Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28

< Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday September 20 (Fri) September 19 (Thu) September 18 (Wed) More...

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

< 27 December	29 December >

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. clpo13_(talk) 08:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Parental respect

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

Not an encyclopedic subject; just a common phrase.- üser:Altenmann >t 01:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
withdrawn - üser:Altenmann >t 04:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. clpo13_(talk) 08:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Parental respect (disambiguation)

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

Not a disambiguation page. The newbie creator has no idea . - üser:Altenmann >t 01:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Withdrawn - üser:Altenmann >t 04:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was merge to Homs offensive (November–December 2015). This AfD was never properly opened, so it was never properly closed. Technically, it's been open this whole time. Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 03:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Fall of Mahin (October-November 2015)

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

Article could be merged to the Homs offensive (November 2015).Mr.User200 (talk) 13:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Editor note: Please note WP:SK 1. If this doesn't get any delete arguments, it could be closed as speedy keep. Dat Guy_Contribs 16:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Mr.User200 this article is a part of this article Homs offensive (November 2015) and must be removed becasue all data from this article indicated on main artcile. No sence dublicate data of the twice. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Support deletion or merge to Homs offensive (November 2015) (background section), as stated by Mr.User200 and Sûriyeya. Event seems non-notable and has no grounds to have its own article. In addition, the town has changed hands multiple times, so singling out this one instance to give it its own article does not seem appropriate. PS The title seems to be POV and not according to WP: COMMONNAME. EkoGraf (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Government troops retake Mahin so for now there is no need in this article. Sûriyeya (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, today the town changed hands for the fourth time, making this one time even more non-notable. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the article creator, Atif1208, is constantly removing the deletion template from the article, even though multiple editors are re-inserting it and warning him that's something he can not do while the AfD is ongoing. In my opinion this constitutes POV vandalism. EkoGraf (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - seems clear-cut; the article was already deleted through a WP:SD process but Atif remade it immediately under a slightly different title.Aldux (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - data in this article it is the part the more importent article and no need in this independent arcitle. Also Syrian troops retake town about which say in this article so that this a second reason on the basis of which the article has lost its relevance and we have to remove it. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Bob Briton

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

Declined prod. Leader of extremely minor unregistered micro-party; fails WP:POLITICIAN and nothing like the coverage required to pass WP:GNG. Frickeg (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Shouldn't have needed to come to AfD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. per nom ----Snowded 07:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete - fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Not enough independent in-depth coverage. Onel5969 12:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Bink Video. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 00:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

RAD Game Tools

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

Non-notable company. Cloudbound (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Bink Video, their best known work. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had few meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search, apart from press releases. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 03:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirect as mentioned as none of this suggests solid independent notability at all and I would've also been bold to close this as such but I'll wait for any other comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirect I really wish I could have found some sources, because I think RAD is an important part of the games industry (and history). But they're almost exclusively mentioned in relation to their products only. Even the awards are all to the product, rather than the company. Bink is probably the best target, or maybe Miles Sound System (Which despite its poor shape has won several industry awards). -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WebNotes

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

Non-notable website tagged under advert concerns since March 2009. Cloudbound (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete notability does not appear to be established and, given that the site is defunct, it's unlikely that it is going to happen. Artw (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as none of this suggests even a minimally better notable article. Notifying tagger Widefox. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete While notability isn't temporary, nothing but run of the mill borderline notability combined with clear COI promotion. (this was a COI mess). Widefox; talk 08:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirect or merge to Web Annotation given the three reliable sources currently presented. They're news articles announcing the launch, however, and are not enough for the subject to have its own.和DITOR E tails 06:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Lætitia Bléger

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

fail WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT (preliminary round and main event of the same cycle) The Banner talk 22:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete subject lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per above - Article's unsourced and that's because there's sod all on Google, Delete. –Davey2010 00:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete - searches failed to turn up enough independent in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 12:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 00:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Tomašević (activist)

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

Delete: as non-notable stub. Quis separabit? 22:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep, people with entries in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography are notable, with rare exceptions, and this isn't one of those. An important figure in New Zealand's labour/left-wing history.-gadfium 03:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Gadfium. It does need expanding though. There are a couple of print sources I can access next week he was featured in; From distant villages : the lives and times of Croatian settlers in New Zealand, 1858-1958 and Comment : a New Zealand Quarterly Review. -- haminoon (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep, because in addition to the existing encyclopedic reference, a few Google Books searches gave me three book mentions, one of which seems substantial. It sounds like typical encyclopedia content per WP:5. --Joy (talk) 10:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Gadfium. NealeFamily (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. North America 00:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Timebus Travel

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

Non notable bus company, Been unsourced for 6 years and there's nothing on Google either, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 22:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete at best as my searches also found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If it was a bit more substantioal, I would've opposed, but even so, there are a half dozen private hire firms within London that rent out Routemasters and not have an article here. Why should this be any different? Nordic Dragon 12:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Buscruft. No refs, small nn company. Szzuk (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - love the name, but can't find enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 12:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. North America 00:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusive Racing

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

A nonprofit organization that helps people with disabilities. While it is very good organization, there are no reliable and independent sources about the organization. Only social media and a mention in the local paper. It also appears to be located in only one city, Richmond, Virginia. Bgwhite (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 01:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete for now at best as my searches found nothing better than a few local links here and there, simply not enough. Notifying tagger Iamoctopus. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete as there have still been no sources proving the notability of it, that is: sources not created by the subject. Iamoctopus (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - while noble, unfortunately doesn't meet WP:GNG, as not enough in-depth coverage from independent sources could be found. Onel5969 12:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 20:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Deirdre M. Condit

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

Not yet notable associate professor at a relatively minor university. No books. Most cited article is cited only 21 times. No reliable sources. Listing book reviews as "journal articles" is the sign of a scholar who is Not Yet Notable. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Nothing notable in the article. It's currently used entirely as a CV with the bibliography and education sections. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:PROF. Graham (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutral for now. Graham (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete no material justifying notability. -- Callinus (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep Have added C-SPAN info. Have also moved the book reviews to their own section (all two of them!), not quite sure what is meant by "No reliable sources.", are Virginia Commonwealth University and Sage Publications considered unreliable? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

VCU is an institution, not a source, and Sage is a publisher for which she works. Have they written independently about her, e.g. in a published bio (apologies if I've missed something like this). Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

~~Comment/Weak~~ Keep Having done some research, some of which I've added to the article, I think she might pass inclusion for Wiki for a few reasons: 1) She's the chair of her dept, 2) She's sought after in multiple VA news sources over time for commentary in her area of expertise, 3) While she's not "wildly cited" the 21 citations mentioned from Google Scholar ignores the amount of books that pop up in Google Books that cite her work. 4) I'm not an expert in her area of feminism, but it seems like a niche area of study, and so I wouldn't expect a billion citations. She seems to have a different view of Feminism and Fetal personhood than I've experienced from "mainstream" feminism. This might point to a lower cite rate. That said, she may indeed be a case of WP:TOOSOON, as SwisterTwister points out. If this discussion ends in deletion, I think the article should be moved to draft space. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Condit is not just an editor of the new journal, Sexualization, Media and Society, she is one of the founders. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Notability does not yet seem sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC).
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Weak Keep I see again that the thrust is to try to force her to meet some standard other than WP: GNG, which is not required by our guidelines that clearly state no further standard is required if GNG is met. She does not yet meet Prof, as her Chair does not appear to be endowed and the journal which she founded and edits does not yet have sufficient history. However, that being said, she doesn't have to meet Prof. There are RS independent of the subject which confirm that she has been sought repeatedly for comment over time on a variety of gender related subjects from health inequalities to same sex marriage to politics , ]. SusunW (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep - might only be associate prof. but chair of a humanistic department at a major school usually is reserved for a quite respected scholar. Gender studies is a field where WP:BIAS has been noted on WP. Seems to clear the average professor test with room to spare. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, many non-science/medical/math/engineering departments use a "rotation" system for chair. Unless we know conclusively otherwise, that is probably the case here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

'Comment. Clear fail of WP:Prof#C1 with h-index of only 4 in a popular field, Over 15 is usually required. What else is there? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

Over 15 for Political Science or for gender studies? I don't recall ever having a discussion of "usual" for these fields. Thanks. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Please produce the evidence that an h-index of 4 is sufficient for these fields. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC).

UC Berkeley full profs. in Women and Gender studies in Web of Knowledge citation searches: Minoo Moallem: h-index 1. Juana María Rodríguez: h-index: 1; Charis Thompson (named chair): h-index: 3; Trinh T. Minh-ha: h-index: 0. your turn. :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

What does this prove except that people at the beginnings of their careers have not had the time to notch up citations? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC).

Full profs at UC Berkeley?????? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

H-index of is too low (by long-established convention), but that's not typically how we eval those in the humanities. Rather, it's mostly by published books, which is the relevant currency. Moallem's books are held by thousands of institutions (according to WorldCat), but Condit does not (yet) seem to have published any (a PhD dissertation doesn't count). All avenues seem to point to WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

'Comment. The OP, @DGG:, states: No reliable sources. Listing book reviews as "journal articles" is the sign of a scholar who is Not Yet Notable. Set of questions (anyone can answer):

(1) In what way are the sources 'unreliable'?

(2} I've moved the book reviews (there are only 2) to their own section, but since when did a scholar writing book reviews in the early part of their academic career become an indication of a lack of notability? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

just as you say, the book reviews are what a scholar writes in the early part of their career. When their career continues and they have more to show, they usually don't mention them except on the formal academic CV that by current convention lists everything , down to individual guest presentations. "Early part of their career" equals not yet notable. apters.

However, h index is meaningless for someone who publishes mainly books. But she hasn't published any.

Chair of a department if held by an associate professor usually means they are forced into it by rotation--it's an administrative position, not an honor.

As for the GNG, almost all the references are to her own work or press releases or mere mentions. (US Federal News Service, Including US State News. is a medium for the publication of press releases--nothing published in it is usable for notability , and all of it is dubious for any BLP content.) "About the author" in the foreword to a book or symposium or whatever is normally written by either the author or a press agent for them or for their publisher. As for the others: The Richmond Times-Dispach listing is not an article, its part of a list of the salary of all state employees. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

When their career continues and they have more to show, they usually don't mention them except on the formal academic CV that by current convention lists everything , down to individual guest presentations. - Condit doesn't mention them, I tracked them down through WorldCat, here and here.

