we can reconsider. But recently on one occasion at the AFD of "Ainvayi Ainvayi" I discovered that Radio mirchi was media partner of the film and had launched various promotional schemes, mainly one scheme where your marriage would be sponsored by the group. The article then also claimed that the song from this film was in top 20 for 38 weeks!! Well, that's promotional much. I haven't hunted down who the media partners of this film are. One would have to see various promo videos on youtube or the film itself to see credit list. So its going to be tough to prove notability of this particular chart. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Through the merger could be an alternative option but since there is COI in sources as nominator have stated above a deletion seems to be a better option as compared to the merger. — Sanskari ^Hangout 19:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. (non-admin closure) Mdann52 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gericke

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

I could find no real assertion of notability. This person is a graphic designer who is employed, and has created graphic designs for a number of companies. That's it, as far as I can tell. That describes every single graphic designer (except, well, unemployed ones.) I found no clue that he had ever done anything noteworthy.

There are a lot of references, and some work has clearly gone into the article, so I didn't want to speedy-tag the article in case I missed something. If I didn't, then it's probably a candidate for speedy deletion. Ashenai (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a designer, the actual work he has done is high quality and very notable: e.g. One Laptop per Child. I wonder though, at what point does a designer cease being an employee and become a notable designer on their own? It happened for Massimo Vignelli, the designer of the NYC subway map and signage. But has it happened for this designer? not sure. New Media Theorist (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The answer to your question, New Media Theorist, is the reason this article should be deleted. Plenty of independent, reliable sources devote significant coverage to Vignelli. With this person, there are only passing mentions in reliable sources, and several of the sources do not discuss him at all. Company bios and university magazine blurbs about alumni do not confer notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand exactly what you are saying. But I think the projects might be notable in themselves. See this NYT article on the logo he did for Air Trans, for example. Doing logos for FIFA, Air Trans, 1LPC and the like is notable work. Millions see that kind of work. This is the guy you call when you need a graphic designer for the Rainbow Room, as demonstrated here. He appears to be a heavy hitter in the graphic design world. I see a number of museum collections as well on the list. Sorry but I think I just answered my own question about the tipping point. For now, I will vote keep and watch this discussion with interest. (Regardless of the outcome, the page needs improvement.) New Media Theorist (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Ask a New Yorker if they know who the uber-well sourced WP:NOTABLE Ayah Bdeir is. Probably .02% do. Ask them if they have seen the Airtrain logo. Probably 80% have. Yes, it doesn't have his name on it, but he did do it, and it's a notable accomplishment. I guess I am arguing that massive public dissemination of an artist/designer's work might be grounds for WP:GNG. New Media Theorist (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If he has designed a truly notable logo, then we should have an article about the logo, not the non-notable designer. Name recognition among New Yorkers is not in any sense an indicator of notability here on Wikipedia. There is extensive coverage of Ayah Bdeir, therefore she is notable. This is a biography of Gericke. Wikipedia biographies must be based on significant coverage in reliable, independent sources of the person, not of their well known or recognizable work. This is a well established point here on Wikipedia. In the future, the New York Times and two or three other reliable sources could publish profiles of him as a person and then he would be notable. But where is the significant coverage of him now? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you, Cullen³²⁸, for taking the time to explain this for me. I'm old in human years but young in Wikipedia years, and I learn little bit every time someone takes the time to explain. I am still going to stay with a keep vote, as it turns out there is alot of coverage that has not yet been included in his article. I did some sleuthing and found

five articles in the NYT alone where he receives mention of his work, and the occasional quote: one, two, three, four, and five;
this PBS television site where he discusses his work,
a few more minor sources like this book that published an image of his work, this article where he is described as a co-designer of the a memorial for the Freedom Tower, and this paragraph in an article from Advertising Age.

