Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 April	6 April >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Masada

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

Beside the fact that the article reads as one big advertisement, there is the bigger concern of copyvio: Duplication Detector The Banner talk 22:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even considering the current article, there's nothing actually solid to suggest solid independent notability, delete at best for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Note the sources I have denoted below, found by viewing articles using the Find sources links atop this nomination. If you did not perform additional source searches, only basing your !vote upon sources in the article, please read WP:NEXIST, "notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your !vote appears to only be based upon sources in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling ya, this 'The Banner' has it in for me (just look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamie_Masada&action=history), if he doesn't go on and on about bad linkage, then he finds something else (like in this case, where he alleges I got this whole Jamie Masada article out of newspaper articles... ) Well, I got news for you, Banner, prior to me starting to write this Wikipedia article, the Laugh Factory (and thus Jamie Masada) have already been 'out there' for 37 years; also, as an 'authority' in the world of comedy, Masada gets in the news alot (like the other day, when Garry Shandling died), so it is no wonder 'his story' gets covered by everybody and the kitchen sink. Oh, and by the way, I read somewhere that this page is not a 'vote-page', then why does 'SwisterTwister' feel the need to vote Delete? Miep2 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When mr. Masada get a lot of news coverage, that also means that there is a lot of independent coverage. That would give you the change to write a neutral article, instead of this puffery promo vehicle. But no, this is what you add: [Duplication Detector - america.pink. (Although it is possible that this is a wikipedia-cloon without proper attribution from an older version.) The Banner talk 23:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

America.pink does indeed copy from Wikipedia without attribution; it's a chronic issue. Notices have been sent, but the site is registered in China so I would not expect resolution. I've removed that reference from the article again. Kuru (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I assume you'll now stick to your Michelin-starred restaurants, Banner (here's a tip for ya, Banner, I added stuff and some links to the Didi Hirsch segment of 'Honors and Awards')?Miep2 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you have nothing in store then personal attacks, Miep2? The Banner talk 21:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um... where do you see an attack?(by the way, you said "When mr. Masada get a lot of news coverage, that also means that there is a lot of independent coverage. That would give you the change to write a neutral article, instead of this puffery promo vehicle." I added a total of NINETEEN references and still you call it a pufferish article that I copied from somewhere <shakes head> (this goes also for SwisterTwister))Miep2 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you are the one spreading this article all over Wikipedia. The one on the Dutch Wikipedia is already shot down as promotional and your second attempt there is shot down too. And as you could see, I had no involvement in the first removal ([[1]]) or the second (I did not even know that it was there again.). As I did not see that discussion, I also did not notice that you are editing on Jamie Masada's behalf as you stated here Ten derde ben ik niet zijn PR-medewerker maar hij spreekt geen Nederlands (en ik wel)dus stelde ik voor de pagina even te vertalen en in de Nederlandse Wikipedia te zetten. Hij wil nl. uitbreiden naar Europa (...). translated: Thirdly, I'm not his PR staff but he does not speak Dutch (and I do) so I suggested the same page to be translated and put in the Dutch Wikipedia. He wants to expand to Europe (...) ([2]). So contrary to what you claimed earlier there is an undeclared conflict of interest and there is a promotional reason for this article. The Banner talk 14:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7], ^[8], ^[9], ^[10], ^[11], ^[12], ^[13]. I have copy edited the article to address copyvio, close paraphrasing and promotional tone; it is now clear of any infringement (Earwig's Copyvio Detector results). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Laugh Factory owner is serious about comedy". Los Angeles Times.
^ Brian Lowry. "Laugh Factory's Jamie Masada Looks for Funniest Person in the World - Variety". Variety.
^ Kevin Noonan. "Jamie Masada Continues Delivering Thanksgiving Alms at the Laugh Factory". Variety.
^ Hollie McKay. "Stand-Up Comedians to Receive Free Psychological Treatment at Hollywood's Laugh Factory". Fox News.
^ Variety's "The Movie That Changed My Life". pp. 46–48.
^ Vintage Tomorrows. pp. 296–. (subscription required)
^ "The Laugh Factory And Jamie Masada, No Laughing Matter". Canyon News.
^ Comic Insights. pp. 264–269 (and maybe more) (subscription required)
^ "Masada goes into spin tale". Variety. (subscription required)
^ "Jamie Masada". Variety. (subscription required)
^ "Stand-Up Guy". Los Angeles Magazine. (subscription required)
^ "Laugh Factory Founder Hopes to Unite Countries through Search for 'Funniest Person in the World'". Los Angeles Daily News. (subscription required)
^ More articles...