Why are references to her own work in a biography which is about Condit to be discounted?

h index is meaningless - according to who?

Chair of a department if held by an associate professor usually means they are forced into it by rotation--it's an administrative position, not an honor. That's pure conjecture, and also fairly insulting to anyone who is chair of a department in a university.

I'm not sure that you can call the piece by Michael Pope for WAMU or the WTVR item mere mentions. In any case both of them, and the article in the US Federal News Service, Including US State News. diff, and the article in Richmond Times-Dispach diff, were added by User:Megalibrarygirl after the nomination for AfD (so not part of the original reason for stating no reliable sources in the OP). She also added this ref and this ref which you haven't mentioned/faulted. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment The nominator hasn't responded to SusunW and, like her, I would also assert that someone is notable if they are being sought for commentary. All together, the local sources, the books and the presswire indicate that she's being noticed, which is part of notability. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You will have to produce policy-based evidence for such an assertion. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

I'm talking about WP:GNG. She passes GNG based on what I see. It's borderline, true. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROF plainly states "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines... and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline." Clearly does not say it supercedes GNG in any way. GNG simply requires people to have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" Does not require them to be limited to the sole dimension of anything, which prof assumes that someone could only be notable for being an academic. It is extremely rare that any person lives in a vacuum. There is nothing in GNG that requires anyone to be established in any field or to even have a career. SusunW (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As a side note, if Porn Studies had to rely on academic notability rather than press coverage to have an article then it would have been a speedy delete. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Delete. Above is again an argument on the basis that the subject is a "sought after pundit". This can satisfy GNG, but here it seems that it's mostly limited to local outlets and TV stations, for example the student-reported story on local affiliate channel 6 and all the other local sources that SusunW furnished – "local" is not the fodder for GNG, otherwise most academics would be notable. Also, most commentators seem to be unaware that some institutions have a rotation system for chairs and this tends to happen more in non-science departments. If this is true here (and I think it is a safe assumption), then this aspect adds no weight towards notability. Her citations are low and the SMS journal was founded in 2015, so editorship does not carry the weight of an established journal. I think the honest assessment here is that her trajectory is very promising, but that it is still WP:TOOSOON, as SwisterTwister argued. Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

Local coverage does not negate GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nor is GNG validated by local coverage. This is indeed the "muddy water" of GNG. However, I think one must have a sense of proportion here. Think of what I would call routine academic punditry in local media: commentary of poly-scis for every muni election, economists for local business developments, ed-profs for school bond issues, physics profs for eclipses, biologists for the science fair (the list goes on) – what you're advocating would render all these academics notable. Indeed, a large fraction of academia would instantly become notable, simply for doing the routine kinds of work that academics do. In essence, "local" is not really in the spirit of GNG. It helps, but if it's the only real argument (as it seems to be here), then it unfortunately isn't enough. Agricola44 (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

The comment about the rotation was: Chair of a department if held by an associate professor usually means they are forced into it by rotation--it's an administrative position, not an honor. - this has a negative connotation. I have no idea whether Condit regards her turn as chair as a hateful task that she has to do when it is her turn, or a perk of the job that she relishes, and neither does any other editor here. Notability wise - the point is she cannot be replaced by just anyone, in fact the list of people who could do it is actually quite short. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, Agricola44, but I do disagree that local coverage isn't in the spirit of GNG. Many people/things/events are important in their own communities and are notable only in that context. Knowledge (XXG) does provide the ability to cover local interest. For example, Plaza Theatre (El Paso) is really only of interest to serious historical theater buffs, people of El Paso, or visitors of El Paso, TX wanting to learn more about that historic building. The fact that the Plaza Theater is local doesn't make it non notable, however. It's the amount of sources that are available. I do think that this prof is borderline. It would be a stronger case if the journal she founded has been around longer. However, I don't think we should delete. At worst, I think we should userfy and give it time. Since she's borderline, I choose the side of keep. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid physical structures are not analogous here. In fact, the fixed nature (locality) of buildings has been debated enough such that we have a specific guideline just for that (WP:LOCAL). The problem is not that Condit is local, but rather that the sources only discuss what is of interest to people of that community. Would you agree that, under your interpretation, most academics would be rendered notable? Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

@Vintage Fem: Not my words there, but I would not get too caught-up in the tone of that comment. Many university departments do, in fact, rotate chairs (our article on academic departments mentions this). The protocol is more common in smaller departments and non-science departments (Condit's department is both of these). The fact that Condit is at the associate level all but confirms her department follows this method. Indeed, her institution feels there are many people who could do that job – essentially any other tenured member of the department. Agricola44 (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC).

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 20:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Now Hiring Hands

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

This article is about an unofficial, self-published series of YouTube videos. It fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The article had been successfully deleted in 2011 (under the title "Oobi at Work," which the Now Hiring Hands article had also been titled for almost a year). The only difference between the page now and the page then is that the wording has been changed; it is now referred to as a "series of short films" rather than a "series of YouTube videos." All of the references in the article are to unreliable sources: IMDb, TV Tropes, Weebly and Google Sites. I had been fooled into thinking this was an actual TV series by the IMDb page, but after some extensive research, I have discovered that those unreliable sites are the only sources on the internet that mention Now Hiring Hands. Squiddaddy (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete I had also contributed to the article in the past. The only sites with information on the topic are those that consist entirely of user-submitted content (IMDb, Wikia and TV Tropes). The only YouTube video that mentions this web series is titled "DCPS Oobi at Work Credits on Demand," and it is a list of actors' names with a Wondershare Video Editor wordmark. After reading the homepage of their "official" site, which is included as a reference multiple times on the article, it is apparent that this is not a TV series or anything even remotely notable. It explicitly states that "the series was created as an unofficial tribute...it had been available on YouTube until 2015." --Libramedia (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete per nominator and Libramedia. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was Keep, WP:IAR close (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 20:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente

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

Subject not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Only existing coverage outside of primary sources seems to be routine campaign press at the local level, which is insufficient for establishing notability.Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. See comments below. As nominator, I request that this be closed as Speedy Keep.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not !voting yet, but will note that in addition to the local level sources he's gotten in his hometown and campaign states, he's also got non-local coverage in what I'll admit is a nonstandard source for this sort of coverage: Automotive News. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Automotive News is a trade publication, which I don't think is generally considered an RS.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, ABC News. -Nat Gertler (talk) 19:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The subject is a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination in the United States presidential election, 2016. While he is not one of the major candidates who gets listed in polls and invited to debates, Knowledge (XXG) does not exclude minor candidates from coverage if they meet the general notability guideline. Not only did De La Fuente receive local news coverage in his hometown when he declared his candidacy (, , ), but he has received coverage in additional states where he has qualified for the primary ballots already or is campaigning (, , , ). In any event, I was not aware that trade publications are excluded from being reliable sources, and I don't think they should be excluded. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIO with multiple reliable sources covering the topic.--TM 04:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep for now at best as this seems like enough coverage for an article for now. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep per WP:BIO with multiple reliable sources covering the topic. New coverage from Ballot Access blog: ( akrewson (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep He has widespread ballot access across a significant number of states, from that alone it is likely he will garner a notable percentage of the vote in the primaries.XavierGreen (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
- NOMINATION WITHDRAWN The people have spoken, it would seem. After further review, the non-local citations put forth by Metropolitian90 along with the ABC NEWs clip put forth by Nat Gertler have convinced me that Fuente meets the notability benchmark. Just barely, perhaps, but barely counts. I rescind my nomination.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ks0stm 08:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hackney Wick F.C.

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

This club has never competed in an FA cup competition (Cup, Amateur Cup, Trophy or Vase) and has never played at or above Step 6 of the English football league system, therefore is non-notable. Kivo (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Only ever played at level 12 on the English football pyramid and does not appear to have anything special about it. Seasider91 (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep Registered team within Football Association, does not meet criteria for deletion within WP:ATHLETE. South Nashua (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ATHLETE does not apply to any team, club, or organization. — Jkudlick c_s 03:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's the closest thing there is to a notability standard for sports organizations. South Nashua (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ORG? — Jkudlick c_s 10:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick c_s 03:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - non-notable club, has played at too low a level. Giant Snowman 10:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable. CalzGuy (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete ~ Barely in their first season as a team, playing in the 12th division no less. Otherwise, no evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 06:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Club plays at a level far too low to be considered for automatic notability. Fails WP:FOOTYN, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick c_s 10:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 20:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Studiotraffic

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not seeing much here that establishes notability. Might be salvaged if some kind of good 3rd party sourcing is found. Current references are 3 archived screenshots of the website itself, and an internet forum. Sperril (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as not only is the current article not better despite all this time and 2 past AfDs, there's nothing at all to suggest a better notable article which makes it worse. Notifying past AfDers Postdlf, Gamaliel, Master Thief Garrett, Someguy1221 and Ihcoyc. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete This should be speedy deleted as a recreation of a deleted page. Gamaliel (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but it survived an AFD as NC after the first deletion so I thought speedy now would be inappropriate. Sperril (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 12:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ks0stm 08:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Natasha Saleem

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

There appear to be inadequate references for notability -- 4 refs, but ref 1 is a routine TV guide profile, ref 2 is her own website, ref 3 is her facebook page, ref 4 is a blog. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - I went ahead and removed the reference to Facebook. As DGG noted, other sources are a blog, personal website, and TV guide. Need additional secondary sources if page is to keep. Meatsgains (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as simply none of this suggests a better notable article. Notifying speedy tagger OluwaCurtis. SwisterTwister talk 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Apart from this link here, I can't find anything substancial about the subject. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 19:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - does not pass the basic criteria at Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people), the relevant notability guideline. - tucoxn\ 19:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete I'm not seeing any notability here, either. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 20:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Dreieck Drammetal