I think this is enough to satisfy the WP:ARTIST requirement for wide coverage in the case of small mention sources? If not, then in terms of the work on the Freedom Tower monument, that seems to satisfy WP:Artist 4.a: "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument". He also says he is in four museum collections, which is also a WP:ARTIST "(d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." The verifiability on this claim is low as those museums do not seem to have searchable collections. ( I am really not trying to be a PITA newbie on this-- I had a hunch that he was notable, did the research, and I think he is.)New Media Theorist (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for your kind words and for doing the work and finding the sources. I wish that one or two of them had even a few biographical details: his age, hometown, education, previous work experience, and so on. What you have found are commonly referred to as "passing mentions" but cumulatively, I think they add up to something. I would place far less weight on the NYT articles where he is a spokesperson for Pentagram as a company, as opposed to those that include discussion of his own work. At this point, I will stay with "delete" but I encourage you to improve the article using the best of those sources, and I will reconsider if you do so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the exact same way. For me, those sources don't quite add up to notability, but they do come close. Thanks for posting them. I'm quite willing to reconsider my nomination if there proves to be enough coverage in enough independent sources. Right now, I'm still in favor of deletion, or possibly merging into Pentagram (design studio). --Ashenai (talk) 18:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks folks for your comments and attention to this. I took a shot at improving the article by formatting the sections better, toning down the promotional nature, and removing sketchy refs. I think you are both right that there's something to question here re: notability, but I do think he just squeaks by. The research I did turned up a permanent public memorial to 9-11 victims that he co-designed. Added to article under the modest "public memorial work" section. That's about as good of a condition as I can get it to. New Media Theorist (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for your comments and attention to the page. I have added a few more sources about his career and projects. He is notable in the field of graphic design.Kurtck (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurtck just to clarify, is that a vote to keep or delete the article?New Media Theorist (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, I see you work at the same firm...New Media Theorist (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have mentioned the conflict of interest.Kurtck (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible modular scheduling

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

This article has been lacking any useful sources for years. While a google search shows this term exists, it does not appear to be notable. DES ^(talk) 04:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is largely unsourced, and is not notable. There has been no opposition to the deletion of the article. 155blue (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe only to wait for a better article because this certainly exists with searches here, here, here, here and here. DESiegel and 155blue, I wanted to notify you about these links. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ţirād Khurr

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

This is a peculiar article because it seems to be and is "said to be a place" but there's not much information and searches find nothing good and there have hardly been significant edits since starting in August 2005, to this article with mostly "claims" and not facts and such. This has been tagged for familiar attention since November 2008 and considering it's the Middle East, this isn't surprising. Pinging tagger The Anome. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This placename/location pair does indeed appear in the U.S. federal government's NGA GNS database, as evidenced by my bot's edit here. Note that the coordinates there are typically truncated to degrees and minutes of arc only, so the argument about the features on the map might possibly be incorrect. However, I can't find any references on the web to this that are not either derived from this article itself, or obviously generated from a database, and there are no mentions of the place in any book Google has ever scanned: I suspect it may have been a copyright trap on a map somewhere once, and got vacuumed up into the GNS. In the absence of any other evidence for its existence, I propose that this article be deleted. -- The Anome (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – czar 05:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MISoft Studios

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

My searches simply found no good results at all with the best being a patent at Highbeam thus there's nothing to suggest improvement to this sparsely edited article from December 2007. SwisterTwister talk 07:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software company article of unclear notability. Refs provided are company pages and blog and forum posts. The justpressplay.net review (and entire site) is offline, but archive.org shows it as a sort of group blog that mostly reviews films. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this company.Dialectric (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources for notability . DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Rivera Rocafort

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

This person seems to be the head of the Puerto Rico tourism office... and that's about where it ends. I fail to see the notability. Midas02 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG and WP:BASIC since several independent reliable sources cover her exclusively: [48] [49] [50]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer? You might wanted to have noted that you were the writer of this article, so you're not entirely objective in this matter. GNG is an issue here. Both sources you're giving only cover the strategy of the tourism office, NOT the person. And the first source is only a local newspaper, the second one a vague local website. Not much in terms of quality coverage. --Midas02 (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primera Hora, El Nuevo Día, and Caribbean Business are printed and well regarded newspapers with wide distribution in Puerto Rico... GNG is not an issue here at all, she satisfies it easily. Me being the creator of the article is irrelevant to the discussion, GNG does not care if I'm the creator or not. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Besides the sources cited above, Chamber of Commerce, Recognition by the First Lady yes I get that it is one sentence, but recognition nonetheless. confirmation hearing showed wide support of her qualifications, prior business history. Easily meets GNG, multitude of news coverage about her and her tourism projects, but I have included mostly biographical links. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The PRTC isn't just a tourism office. A little digging helps you understand how it is a liaison between the government and business in Puerto Rico. I started out not knowing anything about PRTC or Rivera, but after doing some research to see if she was notable, found out that she's a very major player in Puerto Rico! She makes decisions that help keep a major, million-dollar industry going. She's certainly notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: The thing sounds like a hagiographic biography; my first glance was " looks some PR firm wrote this for their web site, delete," but there IS widespread coverage (though I don't read Spanish, I shall AGF on the assessment of those who do). She passes GNG, but I do think the tone is too promotional. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baci Recordings