Keep – I live in Los Angeles and have personally directed lonely or under-employed folks to Masada's free Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners. I wish there was yearly coverage of these events that described them in full because they are one of the city's biggest philanthropic endeavors. One person I sent there described the even to me as so uplifting that he felt part of LA for the first time in the 20 years he was a resident here. There are usually 4 to 5 seatings where people go in and are greeted & served by both Masada himself and a variety of Comedians; some a-listers and others just starting out. It's a buffet style meal of fairly generous portions. While the guests eat. There is a 3 act comedy show, always featuring at least one big name comedian. My friend saw Kevin Nealon, to mention one. I don't have any professional or personal connection to Masada or the club but I am very glad he has the friends and finances to put on these free meals and that he doesn't limit them only to the homeless. More times than not, the people I have sent there were simply all alone on a holiday and very depressed. They came away feeling hugely uplifted by the experience. I feel we should KEEP the article on Mr. Masada but build up the philanthropy section to reflect just how many people this guy feeds during the Holidays. It has to be about several thousand if they do 5 seatings. if demand is less, they do fewer seatings. I always ask people who have gone what it was like and the Christmas meal is not as swamped with waiting guests as the Thanksgiving meal. LiPollis (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So you found me out, Banner (not that I was trying to hide)... did I say anything anywhere that strikes you as untrue, from one language to another? I don't understand why you're coming after someone who is simply keeping a page up-to-date rather than going after sites with not-working links, anyway <shrugs>.--Miep2 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As for North America and Lisa Pollison... Geez, thank you, guys (what kept you so long?)!--Miep2 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have never said mr. Masada was not notable, all I said was that the article read like an advertisement. Unfortunately, what ms. Pollison does is confirming facts that we already know. She does nothing to enhancing the needed independent, reliable, prior published sources conform WP:RS. And as you should have noticed: I have no problems with reliable, independent sources. I have only problems with advertising and editors not declaring a conflict of interest. The Banner talk 08:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what more you could want, Banner, somewhere above here Northamerica1000 says " The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [and then gives a whole list of references]" and then says "I have copy edited the article to address copyvio, close paraphrasing and promotional tone; it is now clear of any infringement". As for the conflict of interest... I cannot find the one talkpage where I know I said it, so use your Dutch skills and read here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verzoekpagina_voor_moderatoren/Terugplaatsen#Jamie_Masada (now can we close this matter already?)Miep2 (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I was told by 'somebody with a little clout' on the Dutch Wikipedia:"Dit is de Nederlandstalige Wikipedia, niet de Engelse, dus wat er daar gebeurt heeft niks te maken met wat er hier gebeurd" ("This is the Dutch Wikipedia, not the English one, what happens in another language has no bearing on what happens here") Miep2 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent sources quote him on what's funny.[3][4][5][6] The clubs are notable, and various sources seem to treat Masada as notable as the founder, covering the charity dinners, dispute with the Clinton campaign, fundraiser for Sanders. That said, the current sourcing to articles and interviews by/of the subject is a problem that needs to be fixed. And the tone of the dialog around this could, um, be improved. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no sources, no notability --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nubian Gold

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

Unsourced article about a strain of cannabis. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 21:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at least for minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N; no reliable source coverage found in searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. Jschnur (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete' Uncited article makes no attempt to justify its existence, and there are no obvious sources indicating this is notable. Greenman (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes PU106-Type Hybrid

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

Article simply recounts the rules and regulations dictating the power unit and lists things tangentially related to its performance, like the cars that used it in each season. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Mercedes F1 article - maybe adding a sentence or 2 about the power unit in that article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains article. That's the more useful article to deal with Mercedes' performance as an engine/power unit supplier. There's not enough unique content to warrant a separate article for this particular power unit. It's simply a list of technical specifications (the most important of which are already listed in the articles on the cars that use it) and a list of awards (some which weren't even awarded to the power unit). T v x1 15:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mercedes AMG High Performance Powertrains, as that's more sensible than Mercedes F1 for the reasons given above. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is obvious enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Wife is Wagatsuma-san

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

No coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines nor does it meet those for books. The only coverage I could find was incidental mentions discussing Crunchyroll publishing digitally. Opencooper (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mini-Reviewed by Jason Thompson for ANN [7] (which means he may have also reviewed it for Otaku USA.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at what I have later today, this article pretty much hinges on if it has the reception or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some further digging found another minireview on a subblog of manga bookshelf, which I'm not sure is as reliable as the main site which has industry authors. I didn't have luck finding much else. Opencooper (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that most mentions in english will be bundled together with the other C'roll releases of that phase. The titles that are best known from Crunchyroll all have adaptations or pre-existing franchises (Space Brothers, A Silent Voice (manga), Heroic Legend of Arslan) SephyTheThird (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The manga did chart on Oricon although it was ranked in the 30's for its run, and did show up in MADB for 13 volumes. It also was selected for Crunchyroll titles. I don't know if that's enough for anything. No anime or live-action adaptation but if the author gets a new hit afterwards maybe the author can have an article instead? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly the same author wrote Fort of Apocalypse which doesn't have an article. SephyTheThird (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The mentions over at ANN, as well as this [8] have me leaning towards a weak keep at this time. There is nothing against a re-nomination if time isn't good to this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage isn't exactly spectacular, but there does appear to be enough coverage for the manga to pass our notability guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps especially if it can be better improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason for keeping?SephyTheThird (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Manga and Anime generally have limited English sources, as they are Japanese creations. There are many articles like this one, about Japanese anime and manga, on the English Wiki, and these are all kept. Sheepythemouse :(talk) 14:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your points are a reason to keep the article. English sources in general might be "limited" compared to Japanese ones but they are hardly difficult to find with several major online sites as well as numerous printed material. Some of them even mention this series, but not outside of the group of works released at the same time on the same service. Also, many articles that you suggest are kept are actually deleted, they were all taken on their own merits just as this one must be.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ogilvy CommonHealth Asia Pacific