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

Was part of a blanket AfD, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Dreieck Ahlhorner Heide, which was closed as no consensus for procedural reasons. Non-notable interchange, just like thousands of others. Onel5969 18:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete—having a name in a country where every interchange is named does not confer notability. This article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 22:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose deletion of this and all similar articles: in Germany, only Autobahn intersections are named - see also my comment at Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Highways#German highway interchanges. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep. As the discussion on the group AfD commented , we would keep them if they were British. But the English language WP covers all the world equally -- it just is written in English If it covers AEnglish-speakign countries more, it's because most of our contributors are more interested. We should welcome attempts to expand equal coverage to other language areas. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the discussion also commented that each interchange should be judged on its own merits as to whether or not it passes GNG, which this one clearly does not. Onel5969 13:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
- We would keep them if they were British because if they were British a named interchange would be notable. This is German, and named interchanges in Germany are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that WP:GNG is met. There are no WP:BIAS issues and no editorial misconduct, there is only Notability, and that is not present. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 16:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 16:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge: suggests that the interchange in question is an ongoing black spot, eg 2009, 2015, however that's limited notability at best (ie: places have worse non-named black spots). How about a List of German Autobahn Interchanges article instead to briefly tabulate key information? Interchanges significant enough to warrant an individual article can be linked from there, and non-significant interchanges can redirect there (noting that Bundesautobahn 38 and other similar pages don't currently link to named interchanges!). HydroniumHydroxide 09:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- Response It's far from clear that this suggestion is the best solution. Part of the problem is that the English Knowledge (XXG) articles about individual Autobahns are pretty much exclusively only stubs or start articles, and their German Knowledge (XXG) equivalents are generally not well referenced by the standards of English Knowledge (XXG). Most importantly, at the present time there is no consensus for the deletion of these German Autobahn interchange articles as a block, and insufficient time allocated by the AfD process for editors to research their GNG individually. See Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kreuz Oranienburg and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Kreuz Duisburg. Bahnfrend (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
delete As with the others, there is no claim of notability, and contrary to various claims otherwise, there is not and never has been a presumption of notability for highway interchanges. Mangoe (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. If merger is desired, this of course would require no new nomination. Seraphimblade 20:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Nakheel Harbour and Tower

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

We already have a much better article for Nakheel Tower, there is no good reason to have two articles for a development that was never built. D'Andria (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect and Merge the 2 articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 15:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Although I'm not strongly opposed to the Merge/Redirect option, I just don't see why we need any articles on a project that was never built. Both articles were created when the project was in the planning stage; both should have been deleted back then as WP:CRYSTAL. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 23:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert Gray (businessman)

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

Number of reasons - Current business has 1-10 employees. Previous business failed. Had success with one but that's unreferenced. Similar company/service exists but does not reference him or any of the story. I'm struggling to see any justification of notability. Poor referencing throughout. Created by SPA. Has had outstanding BLP, notability and orphan issues for 3 years with no fix. Rayman60 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as none of the current article suggests better satisfying solidly the applicable notability guidelines. At best restart if and whenever a better article is available. Notifying tagger Miracle Pen in case they're not aware of this current AfD. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment I found this AfD at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Requested articles/Article alerts. Just wondering if the nominator is aware and has investigated before nominating for deletion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC){{small|please ping

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 15:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: No, I was not aware of this. Still not entirely sure what it is, however when I stumbled across the article, it was in a very poor state (admittedly irrelevant for AfD) but as explained in my original reasonings, it seemed to fail notability hence the nomination. Rayman60 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sublight Records

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

Queried speedy delete request. See Talk:Sublight Records. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is an established record company that has released albums from several established artists . I believe the motion for deletion to be personal and/or malicious intent and should be disregarded. --StuOnThis (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

http://www.discogs.com/label/28036-Sublight-Records

Keep This article is being wrongfully targeted due to a vandal with a personal vendetta against one of the artists related to it. This whole issue has arisen due to a handful of users (or one user under multiple aliases, as is being discussed here: Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet_investigations/Musicchief007), with a personal vendetta against certain members of the electronica music scene.

After several failed attempt at vandalizing Benn_Jordan (seen in their contributions page), they began a campaign of spamming moderators of this community to delete articles surrounding them. While they succeeded in inciting a nomination to delete the article. There's been a tremendous backlash from the community and a ton of supporting evidence to demonstrate their notability which will likely result in the nomination being dropped and hopefully in the article being protected against further vandalism.

AThey have, however, apparently succeeded in inciting mods to delete some of the surrounding articles. Hopefully the evidence that this article's deletion is owed to vandals is sufficient to end this campaign against these articles and allow them to be properly fleshed out, since notability takes more effort to establish in a genre of music that is not as dominated by major labels as many of the others.
Alainbryden (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
DELETE label is dufunct. Fails WP:Music. Largely unsourced.88.194.149.117 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - getting back to policy discussions, the fact that it may or may not be defunct is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept. Notability is not temporary. An example of that would be CBGB, a now defunct club in NYC, but highly notable. However, that said, there is nothing here to show the notability of this label. Searches on News turned up 3 trivial mentions, a single mention on Scholar, a few trivial mentions on Books, zero on Newspapers and Highbeam. Fails WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 13:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 16:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Unless someone can find significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, (?) we don't have enough info for an article. It had no in-depth coverage in any regular search, or in my music source custom search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Sure, the Benn Jordan nomination might have been purely disruptive, but there is a lack of sourcing here. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 18:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

off-topic
The Benn Jordan article should have been removed. The non consideration of the votes to DELETE the article were not in line with Wiki Standards as they offered a fair and balanced point of view as opposed to him and his personal friends rummaging around wikipedia to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The above comment was added by a blocked user evading their block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was Speedy Keep as the nomination of a now-blocked sockpuppet, per below. Note that Dat Guy closed this earlier, and I reverted on account of AGF. They had it right the first time. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the AFD in place, so that we have a record of all this when and if there is another nomination of this article. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Tornik (peak)

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

Delete Tornik is part of Zlatibor mountain and not any particular part.There are peaks such as Čigota,small Tornik,Ljuljaš,Tornik...Height top of Tornik not 1502 meters and it is one of the reasons why the page is applied to erase. Height Tornik is not over 2000 meters and it is the norm of high peaks that are supposed to have their own page in relation to the mountains where they are located. In the case of Serbian mountains, all the peaks over 2,000 meters have their own special pages such as Pogled,Pančić's Peak,,Midžor...Tornik is much lower and it is not necessary to allocate a special page of the page Zlatibor. I have therefore submitted an application for deleting pages Tornik. I hope I have your support in deleting unnecessary and redundant pages Tornik. Simply existent page Zlatibor that mentions enhancing the offer is enough. Natasa1991 (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Ovo u comment kopiraj a u kategorije nisam siguran ali stavi veliko slovo P umesto U koje stoji sad. Natasa1991 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Already done. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - All you need to do is replace "kopiraj komentar ovde" with your reasons for wanting the article deleted, then add ~~~~ to the end. You've done everything else you need to do. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

....And it seems you did that, here. Concerns included notability (peak is not over the 2000 meter standard above which peaks are assumed to be notable) and that the page was redundant. Feel free to correct me if I got it wrong. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ultraexactzz: I got all confused about this. The user's only edits were taking this page to AfD, so I immediately took it that the user was a puppet. Further, he even blanked the page and replaced it with gibberish. I still am not totally good faithed about this, but I appreciate you cleaning the mess up. Dat Guy_Contribs 16:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder, myself. But if there are no other delete comments, then a speedy keep on the merits will probably come along soon. Thanks for keeping an eye out. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ultraexactzz: And I apparently was right (See no such user's comment below). Also, edit conflicts for days Dat Guy_Contribs 16:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

An AFD page for this article was created by User:Gardasilija on 28th Nov, and subsequently deleted. The exact same deletion rationale was provided as by User:Natasa1991. Since User:Gardasilija was confirmed by checkuser as a sock puppet of User:Parkirovskieng I have blocked User:Natasa1991 for abusing multiple accounts. _└/_talk 16:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy keep and comment: Natasa1991 (talk · contribs), aka Zdravkobayter (talk · contribs), aka Parkirovski (talk · contribs) aka... I kind of appreciate your efforts to clean up the articles on Serbian landforms, like Lake Vrutci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) or Pometenik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but they are for the most part misguided, and you are so persistent about them that your efforts come out as disruptive. 2,000 meters is not a norm for anything, notability and other factors come into play. Yes, Tornik is not a very important peak in the geographical sense, but it is the second-largest ski center in Serbia and thus pretty notable in tourist and economic sense. We do not delete pages just because they are too short or even because the information there is inaccurate. At best, it makes sense to WP:MERGE this short article into Zlatibor. Or it makes sense to leave it at this stage, maybe someone will expand the article with ski center information. And it also makes sense to move it to Tornik, because the current redirect is barely sensible. But none of this is reason for deletion. Please familiarize yourself with our deletion policy. No such user (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 23:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Janet Wolfe

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Janet Wolfe (2nd nomination)

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

A previous AFD on this article and on Dr. Wolfe's company, Wolfe Laboratories See:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Wolfe Laboratories, closed as no consensus, but with discussion of the possibility of merging/redirecting the Janet Wolfe article.

Best sources on this Janet Wolfe I found are, , and "Wolfe laboratories, Inc.; Janet Wolfe, President of Wolfe Laboratories, Named Boston's Entrepreneur of the Year." (2008). Biotech Business Week 1988.

But today, the New York Times, published an Obituary for another Janet Wolfe, who received substantial coverage in the New Yorker over decades. The New Yorker also wrote about her death today , she's also been the subject of a documentary film.

Proposal: Delete Janet Wolfe, create new article on the other Janet Wolfe with a hatnote pointed to Wolfe Laboratories, use references listed above regarding the scientist to potentially expand Wolfe Laboratories.