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

Promotional, unsourced article about a non-notable record label. MER-C 07:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than some passing mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jawanda

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

I couldn't verify that this is notable. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Sitush, 117.253.204.152 and Mr. Granger. Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete if at all as I found some links here and that's hardly enough for better improvement but I wonder if this can at least kept but trimmed to at least confirm they exist with these links. Boleyn Thoughts? SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation for Family Development

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

My thoughtful searches found nothing good aside from various results at Books and browser and you'll note that the article has basically stayed the same since starting in January 2008 until someone from the group edited and made the article a personal page and that has since been removed. There's also not much info and no move target. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tutelary (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep Under the current and former name they've run a long series on conferences. The article should list these, and it may be possible to find references to them . DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Subaie

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

Sure this is a foreign subject but it seems this is a minor actor and is unlikely to be notable and have considerable coverage and my searches found no good results (not even an IMDb). SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joys Sebastian

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

My searches found no good results with this and this (I'm not sure if this last one is actually him) and the current sourcing is not the best; the article also claims he was a pioneer but unless someone can actually improve this troubled article, I'm not seeing much and it hasn't improved much since starting in February 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ömür Kınay

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

Thinly notable for one film with the listed awards but my searches found no good results at all so it's unlikely there's much about her and no signs of considerable improvement (it's also worth noting it seems her website is now closed). Since starting in December 2008, there's hardly been much change and there's no move target for this orphan. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger L. Wood

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

Non notable. Most sources in the article do not mention Roger Wood nor confirm the claim he was the first African American. Not necessarily a reason to delete, the creator User:BluesLover2389 is a blocked sock part of an undisclosed paid editing org. GreenC 14:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Perhaps rename also. Sandstein 18:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Uloom Bolton

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

There are virtually no sources supporting this article. There is no notability. Even more damaging is the fact that someone took the link to the ofsted report on Jamiyah Islamiyyah and posted it here as a source. Proposing deletion and Salting FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The full name of the school seems to be something like Al Jamiatul Islamiyah Darul Uloom - which (allowing for the usual problems in transcribing from Arabic or Urdu into English) rather suggests that the Ofsted report referenced in the article has simply used a different part of the full name than was used by the article's creator. Assuming this to be the case and as we are dealing with a secondary school, the article looks as if it should be a fairly easy keep under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - even though it looks promotional enough that substantial trimming would be advisable. However, most of the references I have seen seem to be either routine or passing mentions and there seem to be several other schools with distinctly similar names in England (including one in Bury, only about five miles away) - so far as I am concerned, there is enough room for confusion that I would prefer others to check before coming to a firm conclusion. PWilkinson (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. There is indeed a lot of confusion here. Ofsted 26-27 January 2010 and SC 009423 are not relevant to the Wikipedia article's details although the postal address is given as the same. Not only is the latest Ofsted report not 'Outstanding', it is generally only 'Satisfactory' with some items judged as 'Inadequate'. I am tempted to suggest that this article is possibly a hoax. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the planning section at bolton.gov.uk, specifically here, "AL JAMIATUL ISLAMIYAH DARUL ULOOM" was at 296 Willows Lane, Bolton, BL3 4BT at the end of 2013. It was housed in a former convent. There is a Charity Commission report of 2014 for "Al-Jamiatul Islamiyah Darul Uloom Lancashire U.K." based at Willow Lane, Deane, Bolton, BL3 4HF. That report lists a website at www.jamiah-al-islamiyyah.org.uk which appears to be down ATM and not at Wayback. There was an Ofsted report in 2004 about "Al Jamiatul Islamiya Darul Uloom" at Hospital Road, Bromley Cross, Bolton, BL7 9PY which fits the information in the article.