This seemed like the best place to have a wide-ranging discussion on the possibilities here, before taking action. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep and blank and start the article on the new person in the same space to preserve the history. Then remove the links in the lab article. No need to even come here, you could have just done that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This seems like the best plan. The deletion could have been proposed with the thinking that changing the article to an entirely different person might need deletion to clear up confusion in page histories (not sure if that actually would be the case). If there's not any legitimate concern in that area, blanking is fine. The original Janet Wolfe doesn't appear notable either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Wolfe Laboratories as there's questionable solid notability for a separate article perhaps. Notifying DGG who may be interested with this subject. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete and make article on the new JW. We can't redirect this to the lab without confusion tho I suppose we could make a hatnote. Nut another reason for ot redirecting to the lab is that I will probably nominate it for deletion as soon as this closes. I know I !voted for keep back in 2008, but I've reconsidered. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Bahranis

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

empty of content. Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete Curro2 (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America 16:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 16:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete per above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of this article's history when I submitted my previous vote. I will therefore withdraw my previous vote. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Noting an earlier Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of notable Bahranis in the history. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:TROUT slap to the nominator for not checking the history before nominating, which shows that the list was blanked by one editor immediately after it was kept (contrary to that editor's wishes) in the last AFD. Restore to previous state and speedy keep. postdlf (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep: I have reverted the article to the version identified by User:Postdlf, which is a fairly clearly valid list article even if it could do with some further clarification of its criteria for inclusion - I would suggest that these should be natives, nationals and inhabitants of Bahrain as it was defined in their lifetimes (since the late 18th century, this would be the state ruled by the House of Khalifa, but before that it would cover eastern Arabia from Kuwait through to northern Oman). A quick look indicates that this would include a clear majority, though not all, of the names on the restored list. We should probably have a separate list of people using Bahrani as a surname, which would include a substantial proportion of the entries not fulfilling the criteria I am suggesting. PWilkinson (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the rationales of Postdlf and PWilkinson above. North America 10:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to the article if it is possible to reach agreement about the contentRathfelder (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ks0stm 08:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Rulers.org

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

Clearly just advertising as it ha no outside reference other than an apparent tertiary source in the link. No notability therefore indicated. Lihaas (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability (websites). We are not a catalog of webpages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America 16:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:OR. Per nominator, purely an advertisement.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete Hardly notable or circulated enough to have a page. Capitals00 (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete as none of this currently suggests a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. North America 00:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Gojo BOQ

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 13:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Nearly even speedy material and there's nothing at all to even suggest minimally better. Notifying tagger AllyD. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: I had originally just tagged this on new page patrol (rather than CSD A7) to encourage the addition of references which may exist in Ethiopian media (which Google Translate does not seem to handle) but the WP:SPA article creator hasn't returned to add anything to support it. The little that can be discerned is just that the software is produced by Continental Management Systems and Software Solutions PLC. No indication that this product meets WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ks0stm 08:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternative Payments (Company)

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable company. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 13:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America 16:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 16:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 16:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. no evidence of notability at all. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete for now as simply none of this suggests even a minimally better article. Notifying tagger Flixtey. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what action should be taken on this subject as i can't confirm the notability of this article hence tagging the article with the appropriate tags at the time. Some of which required more references to prove its notability. Flixtey (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies) since the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\ 19:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: The article is big on the generalities of Euro-area financial services, but I am seeing no evidence of the significant coverage of this particular firm required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. I'm going to close this one down very early since there's really no chance of it ending any differently. A look at the article and the talk page shows that this is a character from a series that hasn't been published and per the book's (now deleted) article, the author is shopping the work out to various publishers, so this hasn't even been picked up by anyone yet or been published through any of the self-publishing avenues. I've also deleted the book's article as unambiguous promotion, although the character's deletion should be considered applicable to the book as well, even though it wasn't included by the original nominator. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Zodiac Braveheart

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

Self promotion of a character from a non notable book. Theroadislong (talk) 12:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Article is about a character from a book that is to be published soon. see Knowledge (XXG):Teahouse/Questions#New_Article_to_be_Deleted! for information from the author about this article. No significant coverage found in reliable sources. -- GB fan 13:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete A fictional character in an unpublished novel that shows no indication for becoming notable. Both this and the article on the novel An Emblem Of Fire were written by the supposed author. The latter is under PROD itself but I will add it to this AfD.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 11:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of founders of companies of the United States

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

For this list to be anywhere near complete it would have to be huge. See WP:SALAT. Iamoctopus (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment The creation of this list appears to be a reaction to the de-population of and subsequent proposal to merge Category:Founders of companies of the United States with another category (ongoing merge discussion here). As a single list, this is completely unwieldy and impractical. To give an idea, there are well over 1000 entries in Category:American company founders (defined as American people who have founded companies), the vast majority of whom will have founded companies in the US. Plus, there may be foreign nationals who have founded US companies, although the laws concerning that are quite restrictive. Ditto for American citizens founding foreign companies. As it is, the list in its initial state was basically useless to the reader, since it didn't even mention what US company (or companies) the person had founded. I've added some of this information to a few entries to see whether such a list could become viable. In the process, I found that some of the companies founded were not at at all notable, and the notability of the "founder" rested on something else entirely, e.g. as a politician. The entries in it are still so few and essentially random that they give a completely skewed and misleading view of the topic. Minimally, a list like this would also need to be broken down into sections, e.g. by sector, and ultimately forked. It is also extremely difficult to maintain given the ever-increasing number of biographies of company founders. If the CfD discussion decides to keep Category:Founders of companies of the United States, then this list should be deleted in favour of the category, unless its creator actually puts some work into making it more focused, informative, and useful than the category. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as not particularly encyclopedic list with not much value to the reader, anybody interested in founders would either look up the company or individual rather than a long random list which has a very large scope. MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Per WP:SALAT, "ists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". A list that includes every founder of every company in the United States would be far too broad and expansive to be of any value and likely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Furthermore, this list also violates WP:LSC's requirement that selection criteria "should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources". This list has no clearly discernible standards for distinguishing between "founders" and other individuals who may have participated in the formation of a company in some ancillary way. Individuals often describe themselves as "founders" in press releases for self-serving purposes, when in reality they made minimal contributions to the founding of a company. Even if this list were limited to "notable founders" or "notable companies", the determination of who counts as "notable" will be an inherently subjective endeavor. Finally, Knowledge (XXG) is not a repository of "loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons" (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY (emphasis added)). This list is nothing more than an indiscriminate repository of names of individuals loosely connected by the fact that they all claim to have founded a company. For the aforementioned reasons, I respectfully believe deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Interesting subject perhaps but also perhaps too wide of an article subject. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Question/Keep How is this list different than dozens of similar lists on wikipedia? See for example: List of Indian film actors. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me
I think it is obvious that the topic of this list satisfies LISTN. The topic of the list isn't nearly broad enough for SALAT to be an issue, assuming it is confined to notable founders of notable companies. We have lists with hundreds of thousands of entries, never mind a mere one thousand. The list is not random, it is alphabetical. The arguments about 'maintainability' are nonsense. If we can maintain five million articles, we can maintain this list. Since this list now identifies the company founded, it is a significant improvement on the category, which does not provide that information and is therefore much harder to use (think NOTDUP). The fact the list needs expansion is irrelevant (IMPERFECT and PRESERVE). I think an alphabetical index of articles is useful, and we have plenty of other such indexes. James500 (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE is also irrelevant as this list meets none of its criteria. James500 (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

is the above a keep !vote? LibStar (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Weak Delete - Very weak delete. Not opposed to Userfying to preserve the work done so far. There are more founders than companies (given they're often co-founded), and we ~~don't~~ probably shouldn't have a List of companies in the United States because it ~~would be~~ is much too broad to be useful (and unnecessary given we already have lists for every state). There's an argument that the list would actually be shorter because companies are more likely to be notable than their founders, and we would logically limit the list to notable founders, but it's still a huge group. Ideally, list articles about businesses would be more than a bulleted list of company names and go into more detail, including, perhaps, the founder, which would in any event remove the need for this separate list. The question to me is how much work it would be to make this not a useless miniscule, indiscriminate sampling of founders -- and the answer is too much. So weak delete without prejudice to creation of lists with narrower criteria. — Rhododendrites \\ 15:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: RIGHT ON! — it is a real shame we do not have a List_of_companies_of_the_United_States since it has been viewed 65,981 times in the last 90 days by readers of Knowledge (XXG). If we did have such a list we should delete it promptly because we don’t want to be lumbered with maintaining things just because the public wants them. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Ha. ~~Well, "RIGHT ON" is kind of obnoxious, but~~ that's a pretty glaring oversight on my part, indeed. I assumed given List of companies of the United States by state (and the many state-specific lists), that we wouldn't have such a crazy broad article. My mistake. Regarding "we should delete it promptly because we don’t want to be lumbered with maintaining things just because the public wants them" -- so because "the public wants them" is reason for having an article? "List of companies", if it were to be for all companies in the world rather than a redirect, would probably get even more pageviews. So would "List of hottest butts" and "Places to buy weed in ". That something gets pageviews does not make it encyclopedic. So of course we don't want to be lumbered with maintaining things just because the public wants them. Anyway, this AfD isn't about that list. Consider my WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST trumped by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that I was wrong about the existence of my example doesn't change the substance of the point. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

From: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouragedit is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

I don't know what you intend by this, but it seems like there's an irony here. In response to the paragraphs I wrote, which obviously are not "simply referring to the essay by name, and nothing else", you seem to be doing just that -- not by "simply referring" but by simply transcribing, and nothing else. In my second comment, I did connect both of our comments (not just yours) to that essay, half-jokingly (because in part of my own comment I made such an argument, but you pointed out that I did exist -- hence canceling out or something...maybe not so amusing after all), and even then didn't "simply refer to this essay by name, and nothing else." — Rhododendrites \\ 00:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for muddying the waters. I was referring to my Question Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Delete- overly broad in scope, hopelessly unmaintainable. Fails WP:SALAT. Reyk _YO! 15:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete Too broad in scope, will become unmanageable and may become a target of spam. Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete Far too broad without significant further qualification. —swpb 20:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ks0stm 08:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Kushida Momoko

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

Fails WP:GNG .Not clear why this particular Flight attendant is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. The refs seem to be entirely PR, as judged by Google translate (which admittedly isn't very good for Japanese). DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete by all means as there's hardly anything here. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Looking at the Japanese sources, she is apparently the cabin attendant assigned to do publicity work for Japan Airlines. The articles themselves are not PR, apart from of course talking about JAL, since the Mainichi is one of the major national newspapers. She appears in some other sources, like this one in Nikkei Business doing the same thing. Searches also show her appearing in some books on how to become a cabin attendant or the state of working in the airline industry. If she is notable, it is in being chosen to represent one of the major world airlines, but I just don't yet see enough significant RS to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Also apparently cameos in some quiz programs and news shorts but couldn't possibly qualify for WP:GNG. Jun Kayama 01:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Not seeing enough sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate that this person actually satisfies WP:GNG. --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 11:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The nature of God in Western theology

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

Long-standing personal essay, not salvageable. The ostensible subject is already covered by God in Christianity, God in Judaism, and God in Islam. Qzd (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete but look who wrote the article back in 2001... Curro2 (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hah! I didn't notice that. Qzd (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