It just looks like a poor article to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a genuine secondary school, which we keep per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move I think the name on the OFSTED report should be used: 'Al Jamiah Al Islamiyyah' [51]. Darul uloom seems to be a generic expression which literally means "house of knowledge". Derek Andrews (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These links suggest it is at least a genuine estblishment and support the name suggested above [52][53][54] and this one provides more info though probably primary sourced [55] and has the subtitle 'INSTITUTE OF ISLAMIC HIGHER EDUCATION'. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some care needs to be taken in making a move though as the name I suggested above may also be somewhat generic as there is Al-Jamiah Al-Islamiah Patiya and Al-Jamiah Al-Islamiah Obaidia Nanupur. Jamiah seems to mean the perhaps more familiar 'Madrasa'. Derek Andrews (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move, appears to be a genuine school. Ljgua124 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ver (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Shafley

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

I came across this via the BLP noticeboard, but I can't really see where Shafley has received any true coverage for his work. The article asserts that he's shown his art in various locations, but I can't determine if these would be enough for him to pass notability guidelines for artists.

A look at the reference section brings up nothing since he appears to not be listed in any of those sites. I tried performing a search for him and other than some mention of him in regards to taking nude photographs of his students around 2001, there really isn't anything out there for him. He was never officially brought to court or arrested for the charges, so they remain allegations and not something we should have in an article.

So... if anyone can find coverage of him and his work for something that would assert firm notability I'm open to withdrawing this. I just can't really find anything for him to show that he'd merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom.New Media Theorist (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Makes it into Getty Images [56] (no charges made, the fact he took the nude photos and molds of students is not contested) and is a listed artist in the Dictionary of Canadian Artists [57]. [58] shows he got a few mentions at the time it became public. Collect (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would call that entry in the Canadian Heritage Information Network a genuine "notability error". I'm surprised, as usually this is a good source for aritst info. It cites a number of small newspaper articles for minor shows in the middle of nowhere, and mentions what is essentially art practice as a hobby: "Some of his projects in this medium are his life-size sculptures of young women ready to go swimming to be placed on the site of his and his wife's new home on the North Channel shore at Blind River facing Lake Huron." I have real doubts about the notability of his practice...New Media Theorist (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The school incident seems sufficient otherwise (lots of Toronto Star coverage, and in other Canadian publications concerning such acts in schools for making nude molds of female students, and nude photos of female students) - we do usually allow artists who are listed in a recognized source to be considered "notable" and we do not second-guess such sources <g>. While the first might be BLP1E, the catenation with a major source listing him is, I suggest, dispositive that he is notable by Wikipedia standards. Collect (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that being listed in Getty Images is really enough, given that it's only about the student molestation charges, which I need to stress never actually went to court. It'd be a huge BLP issue (and possible nightmare) if one of the main arguments for notability stemmed around charges that never came to fruition, as he left his job before anything went further. To my knowledge crimes are pretty much considered to be alleged (with only a very few exceptions) if they do not go to court and until it goes to court, it shouldn't be considered notability giving. Even then, a crime is not automatically notable because it has received coverage, as the coverage has to be very extensive (meaning beyond routine) in order to show notability, given that this can be a BLP issue. In any case, Getty Images has a lot of pictures of various people and I've never seen it used as a source for notability. I'm just very, very leery about keeping an article on someone who has almost zero coverage on the Internet and his main claim to fame at this point in time is that a group of students accused him of molesting them under the guise that it was for art. That the article is also being used to promote the artist isn't really helpful either, although promotional-ness isn't a reason to delete in and of itself. I just kind of see this article being a nightmare to maintain given how insanely difficult it is to source this and that the coverage for him is, as New Media Theorist stated, for local shows. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Tokyogirl79 and New Media Theorist. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't meet WP:Creative, and the scandal is BLP1E material. Even the Getty image introduces him in the context of the scandal. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Buttles

AfDs for this article:

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

Buttles seems never to have played a regular season game, and is therefore not notable, bu the usual standards for this sport. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be more coverage about his attempts to go to the NFL than most players, see, e.g., [59] [60], perhaps because he doesn't come from powerhouse footballs areas for high school or college, but ultimately he is not substantively different than other bios deleted for not playing a regular season NFL game.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage I'm finding is local, including: (1) this and this from the Bangor Daily News, (2) this from Portland Press Herald, (3) this from Warsaw's County Courier, (4) this and (5) this from The Daily News (Batavia, NY). Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. Local coverage is not enough.Jakejr (talk) 03:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm struggling with this one, guys. The subject is not particularly noteworthy as a college football player (and never played in an NFL regular season game), but putting aside the usual transactional coverage of injuries and free agent signings, he has received significant coverage in the small town, local newspapers of his home region in upstate New York. To my way of thinking, the subject is one of those ex-CFB players who is primarily known for his efforts to make an NFL squad. This is a gray area for me: technically satisfying a minimum level of coverage for GNG, but with nothing substantive underneath. He was a decent CFB player, but what significant coverage there is, is about a failed effort to make an NFL team. Is that encyclopedic? Do we really want several hundred of these perma-stub article about unsuccessful NFL free agents? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

London Steverson

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet our notability guidelines. He was a U.S. federal administrative law judge who was removed from office. He also appears to have been an early figure in the desegregation of the U. S. Coast Guard Academy. While no doubt an accomplished gentlemen, the article here, (as did its predecessor, which was deleted pursuant to the first AFD), has suffered from COI or at the very least vanity spam from its inception. While one might at first be hopeful at seeing reference to the NYT, it turns out the subject is mentioned in one line near the end of the article. The great majority of the references either fail to mention the subject, or do so in passing. The most reliable sources (by far) in the article are the ones relating to the subject’s removal from office. I don’t see any (positive) source that is (1) reliable (2) independent of the subject and (3) offers significant coverage. The negative sources, while present their own concern, as would essentially create WP:BIO1E situation begging for a WP:COATRACK. This is why I nominated the article the first time, and why it was deleted then. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nominator, no significant coverage. The sourcing is very thin as far as published / neutral / non-self-published articles. For example, one reference is a courtroom sketch. The bulk of the article seems to have been copied from subject's own blog, which apparently copied the previously deleted wikipedia article. There's a claim on the talk page that some of the material comes from an un-linked USCG or Social Security Admin bio, but if those biographies exist they may have been written by the article subject anyway. This article feels like a COI / auto-bio or vanity spam, and initially claimed his firing was a retirement. His blog and self-published books don't appear to meet requirements of WP:Author. The Coast Guard Academy material is adequately covered in the other articles, but he does not WP:Soldier criteria either. Some of these concerns were raised at Draft talk:London Eugene Livingston Steverson, but that talk page was not moved to main during the AFC process. This article should have went to WP:DRV first. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you seem to be acting out of spite that the article was approved for publication in the first place over your objections. . Unsure what makes either of your opinions more valid than those who approved my submission.

Official biographies obtained by government documents are indeed a legitimate source. To argue against my use of government produced document on the basis that it "might" have been written by the subject that I wrote about is a slippery slope. Panama Jones (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with any deletion of this article. Both of the above critics seem to be arguing on the basis of an edit war that happened years ago. There has been no edit wars, vandalism or BLP policy violations. Aside from the above two critics nominating it almost immediately as soon as they saw it had been approved for publication over their objections, there has been no controversy. Panama Jones (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-written or not, no official biography is actually cited in the body of the article to indicate what came from the biography and what did not. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:Cite. Also see WP:BLPSPS and WP:Selfpub with regards to the other references that simply repeat self-published materials like this from cgaalumni.org which appears to be just a copy of the self-written book promotional material. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states at the bottom that I derived my draft from official government documents, specifically USCG and SSA biographies. I then cross-referenced to third-party sources where I was able to and it was not only considered acceptable from my reading of BLP policies, it was approved for publication. You are trying to retroactively enforce something that is not required for other military biographies. Nevertheless, I have now referenced the hard-copy biographies anyway. Panama Jones (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In-line citations and end of the article attribution achieve two different goals, one tells where specific material came from, the other simply says some of it somewhere came from public domain sources. We need to be clear about where specific things came from, especially in biographies of living persons, but I appreciate that you corrected the issue by providing citations. There is still quite a bit of material in the article that it is not clear what source was used. Additionally, a SSA or USCG bio page doesn't automatically grant notability. An article still needs to meet some of the notability criteria to be kept, significant media coverage, WP:Soldier or WP:Author. None of the sources show that. Another concern is that it's interesting to me that you happen to have the article subject's DD Form 214 military discharge document and a copy of his USCG biography from 1986. Both seem rather rare and somewhat difficult to acquire. It would certainly alleviate some of my concerns if you would confirm here that you have no conflict of interest on the articles you created from drafts, as set forth in WP:COI / WP:COS. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you are implying by your "concern", and no, I am not the subject. I never claimed to "have" the subjects DD214, I stated the subject's DD214 verified the awards I inputed into the article at inception when I created it last month. Furthermore, your opinion regarding notability is no more valid than mine or anyone else's...including those other Wiki editors who approved the article for publication over your objections.