~~Keep.~~ Preserve There is significant scholarship about the concept of God in Western theology generally, rather than within the context of a specific religion. See, for example, this book, this book, this book, this book, and this book. At the very least, this topic serves the unique function of explaining the relationship between various conceptions of God in Western theology. Although this article may need to be WP:TNT'd, I think we should follow WP:ATD's mandate that "if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." As an aside, the Knowledge (XXG) community should discuss ways to preserve institutional memory to teach future generations about some of the earliest contributions to the encyclopedia (a Knowledge (XXG) archives, of sorts). It would be a shame if the original version of this page was lost to the sands of time. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: I will concede that almost every reliable source uses the term "Western theology" synonymously with "Christian theology." I did find an abundance of sources that talk about the nature of God in Abrahamic religions, but we already have an article for that (see God in Abrahamic religions). If this were any run-of-the-mill article I would say we should delete it, but I think this article has some special historic significance to the encyclopedia and we should make some effort to preserve institutional memory. Perhaps we can move this material to Larry Sanger's page, or perhaps even a WP:ESSAY to show what Knowledge (XXG) was like in the early days? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Clearly an essay. The books cited above are mostly using "Western theology" to refer to Western Christianity, which is quite different to the what the article says. I'm not even sure Western theology in the article's sense of the word is a notable subject, let alone this specific topic. St Anselm (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge into Conceptions of God which has a more general framework for the topic. Andrew D. (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment @Qzd, Curro2, Notecardforfree, Curro2, Andrew Davidson, and StAnselm: This is one of the first wikipedia's article, which is written by User:Larry Sanger. This is like a Fossil from the former era of wikipedia. Due to the fact that Larry is not active anymore, let's ask @Jimbo's idea about this fossil.--Seyyed(t-c) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Preserve it I think we can preserve it for Knowledge (XXG) museum to show people how the earliest articles were.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need WP:NOTMUSEUM. St Anselm (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

But I think WP needs one for itself.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as ESSAY. It ends with "Originally based on lecture notes by Larry Sanger." That is not up to the current WP standard. I am not saying that the subject is not important, but I think we have other articles. There may be a case for having a WP museum of early articles, but it ought to be distinct from the main WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete' How did it last this long? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 11:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Careers 360

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

This article is about a non-notable website. The article is quite thin, and and a search turns up no reliable sources that cover this site. Transmissionelement (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

delete it gets passing mentions but nothing in-depth . LibStar (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of notability, I shall now turn 360 degrees and walk away. –Davey2010 00:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ironwood County

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, I see very little about this fictional county beyond the descriptions of the relevant books or statements from the author himself. Nsteffel (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to author John Schreiber. This fictional county does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find any suitable citations for notability but some of the information could be used to expand author article.Coolabahapple (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete instead as I considered simply mentioning at the author's article but there's simply not much for that so delete at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom and the above editors. Not enough in-depth coverage to show how this fictional county is notable. Onel5969 13:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Seraphimblade 16:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ramil Garifullin

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

A fraud psychologist removed from RU.WP because of 1) dishonest pseudoscience works and 2) no slightest response to them from authoritative sources.

Widely analyzed on https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/4_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0_2013#.D0.93.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.84.D1.83.D0.BB.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BD.2C_.D0.A0.D0.B0.D0.BC.D0.B8.D0.BB.D1.8C_.D0.A0.D0.B0.D0.BC.D0.B7.D0.B8.D0.B5.D0.B2.D0.B8.D1.87

--Akim Dubrow (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet the inclusions rules for academics and lacks coverage for GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete, per nomination--Jac16888 00:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Akim Dubrow and Ramil Garifullin is a long – standing opponents. About the wrong estimates made by Akim Dubrow

1. Akim Dubrow and Ramil Garifullin is a long – standing opponents and have antagonism.Fedor Babkin is the assistant Akim Dubrov. A significant portion of the papers and books of Professor, candidate of psychological Sciences of Ramil Garifullin dedicated to drug prevention. Moreover, Ramil Garifullin in the media acutely raised the issue about the dangers of certain articles in Knowledge (XXG) dedicated to drugs and psihodelii (http://www.securitylab.ru/analytics/472275.php). On the other hand, Akim Dubrow is the author and translator of books in Russia dedicated to drug substances and an author of articles on psihodelii in Knowledge (XXG). It is likely that the main antagonism between Akim Dubrow and Ramil Garifullin is now in the risk of publications on drugs and psihodelii in Knowledge (XXG).

2. Earlier this conflict Akim Dubrow - Ramil Garifullin has been associated with the publication of an article about Garifullina negative article about Snowden. Article about Garifullin on Knowledge (XXG) was removed in 2013 on the day of publication in the Russian newspaper article about Snowden.

3. Ramil Garifullin`s good level of scientific citation http://elibrary.ru/author_refs.asp?authorid=295329&SesCookieID=372174247&UserID=175914337. Ramil Garifullin told me that if would be continued against him as slander in the discussion of Knowledge (XXG), he is libel to sue against Fedor Babkin .

4. Moreover, this identity in the English Knowledge (XXG) is seen as a well-known Russian journalist and writer, not as a scientist. Although the number of scientific articles and monographs enough (watch out links http://elibrary.ru/author_refs.asp?authorid=295329&SesCookieID=372174247&UserID=175914337. Therefore it is incorrect to use the same discussion for deletion on the Russian Knowledge (XXG).

5. The Internet is the namesake and namesake, Ramil Garifullina, who is really engaged in pseudoscience and is in jail. It's a different person. Not to be confused! So it looks like slander.

6. Based on this English article was formed a modified Russian text to Russian Knowledge (XXG), which upheld the administrator Be nt all Here is his assessment: the Draft looked, the chances of successful recovery are good, although above the neutral still need to be work Be nt all 07:40, November 25, 2015 (UTC). This text was revised and edited based discussions-2013. Here is the translation:

7. But Akim Dubrow was removed for some reason https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Irek_Minnullin Irek Minnullin 22:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC) .

8. Be nt all gave me an assignment to work on the draft is not directly on RS, but on the appropriate subpage: https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA:Irek_Minnullin/%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Be nt all 16:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC) https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:Be_nt_all#Akim_Dubrow_.D0.BF.D0.BE.D1.87.D0.B5.D0.BC.D1.83-.D1.82.D0.BE_.D1.83.D0.B4.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.BB_.D0.BF.D0.B5.D1.81.D0.BE.D1.87.D0.BD.D0.B8.D1.86.D1.83

9. Ask the participants to carefully examine all links and articles Garifullina and not to succumb to provocations tandem Akim Dubrow-Fedor Babkin. Article revised in the light of ancient comments-2013. The article is about a famous essayist and writer. The merit of Ramil Garifullina as a scientist is sufficient.

10. And think, what are the motives of the authors (Akim Dubrov and Fedor Babkin) of the Russian Knowledge (XXG) to put the question of removal of articles from the English Knowledge (XXG)?

11. Attention/// read: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Ramil_Garifullin

Irek Minnullin (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep. "dishonest pseudoscience works" - it is only opinion of Akim Dubrow based on only one internet post about Edward Snowden, not on books, newspaper articles, TV and radio broadcasts.

"no slightest response" Well. Most of them are at Kazan, Tatarstan, not central Moscow, so what? Ramil Garifullin was a participant of Tatarstan government projects. He has books, newspaper articles, TV shows and radio broadcasts, maybe local, not federal, but he has them.

So only bad English language of article remains... Is it a serious reason for deleting? I don`t think so.--Rad8 (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

newspapers • books • scholar •

The above figures Akim Dubrow (Find sources: "Ramil Garifullin" – • newspapers • books • scholar • highbeam •JSTOR) wrong! Here are the correct figures:

news (3190 posts) : Google:

https://www.google.ru/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD&newwindow=1&tbm=nws

news Yandex (3376 posts):

https://news.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=%22%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%22&rpt=nnews2&grhow=clutop books Yandex (107 000 posts): https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8&lr=43

books (106 000 posts) Google:

https://www.google.ru/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD+%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B8&newwindow=1&start=90

newspapers (91 000 posts) Yandex:

https://yandex.ru/search/?text=%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0&lr=43

newspapers (22800 posts)

Google: https://www.google.ru/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0+

scholar(62000 posts) Yandex:

https://yandex.ru/search/?lr=43&text=%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%20%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F%20%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%85%D1%81%D1%8F

scholar(29100 posts) Google:

https://www.google.ru/?gws_rd=ssl#newwindow=1&q=%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C+%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%84%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD+%D0%B4%D0%BB%D1%8F+%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%89%D0%B8%D1%85%D1%81%D1%8F Irek Minnullin (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Russian science citation Index of articles and books Ramil Garifullin

Russian index of scientific citation (215) : http://elibrary.ru/author_refs.asp?authorid=295329

Publication in scientific and academic journals (34) : http://elibrary.ru/author_items.asp?authorid=295329

Analysis of scientific and publication activity: http://elibrary.ru/author_profile.asp?id=295329

Ramil Garifullin has a Large number of citations in Scopus (will introduce later)

Irek Minnullin (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Television

Thanks to the popularity of their scientific and publicistic works in 1998 the Central ORT TV channel invited Garifullin in the TV program "Rush Hour" (Russian likeness of the American television program "Larry King Live") (http://irtube.ru/video/obschestvo/psiholog-ramil-garifullin-peredacha-chas.html, https://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D1%81_%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%BA_(%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BC%D0%B0) (teleprogramma), may 26, 1998) - It's Prime time, the largest Russian TV channel about the biography and work of famous people all over the world. From Tatarstan it was only the President of Tatarstan. Garifullin was invited known as the author of their books on psychology bluffing and deception.