Still unsure of your obsession regarding this article from the get go, but IMO it gives the appearance of stalking and WikiHounding given your lack of the same level of "concern" for similarly published biographies of other serving and retired members of the Armed Forces posted here on Wiki.

If other editors agree with you about retroactively ruling the article does not meet Wiki notability policies, I can and will accept and support their decision as my goal is to be a positive contributer to the site, but your passive-aggressive approach in response to not having gotten your way in at the outset doesn't strike me as you having the most unbiased outlook on this matter. --Panama Jones (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've claimed twice that the DD-214 verifies some portions of the article, but now you say you don't have it? You must have seen it or how do you know what it says? Otherwise, you should not claim to know what it verifies and should not use it as a reference. Also, WP:GNG is the notability guideline, it has not changed for a while, nor has WP:Author or WP:Soldier, so there has been nothing retroactive. Not every AFC'd page is kept, some are deleted after the fact, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Article alerts shows several up for deletion, not just this one. I did try to find sources for Steverson, but I came up with only passing mentions as the nom stated. Only 1 hit on ebscohost, not substantial as well. I did find that the #1 google hit for London Steverson, which is the article about the SSA dismissal that was omitted from the original AFC'd article. FWIW, I have no COI with this article and nothing to lose or gain if it is retained or deleted. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete persistent attempt to create vanity article about a subject that does not meet our draft guideline SOLDIER. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first black person to graduate from the USCGA was notable; the second probably is not. And that seems to be his only real claim to fame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Revolución

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

My searches simply found nothing good aside from a few links here and this has existed since August 2007 with hardly much improvement; it's also worth noting there's not much at their website, suggesting they're not well known. SwisterTwister talk 02:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, fails WP:NMUSIC for bands. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Read through it and looks like something pulled from a website or back of an album cover. Promo piece and fails WP:NMUSIC as per above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Tried to find evidence of notability like national press coverage, song mentioned or play in major networks, or music charting and could not find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djhero2099 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerstin Günther

(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:Dr. Blofeld with the following rationale "remove BS tags" (Sigh. Dear Doctor, as much as I respect you - and you know I do - please refrain from calling my judgement BS in the future, if you'd be so kind). He provided two additional sources at User_talk:Ipigott#Proposed_deletion_of_Kerstin_G.C3.BCnther, unfortunately I do not consider one reliable, and the other is a 404. For the source I could access, let me repeat: Executive profile at Bloomberg indicates exactly nothing, unless you can argue that being included in this database is sufficient for notability somehow (for me it looks like sufficient to prove one is a mildly successful businessperson, but that's not enough for being in an encyclopedia). If anyone can find in-depth, independent and reliable coverage of that person, please share it here. Thanks, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I really appreciate the trouble editors like Piotrus go to in order to ensure new articles meet the minimum standards for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially in connection with the biographies of living people, I think in this case the call for deletion is rather surprising. The article about Kerstin Günther formed part of the recent two-week editathon under WikiProject Women in Red which was designed to redress the lack of coverage of women in leadership. Günther stood out as one of the most successful women executives in Europe, not only because of her current positions as a senior vice president in Deutsche Telekom (one of the world's largest telephone and telecommunications companies) and chair of the Hungarian Magyar Telekom but as a result of her successful promotions in a male-dominated sector over the past 20 years. I believe the sources currently listed in the article clearly demonstrate her notability. In particular, her inclusion in the Inspiring fifty site confirms her status as one of Europe's most successful business executives today. In my opinion, if this article is considered unsuitable for Wikipedia, then most of the other biographies I have created over the past two weeks should also be candidates for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Can you tell us which sources discuss her in depth? I do not read German, but in most sources used as refs she appears in passing. Only zeit.de and spiegel.de seem so far to be more in-depth. Now, those two are reliable and if the Zeit one is indeed focused on her, I'd be willing to withdraw the nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable businessperson if you really look about for sources. I'm afraid to say Piotrus that you've joined the low ranks of the typical offenders in this particularly pointy nom. This woman has held executive positions in some of the most notable telecommunications companies. So yes, I stick by my original statement that it's utter bullshit that she's not notable. She has coverage in most of the major German newspapers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the two above, I think this is a keep. This is a notable executive in large telcos and should have an article. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Coverage in reliable sources has clearly been demonstrated and there's too much to do on here to fuss over this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for sources shows plenty, some of which are given in the article, as would be expected for a senior executive like this. The Spiegel interview is a strong indicator. Clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, Notable. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: I'm perplexed why you don't feel that the foreign language references support her notability, and why Bloomberg, an American reference, seems so important. I value your opinion but I don't understand your point of view on this AfD. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosiestep: I have nothing against foreign language sources; but based on what was said about them and on what I see, as I said elsewhere here, most of them seem to be mentions in passing. And no, I don't value Bloomberg more than others; again as I said elsewhere here I am in fact asking why others do. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. The rationale that she might not meet "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" is totally unfounded. Multiple German articles confirm her business acumin but even English sources Bloomberg clearly show the depth of her experience. SusunW (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment, and I just want to add that Bloomberg is "regarded as a staple in the business world" [61] and is "known for its savvy business reporting" [62] SusunW (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this is not Bloomberg reporting (if she had a Bloomberg report on her, I'd withdrew this nom in the instant). This is Bloomberg Executive Profile page, and I cannot find any information how one gets included there, thus preventing me from accepting it as a reliable source - for all I know it may be as reliable as a random wikia. (Sure, I may be wrong - then please tell me how does one get added to this list, what are the screening criteria, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, I am a wee bit perplexed. If you click on tab on the left which says snapshot, it gives the business profile. If you click on the tab on the right it says people and gives entire profiles on all of the board members etc. from (see asterisked comment) "Data is at least as current as the most recent Definitive Proxy." Are you honestly saying that Bloomberg prepared the corporate profile and allowed someone else to provide the people profiles on their system? It makes no sense that they would vet the company and not the board members. SusunW (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW Thank you for the explanation. I accept that this page is reliable, but I still would like to learn about the criteria on who makes it in this list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus Please remove your tag. Can you not see that there is absolutely no support for deletion? Highly experienced editors including Rosiestep, Aymatth2 and Dr. Blofeld have confirmed notability. Furthermore, the article has been expanded with additional sources since your first alert. It is certainly not fair to the person in question to pretend she is not notable. This is the kind of thing that gives Wikipedia a bad reputation for bias against women. If you want to investigate the authenticity of Bloomberg, then please do so elsewhere.--Ipigott (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: The tag can be removed as soon as the deletion is closed, and it looks to me like both will happen soon, with a verdict to keep. I am not ready to remove it myself, as nobody has yet replied to my question to you from 12:35, 21 September 2015. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus:, you don't even need the Bloomberg inclusion info to satisfy GNG. Der Spiegel is such a major publication that my Texas library carries a subscription. If you are looking for criteria for inclusion in that Bloomberg area, you would be best off hitting up a specialist librarian with a business background. Also, EBSCO database carries full text to Library Journal which should cover that topic somewhere. There is also a special division of the American Library Association dedicated to dealing with specialized reference questions. All of these resources are freely available at most libraries and you can email ALA. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: In answer to your question, yes, the articles from Die Zeit, Der Spiegel and Die Welt all provide substantial background on Kerstin Günther.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in fact snow keep. IF this was a WP article with the above editors, this is a notable subject. Sources adequate, notability established. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am going to AGF Ipigott's assessment, and therefore withdraw this nomination. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malik & the O.G's

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

This article fails to meet Wikipedia's WP:NMUSIC policy. It seems to have been created and largely edited by a WP:SPA which edits articles to do with Malik Al Nasir and has a highly promotional tone and it's largely a list of minor events attended. Cantab12 (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Although spoken word poetry does not have huge mainstream presence, it is a very important art form. Although it looks like all the article contributions came from one source, that doesn't negate the fact that the sources are well listed, credible and noteworthy especially for those in the spoken word community. The inclusion of this subject will be a informative addition to the spoken word reference in wikipedia. Djhero2099 (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems minimally acceptable sourced. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . It "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians," Namely Orphy Robinson and Cleveland Watkiss — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.245.92 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Market Watch".

[1]