Next, learn more about the importance of personality Garifulln for Knowledge (XXG):

Ramil Ramzievich Garifullin (Russian: Рамиль Рамзиевич Гарифуллин; born May 7, 1962 in Kazan) is a Russian publicist and writer, psychologist and psychotherapist. He authored several popular books on psychology and was among the first authors in Russia to write books on the psychology of manipulation. He is a TV presenter, expert and author in television and publishing projects. Irek Minnullin (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ramil Garifullin - Columnist largest Federal Russian Radio

Ramil Garifullin - Columnist-psycholog of largest Federal Russian Radio "Vesti FM"http://radiovesti.ru/person/show/person_id/5847 Irek Minnullin (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep. Please admins or members to remove the article from deletion and allow further refinement.Irek Minnullin (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ramil Garifullin - Columnist of largest Federal Russian Newspapers

In 2006–2008 Garifullin actively popularizes psychological knowledge in printed media and on television. He works as a reporter for the analytical section of the weekly newspaper "Arguments of the week" (includes about 80 popular science publications, circulation of 570,000 copies weekly) and writes for the column "Psychoanalysis". About 40 well-known Russian figures had consultations with the psychologist. In addition, Garifullin leads the broad journalistic activities and has a large number of publications in the largest Russian media.

References

Neutral sources about Ramil Garifullin (Social resonance)

Garifullin discovered that among corrupt officials, there exists a fraction of bribe takers with different degrees of bribe-taking mania. Lately this fact has created a big social resonance. He used the discovery as a basis for his work "The concept of psychological and psychotherapeutic approaches to the problem of bribery and bribe-taking mania” . This concept was supported by the Head of the Anti-Corruption Policy Department under the President of the Republic of Tatarstan, M.S. Badrutdinov, and was implemented in the extension courses for public servants and state officials of different levels. R.R. Garifullin together with channel NTV (TV-program "Maximum") organized testing of officials and deputies of the State Duma for bribe-taking mania (degrees of bribe-taking mania).

References

"Aktualnye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava" ("Current Problems in Economics and Law"), no. 4(24), 2012, pp. 9–15 (In Russian)."Bribe-taking mania as one of the causes of bribery"
new method to prevent corruption”(video)
Corrupt Officials in Russia will Undergo Hypnosis Treatment, Research Institute of Corruption Problems, 2011
Corrupt Officials in Russia will Undergo Hypnosis Treatment. LifeNews
extension courses for public servants and state officials of different levels
Bribe-Taking Mania is Being Treated in Tatarstan
“State Officials of Tatarstan are Being Treated for Bribe-Taking Mania”
Psychotherapeutic Approaches are Used in Tatarstan to Fight Corruption
“Politicians are Afflicted with an Unknown Illness” (video)
Former Mayor of Vladivostok Passed the Bribe-Taking Mania Test
How the Deputies of the State Duma and Officials were Tested for Bribe-Taking Mania(video). LifeNews

The result was delete. There's no clear consensus. "Keep" opinions consider the coverage he's received sufficient for notability, while delete opinions are of the view that the coverage isn't sufficient to justify an article, and that in marginal cases the subject's wishes should be taken into account. These are both valid positions.

Normally, this "no consensus" outcome would lead to the article being kept by default, but per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE I can under such circumstances honor the subject's wish to delete the article. I do so here because I am of the view that the encyclopedia's educational usefulness is, in the grand scheme of things, only very marginally reduced by removing an article about the CIO of a relatively small government agency who hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy and does not seem to be a person of interest to a general public. This can of course change, in which case this article can be recreated, and appropriate information about him may also be included in any related articles. Sandstein 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

David A. Bray

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

This article appears to have been started and written almost exclusively by socks over the past couple years (see history) and I'm generally of the opinion that it at the very least needs some TNT to start over and we should probably at least discuss whether it needs a full article regardless (perhaps, if anything, an article about the role?) .

It is important to note a couple extra points:

I have struck down the article a ton because the original was very fluffy and really couldn't be used as is and I was not sure it was worth while to try and weed through the existing text. You can see how it appeared beforehand in this old revision.
A user claiming to be the article subject has come to the talk page and asked for the page to be deleted/blanked and speedy deleted. I was unwilling to speedy delete but because I do think the notability is borderline already (and so may well fall under our usual policies to lean towards an article subjects request) I was willing to request deletion and to courtesy blank the page for now while the discussion was ongoing.
I am happy for any uninvolved admin or experienced editor to undo my actions on the article if they believe necessary (speedy delete if you believe eligible, undo the courtesy blank etc). James of UR (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep -- clearly notable, not marginal at all. I agree that the previous version (e.g. this) was very fluffy, but it does show notability. I emphasise that this is not a marginal case, so the subject's request (not made via OTRS, btw) doesn't come into play. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, i've asked him to verify identity with OTRS and tried to explain the procedures. I personally lean towards marginal notability but could be convinced otherwise. I originally didn't think so and just planned to blow it up so that I/others could start anew but too many of the sources on the article ended up being press releases/essential copies of press releases/fluff pieces/blogs etc that I through up my hands and decided I needed some more eyes on it. I'm not totally sure I am comfortable saying he is notable "simply" because of his position as CIO of the FCC but it's possible his work has touched enough of the wider field to be so notable. James of UR (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

TNT Delete and redirect OR Delete and start a stub anew with new editors to clarify since there seems to be some debate, with the open caveat that I am the article's subject and have not been involved in past edits, though I have monitored them and they went to a level of detail I was not comfortable with personally. If the decision is to keep, Clpo13 suggested something called TNT? Could that be at least done out of respect for my own privacy to start a new? Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 09:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC) One update with the note I am article's subject and have not been involved in past edits, I am all for openness and differences in opinion. If the decision is to keep can I ask that TNT or something be applied to start the article anew with one or more fresh editors perhaps using some consolidated version of the past? I watched edits or comments on edits in the history that got too into details, like such as my wife for example, who no doubt is she central and core to my personal life just not a topic for a public article and we both would prefer it to be actions and activities if possible? It has never been my goal to be the target of such debates and I prefer to focus on "getting stuff done" that matters. Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Federal Communications Commission#Modernization of the FCC.27s information technology systems. With all due respect to the article's subject (and assuming good faith that the requester is, in fact, the article's subject), I believe that given the position he holds/held and the amount of coverage that results from that means that, while we might not want notability, it is, sometimes, something that is unavoidable. That said, the coverage at the target mentioned there appears to be appropriate for his role with the FCC, and it would seem to be a reasonable compromise between the desire not to be notable and the unavoidable fact of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep Clearly notable; and "deletion is not clean-up". I'm also unclear as to why the nominator has blanked the article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep Although I understand Mr. Bray's discomfort with the article, he is far too notable to delete. He is a man who is in the public eye, and who makes decisions on issues with national and international policy impact. Unfortunately, this makes his Knowledge (XXG) page a target for people who disagree with him on issues. This, obviously, is one of Knowledge (XXG).s endemic problems. Deletion is not the answer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete and redirect as proposed by The Bushranger. There are a lot of CIOs in the world, some of whom have done great work. It doesn't mean that they should be listed here. Some of those initiatives are maybe worth an entry in more relevant articles, perhaps with a reference to Mr Bray. But a whole article seems excessive. In addition, earlier drafts looked suspiciously like puff piecees. Shritwod (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - I hope that anyone voting to keep the article is not doing so despite the situation - being that there is a COI with the article, potential sockfarm, and now the subject of the article requesting deletion and maybe trying to keep the article to prove a point. Yes, I am assuming good faith, but I am also tackling the elephant in the room so sorry if anyone is offended. Saying that he is "clearly notable" and "in the public eye" is not good enough as there is no notability guideline that states someone is notable based on being in the "public eye." With that, I will say that he has coverage in many reliable sources. However, many of it is quotes, passing mentions, podcasts or webcasts. Nothing that I believe would qualify him under WP:GNG, but I will abstain for the moment to see if anyone is able to show me otherwise. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Changed my vote to delete from a simple comment. I guess my statement fell on def ears as I continue to see keep votes without rationale. Speechless at this point. Have at keeping an article that no one can show meets notability guidelines. I'm out! --CNMall41 (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  - "clearly notable" is a perefectly good reason to keep an article; and neither an alleged CoI, nor an alleged sockfarm, are reasons to deletes an article that otherwise meets GNG Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed per the instructions provided to verify my identity as the subject and will reiterate I prefer not to be notable and the TNT option with a redirect is welcomed. I have not been involved in past edits. If the community thinks I should be, then Varent's suggestion here of a TNT and few short sentences is preferred. While it is not fun to have one's life debated at length I also realize this is about the community reaching its own conclusion. Focusing on "getting stuff done" is what matters to me which is why I initially requested a speedy deletion. Thank you for your consideration. Northernva (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Update: I have emailed twice and stand-by to verify who I am; also the suggestion made by John Nagle on my talk page of this version is acceptable if it could address concerns that the current history of the existing main page contains details that are disconcerting from an identity theft or misuse standpoint and in my role I've tried to focus on the work getting done and not about me. This is why Clpo13's suggested TNT and delete or TNT and just the basics is preferable. I have emailed to verify my identity, let me more if I can do? Thank you for your help. Northernva (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep The subject is clearly notable, and a U.S. Government official with a reasonably high profile, by his own choice and actions. He has substantial coverage in Forbes , and the Huffington Post . He has 120K Twitter followers. That's a public figure. John Nagle (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think his notability is being a social media celebrity. If anyone with 120K followers is notable, I would be close to qualifying for notability. The Forbes and Huffington Post articles are both interviews or transcripts of interviews. How does that amount to notability? Despite being Forbes and Huff Post - both of which are reliable - these are still interviews which are not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep he's received a vast amount of trade press coverage. This isn't even close to being a borderline case.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, a keep vote without rationale. Can you show me where the guideline is for someone being notable for having "a cast amount of trade press coverage" is? --CNMall41 (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The rationale is "he's received a vast amount of trade press coverage." This meets WP:GNG, it's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

Federal Computer Week, "FCC's CIO started young"
Federal Times, "FCC CIO leads an IT 'intervention'"
Federal Computer Week, "Federal 100: David A. Bray"
WashingtonExec, "FCC CIO Dr. David Bray’s ‘Start-up Mentality Culture’ Connects People, Pipes to Modernize Agency’s 207 Legacy IT Systems"
Washington Post, "Inside the collapse of the FCC’s digital infrastructure — and the rush to save it"
fedscoop, "Inside the FCC's risky IT overhaul: FCC is in the midst of a total IT overhaul as its legacy systems have resulted in very public failures. Can David Bray lead the agency out of its antiquated past?"
ABC affiliate WJLA's show Government Matters, "Bray: 'Right now I'm focusing solely on the FCC'"
IT World Canada, "The FCC’s CIO uses a D.H. Lawrence poem to explain our digital future"
1to1Media,"David Bray, CIO, Federal Communications Commission: Bray has modernized the customer journey and created transparency by moving to the cloud."
GovTransformer, "GovTransformer: FCC to Go “All In” with the Cloud"
Nextgov, "Need a Use Case for Cloud? Look to FCC"
The Enterprisers Project, "Why everyone must play a part in improving IoE privacy"
FierceGovernmentIT, "NASA, FCC, USDA lean on open source to propel IoT forward, DoD less so"
Carrt.ca, "CTS 2015: FCC CIO sees even bigger changes coming "
CIO, "Tips from a day in the life of 4 CIOs"

(This list doesn't include a large number of interview style articles.)--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirect if that is the wishes of the article's subject. We should always "Do No Harm" is borderline cases. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Please read comments carefully, contra to CNMA1141, I see no one arguing that social media followers confer notability, although, certainly, this: in the Washington Post of Bray's job performance highlighting his social media presence does establish notability. Also, CNMall41 refutes a user who cited media coverage of Bray in the trade press as "vast" (actually CNMall41 mis-cites (typo?) the assertion as "cast") In fact, the vast, or, at least, intense and continuous coverage of Bray's work inthe trade press does confer notability. If the problem is Bray or an admirer using sockpuppets to promote Bray, rather than policy opponents using sockpuppets to attack him, that can be dealt with. Deletion of a notable figure is not the solution.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my misspelling which doesn't really have bearing on the discussion. But since you brought it up, it's "in the," not "inthe" as you stated above and "contrary" as opposed to "contra" but that is besides the point. As far as the "trade press," saying something does not make it true. I requested to be shown the guideline that allows us to determine notability based on such assertion but have yet to have anyone produce anything other than an opinion. A person is only a "notable figure" if there is coverage - in-depth, reliable, and independent (see WP:42) - that supports them being a notable figure. Being in a notable position in real life does not make them notable for Knowledge (XXG). If that was the case, we can create articles for all prior CIOs. The Washington Post article is an interview which should never be used for notability. If the subject requested to have his article "kept," I am sure you would use such rationale to delete it saying that the subject only has passing mentions and interviews. This whole thing looks like a classic case of WP:POINT.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete and Redirect I concur that the argument for notability is on that margin edge of being notable and a courteous collapsing is reasonable. I would note (particularly in the direction of the subject of the article) that it would take a few controversial or very popular opinions to push over into definite notability and inclusion, and therefore wish to indicate that the "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" should not be used short of a exact copy of the text going forward. I'd rather have the debate full out every time as the standards could raise or lower and the BLP's own actions could raise or lower their notability. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete and Redirect Close enough to the borderline that we should respect the Subject's wishes, which have now been confirmed via OTRS . While arguably a public figure, I think we should still treat it as a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE situation. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep A number of sources which are reliable and independent have significant coverage of him, and he is an influential and high-ranking government official. He satisfies WP:BIO. He is certainly not a person outside the public sphere, a child or some unfortunate individual known for one crime or one mistake,or for having some ailment, so "do no harm" hardly applies. Knowledge (XXG) is not a vanity publication or voluntary directory, so we do not base our decisions about having an article on whether the person wants an article. Edison (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete Being a CIO doesn't make you notable, and it's marginal whether he passes WP:GNG. So, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to define this high government official whose decisions and administrative style are discussed in major publications as a "non-public figure," which is what WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE specifies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. The relevant part of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is this: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." He is not "relatively unknown", he is not a "non-public figure". The stub (as it stands right now) has more text in the 25 sources than in the actual article text. There is no valid reason for someone this prominent to have their article deleted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems to apply here. For it not to apply, there would have to be sources indicating enough notability that we can ignore that. I am not convinced by what has been posted so far that he has enough notability for that. The sources obviously do show some notability, but the criteria we are supposed to use are harsher than just "has some notability". Note that Edison's claim that "we do not base our decisions about having an article on whether the person wants an article" is not true; it contradicts BLPREQUESTDELETE. Ken Arromdee (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think what we have here is a person who is notable amongst his peers but not notable in general. His work, achievements and publications are of interest perhaps if you are a CIO or CTO of a large US organisation, but that does not merit an article here IMO. It's hardly as if the FCC is that large an organisation anyway - with only 1720 employees and a $388m budget it is much smaller than even the smallest Fortune 500 company, and Knowledge (XXG) doesn't even list the CEO of most of those organisations, never mind the CIO/CTO. Obviously the FCC is of some notability in itself, but individual senior officers within it are generally not. Shritwod (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment only, many thanks Shawn for the note however I am *not* a politician. Happy to be deleted. I am neither politically elected nor appointed, I got my job by applying via the open competition approach available to all U.S. individuals via USAjobs. I am a career senior executive and thus do not need to be listed as politician-related discussions; thank you. For those unfamiliar with U.S. non-political senior execs, we translate the political will of all parties to the career workforce while at the same time not picking a specific political side, which means we're often the punching bag of all sides to "get stuff done" which is why I'm happy to remain not-notable in my role. Hope this helps. Northernva (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Lumbersexual. As a temporary measure. Consensus is to not retain this as an article, but further editorial work is needed to merge appropriate content elsewhere, and/or rewrite this as a disambiguation page. Sandstein 18:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Urban lumberjacking

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, a google search only brings up the following relevant pages - The Urban Lumberjack – The Accidental Eco-Warrior of the City, and a one sentence definition of the term here - that do not make this article notable. Maybe more appropriate for Wiktionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete This is just a slang term for a kind of Timber recycling. Borock (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to Lumbersexual. The term "urban lumberjack" describes a style of fashion where urban dwellers dress like lumberjacks (i.e. grow long beards and wear plaid shirts). InStyle and Esquire Magazine both use the term "urban lumberjack" to describe the fashion trend, and JCPenney even sells urban lumberjack slippers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 15:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge/Redirect to dumpster diving. It appears here, so at least is not made up, but I doubt there is enough for a standalone article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment - based on the above three !votes - might not the best course of action be to add the above data to the three pages linked, and then turn this page into a DAB page, pointing to the 3 pages? If that's the decision, ping me and I'll be more than happy to take care of it. Onel5969 13:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fender TR 105

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

Non-notable product; discontinued in less than a year. Unreferenced and stub for about 7 years, no claim of notability. References to establish notability aren't forthcoming. Mikeblas (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 03:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep or Merge There is a pretty extensive list of Fender products that somebody put a lot of time into. I added what I could find on it, this was a very early wireless setup, the content and a redirect should probably be retained. See Template:Fender 009o9 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now perhaps and merge later if conceivable as there is actually not much here but the sources may be enough for now until actions are taken later. SwisterTwister talk 23:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

List of veterans of World War I who died in 1999

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

This feels closer to a directory and against WP:CSC as this gets closer and closer to indiscriminate if we go further back in time. This list already has over 750 names on it all of which on verifiable existence alone to me, not based on encyclopedic and topical relevance. While this isn't normally a criteria here, how far back should these lists of veterans go? In theory, the first list would be "List of veterans of World War I who died in 1914" which I think everyone agrees would be absurd. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete For complete disclosure, this went Keep back in an AfD in 2007 Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Veterans of the First World War who died in 1999 under a slightly different name. Most of the keep votes had no policy behind them, and even the closer questioned his decision in the close. The talk page is very revealing. Even RYoung, the now banned super old people tracker questioned the value of this list. Reading the list shows this is obviously a very incomplete list and if it were not for a cross referancing project to ID UK vets a good part of it would not be here. It fails WP:NLIST and is rather an indiscriminate and not complete list of names of people that died in their 90's and just past 100, which is not that remarkable. Anyone with an article should be in Deaths in 1999 anyway. The rest are just names and dates with no other info. Legacypac (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete: Having died in 1999 is not a defining characteristic - we wouldn't have an article on veterans of conflict x which had red hair would we? —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable intersection of criteria. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete as a non-defining list. If the list had included only notable individuals within Knowledge (XXG) (ie with an article) then it might have had some usefulness as an alternative to a category - but we still get round to that non-defining aspect. Old people dying is not distinctive enough. And I would recommend that the other similar lists also be considered. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete per what has been well-said above. I'm not seeing any type of justification/coverage for a standalone list on this topic. Canadian Paul 17:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic or useful conceptualization of an encyclopedic matter. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Ivan Georgiev Petrov

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

refs all appear to lack independence from subject. article requires in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources, which so far it does not have. KDS4444 07:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Will add independent references today. 64.222.106.126 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Replaced references and added new ones that are independent of subject. Gpetrov (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominator Although several of the references are still problematic, I am now convinced that this individual qualifies as notable by Knowledge (XXG) standards. KDS4444 23:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was Keep, withdrawn by the nominator and no additional votes for deletion. (NAC) Cavarrone 07:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Peaceable Kingdom (film)

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

There really is very little evidence of notability in this one. Sources are primary or unreliable, and it doesn't seem to have been widely released. A couple mentions by very minor film festivals probably don't push this up to notability. Adam Cuerden 07:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. while not-for-profit fringe documentaries rarely meet the criteria of WP:NF, we do not expect independent docs to have the same coverage as do mainstream for-profit films. But coverage in such as Sentinal-Record, Plain Dealer, Verdict, Abril (Brazil), multiple books, and slightly less substantial coverage in such as ~~Time-Out~~, Political Media Review, Princeton Environmental Film Festival, Mindful Metropolis show the intent of WP:NF is met. Article needs work, not deletion. Schmidt, 01:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
- @MichaelQSchmidt: A couple of those are very weak evidence, take the "Verdict" cite. The entirety of the reference to the film there is "I have chosen not to show this film, however, and instead to begin the course with a film called “Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home” that has been carefully edited to limit the sorts of images that could cause viewers mental and emotional distress. The film is gentle in its exposure of what happens to animals whose milk, eggs, and flesh are consumed." - there is literally not another word discussing the film. The Plain Dealer's text consists of "an artist friend living on the west side, who is a committed ethical vegan, had me watch 'Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home' which made me realize just how horribly animals are treated before they are slaughtered." - we need more than trivial coverage to reach the general notability guideline, but you've just iven a mix of sites we'd need to debate whether they'd count as reliable sources that have non-trivial coverage with better sites that have trivial coverage, which doesn't move us forwards at all. Now, I have nothing against the film itself (it came up in a review of a few articles) but I am a Wikipedian. Adam Cuerden 03:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: That you choose to single out that "couple" may be "weak" and quote the text of one is fine, but does nothing to refute the others that are strong... and restating the obvious, I am also a Wikipedian. But as an Admin and Coordinator of Project Film (less obvious), I understand that WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline or policy mandate and weak WP:GNG is GNG none-the-less, thanks. Schmidt, 08:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@MichaelQSchmidt: Well, you've proven your point before, so I suppose I do need to check everything, and not just go by the ones I did check so far.

I do think you should check your sources a bit better. is not going to convince people. Including weak sources makes me a lot more suspicious by the time I come to the other sources. Of the sources, the best are and . I'd rather they weren't sourced to the movie company's website, but they're decently long writeups that at least look professional. I don't know much about the newspapers they're from, and them being on the movie's website is a downside. The books are... hard to evaluate, as you have to first decide if the book's a reliable source, then figure out what it says about the movie. I don't think we have a smoking gun yet, but I'm leaning towards WP:AGF. The article doesn't have any other issues besides notability being in question, can we do anything to settle that point firmly? The requirement's non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Two major newspapers or review sites with decent coverage would be more than ample. Adam Cuerden 12:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I offered as many as could be quickly found, and even the least of them is suitable under WP:V for verifying simple facts. And it must be remembered that WP:SIGCOV instructs that sources need not be only about a topic being sourced in order to support notability. I have struck the ~~Timeout~~ link so let's not get bogged down in old minutae. The the filmmakers chose to archive the lengthy articles Connections Magazine and The Sentinel-Record is wonderfully helpful to us under WP:NTEMP... and note: The Sentinel-Record has it's own archive of that page for registrants... the filmmakers just made it easier. Added, we have lengthy reviews in Political Media Review and DVD Talk. Is this the same level of earth-shattering coverage as some big-studio for-profit blockbuster-film? No. Is it enough for us here in Knowledge (XXG) according to WP:NF? Yes. We do not need dozens. Thanks. Schmidt, 23:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

- - - - I think we've reached the level where we can move forwards with confidence about notability, particularly as there's no other issues. Withdraw. Adam Cuerden 01:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 28. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 12:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 12:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. WP:A3 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Bus stations in Salem

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

List with only two members, one of which does not have an article. —azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 03:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 03:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The Storm (2008 film)

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I couldn't really find anything to show that this film is really notable enough for an article. There's this article which implies that it's something he put together while a teenager and released around 2008. The website in the news story is dead. It's impressive that he made this at such a young age, but unfortunately this just didn't get him the coverage he'd need to pass NFILM. One thing to note: if this is deleted then The Storm (2008 film)/version 2 will also need to be deleted as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:26, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Weak delete. Even though Canada.com speaks in detail about the film's production, and it being screened, it has not received quite enough coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, 02:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 13:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Public holidays in Palestine

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

Noi such thing. Unreferenced fantasy - üser:Altenmann >t 01:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 06:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete No refs at all.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 08:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep Both the nomination and the !vote above are incorrect; the page does have references and they seem fine, as far as they go. As the page is a new one, reasonable time should be allowed to develop it and there are certainly more sources out there. For example, Bank and Public Holidays Throughout the World, 1921 has an entry for Palestine. Palestine in Late Antiquity has material like "The inhabitants of nearby Gaza were known for their fun-loving and public holidays which affirmed, somewhat noisily, the polytheistic character of their city." Palestine: Review of Commercial Conditions states "Public Holidays. The official weekly holiday of the Palestine Government and of the Banks is Sunday. Muslim business houses take Friday, Jewish Saturday, Christian Sunday." With a historical perspective, there seems to be plenty to say about this topic. Andrew D. (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

keep per Andrew Davidson. No t to mention the POV nomination.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep though this needs work. Curro2 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep and improve The article is sourced and the topic appears for many countries. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if the film later surpasses WP:NFF and meets other notability criteria. North America 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Marathi Tigers

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

Does not meet WP:NFF; unsourced and unable to find any independent sources to establish notability. Drm310 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

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

writer/director:(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)

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

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

WP:INDAFD: "Marathi Tigers" "Avdhoot B. Kadam" "Ashish Vidyarthi" "Dr. Amol Kolhe" "Vikram Gokhale" "Swapnil H Digde"

Temporary delete (or userfy) per being TOO SOON. The topic is sourcable, but has not yet released. We can allow it back after confirmed release and with inclusion of proper sources. Schmidt, 23:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Temporary delete per comment above FiendYT 16:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Temporary delete per MichaelQSchmidt. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 18:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete for now as mentioned, clearly too soon it seems. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete - Any article can be undeleted so "temporary delete" is pointless, Anywho no evidence of notability Fails GNG. –Davey2010 00:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was keep. There is definitely consensus that it should not be deleted, the arguments are for keep and for merge. I suggest that the merge discussion should be started by the merge proponents on the talk page to determine whether there is consensus for merge.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

La Huacana, La Huacana

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

This place is not independently notable from La Huacana Municipality per WP:NOTINHERITED. This edit reverted the article to a non-redirect, while this one removed the prod tag from the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep per WP:GEOLAND, a town of 8000 people is so clearly notable that the nomination is absurd. As for differentiating between a town and the municipality of which it's a seat - we do that all over Knowledge (XXG). For but one of many examples, take a look at List_of_municipalities_in_the_Free_State where set out are all the municipalities and their seats each with separate articles, looking very much like Municipalities of Michoacán where someone is bothering to fill up the redlinks. What's against Mexico here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 18:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge, Redirect and rename to simply La Huacana. It would seem that pretty much all municipalities in Mexico are named after their main settlement and in most cases we don't have separate articles for each one. Neither do we do this for other countries which are divided into municipalities/communes/parishes named after their main settlement (which is a lot of them, including such minor countries as Britain and France). It is important to distinguish minor sub-divisions like these, where almost all the population lives in the main settlement and the remaining area is really just a rural area with maybe a couple of small hamlets, from other far more important sub-divisions (like those in South Africa cited above) that comprise a lot more than that and may well contain other significant settlements. Just because something has the same name (i.e. municipality) doesn't mean it equates to the same thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep I might agree with a merge if it was the case that almost all the population lives in the main settlement and the remaining area is really just a rural area with maybe a couple of small hamlets: but here the town has a population about 8,000 and the municipality about 32,000, and Ref 2 in the town article confirms that six other significant populated places lie within the municipality. The town article needs to be moved to just La Huacana, and content needs to be swapped around between the two articles; but merging the two would be something like merging Nottinghamshire with Nottingham : Noyster (talk), 16:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep or merge as either is acceptable but if it is not independently notable, the certainly merge. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. Entirely unsourced WP:BLP. Deletion is mandatory per that policy. There would otherwise not be consensus to delete, so this can be restored by anybody who has reliable sources and is willing to, y'know, actually cite them. Sandstein 18:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mahmoud El-Minshawi

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

There is a claim of notability not supported by any sources. I've tried, but did not find any sources in English. Unless some sources provided on Arabic, looks not notable Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep for now - Keep in mind that new articles made by new editors might not have all the content they want to put on the page. Give the page a few more hours, and if the article has not been significantly expanded to show notability and has been sourced, we can delete it. It looks like the editor who made the article made it from a mobile phone and probably doesn't have any intention to expand it, but let's not assume immediately. CatcherStorm 09:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep - I found his Arabic profile and improved a bit. Searching his name brings up various videos. An Arabic expert needed here, but keep for now. —Мандичка 😜 11:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete There are no sources of any kind in the article. Articles should not exist without any sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Redirect to Mohamed Siddiq El-Minshawi. - HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are two different people. The article claims Mahmoud El-Minshawi is brother of Mohamed Siddiq El-Minshawi.Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see that I have been reading too quickly, sorry! - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep only if better improved and, if not, merge. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Weak keep - Being unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Sources only have to exist, not be present in the article. Per Wikimandia's research, keep and improve sourcing. Onel5969 13:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Mehdi Ghafourifar

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

This person does not have the required notability of a living person to be included in the Knowledge (XXG) and the article part of the family allied advertisement in the Knowledge (XXG) (i.e. Iran: Hot Tea, Cool Conversations, Brienne Ghafourifar, and Entefy. 09:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arashtitan (talk • contribs) 09:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this article on the father, which has been around since 2010, might have continued to slip under the radar were it not for the flurry of article creation activity by SPA User:Wheysted on Dec. 18 on the three articles cited by the nominator, all of which are also at Afd. In terms of coverage, I'd say his young daughter Brienne Ghafourifar is the more notable, as she received prominent coverage by both CNN and the Mercury News. Anyway, a case where a rash of WP:Walled garden activity by a SPA has WP:Boomeranged, I'd say. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete as searches found nothing better than a few passing mentions, nothing for a better article here. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep I'm confused as to the guidelines referenced not just in this article but in others that I created/edited. As mentioned, I don't see how this falls into the allied advertisements discussion. These are mutually independent entities/individuals who happen to be related some by content some by familial relations. Further, this article, based on the records I saw, was review previously and its only challenges were around it being a stub, and not around notability. As I came across his story, he's been noted as an author, multi-time entrepreneur, investor, filmmaker, etc, the combination arising to a single article rather than a split mention in various other articles.Wheysted (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Delete 3 small mentions in GNews. Fails WP:BIO. Conflict of interest concerns with single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 00:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 14:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The result was delete. If anyone would like a copy for a transwiki and the attribution history, please let me know and I'll be happy to provide it. Seraphimblade 20:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Alvus

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

I propose that this article is moved to Wiktionary and deleted on Knowledge (XXG). It is purely definitional. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

delete seems to be in order cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

delete we already have articles on the topics, this is just about the word. Happy Squirrel (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
transwiki to Wiktionary and delete on Knowledge (XXG). As anatomical terminology that is not in widespread use, I can't see the content being expanded to the level that would be needed to be able to stand on its own as a Knowledge (XXG) article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is already an article on Alvus in the wiktionarry so I don't think transwiking is necessary. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  - The content and the source cited in the Knowledge (XXG) article is not currently represented in the wiktionary article. Indeed the Knowledge (XXG) article started in 2006 cites a source from 1728 (now in the public domain) while the Wiktionary article started in 2009 only lists a source from 1879. This is why I suggest that it would be more appropriate to transwiki (by merging content to the wiktionary article). Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)