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Article's sources are nothing but press releases and blogs from the company. Not a single source in the article is a third-party source that provides significant coverage to the article's subject. Aoidh (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply not the case. A significant portion of sources are from a varied set of media types (for instance, news reports). Press releases and primary sources are primarily used in the background section (delineating the company's establishment and the reason put forth by its parent corporation to establish it) and in the section on notable Staff. WP:NORG and WP:GNG simply do not support the extreme and pedantic argument you put forth against this article. Majulah1965 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Majulah1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Majulah1965 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Hendrick 99 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Which references are you referring to? If there are third-party sources here, please give an example. - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be several sources with a lot of variations in terms of origin, format, and style.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Your misconception appears to arise from the fact that the "staff" section relies almost entirely on primary sources[21][22][23][24][25], which considering the topic of the section, really does not violate NPOV, since it's arguably objectively better to use primary sources to identify the correct positions and names of a company's senior employees.Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See below, there's no reason to have the same discussion twice. - Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is much better-written than many articles on Wikipedia. For instance, the articles on Round Square (educational organisation) and United World Colleges are nothing more than advertisements for said organisations. The Ogilvy CommonHealth article is NPOV and contributes to the coverage of the pharmaceutical and advertisement industries in a region that is often under-represented on Wikipedia.Hendrick 99 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well written is not the issue, notability is. Despite Majulah1965's claim, none of the sources show notability. Not one. WP:NPOV is also not what this AfD is about (although given the fact that the article is propped up solely on press releases, the idea that it conforms to NPOV is questionable). Can you show that the article meets either WP:GNG or WP:NORG? - Aoidh (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going directly off WP:GNG#General notability guideline, 1) The topic is addressed "directly and in detail" and there does not appear to be any original research 2) As shown in my response above about sources, the majority of articles in the substantive portion of the text, especially in the section on 'notable activities' are tertiary or secondary sources, and hence do show a "verifiable evaluation of notability" 3) Same idea as point 2, 4) The majority of the sources are not press releases or published by the organisation in question 5) Sources should be expected to create a "presumed" assumption based on "reliable sources" that the topic is notable, and shouldn't be expected to provide a "guarantee". Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To address WP:NORG, the article meets all the primary criteria. 1) Depth of coverage - the article is backed by non-trivial secondary sources. 2) Audience- The variety of sources show that the organisation receives media coverage from multiple countries' media.[26][27][28][29]http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/prints-outdoor/gastro-stop-bus-19880755/ 3) Independence of sources - again, only a minority of sources in the article are directly or indirectly connected to the organisation, and are only used to detail information about senior staff members. 4) Illegal conduct does not appear relevant in this context.Hendrick 99 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your "point three" is the issue here, all of those sources are connected to the organization; they are not independent sources, with the exception of this, which is not significant coverage, it's just a photo. The article doesn't have any third-party sources that discuss the article's subject in any significant way, and Wikipedia articles require several. As for your comment above about "several sources with a lot of variations in terms of origin, format, and style", that's completely irrelevant. Wikipedia articles do not become notable just because the style of the references are different from one another. Are you able to provide a single third-party source that would satisfy WP:GNG? The long list you copy-pasted from the article doesn't contain a single one, just a whole lot of nothing. - Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? Those are specifically the sources that are not connected to the organisation in question. Maybe take the time to look at the sources? It seems like you're being extremely conspiratorial, claiming that all those sources, ranging from Indian newspapers to American business papers, are controlled by the company. I can't find a shred of evidence to support your claim that all (or any) of those sources are controlled, either financially or editorially, by Ogilvy, or any other pharmaceutical or advert agency for that matter. All those sources satisfy WP:GNG. Hendrick 99 (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that all the sources were "controlled by the company," that's a red herring. What I did claim, is that not one of them meet WP:GNG. I did look through each and every source that you haphazardly copy-pasted from the article (which I know because many of them are duplicates). But you want me to type out an explanation as to why none of them meet the requirements for WP:GNG? Fine. I'll bite. Here is every single source you've provided, with an explanation as to why none of them satisfy WP:GNG:

Explanation as to why not one of the sources linked here meet WP:GNG's standard of a third-party reliable source.

coloribus: There is no significant coverage here. It is literally just a picture.
pmlive.com: Other examples of this PR can be found here. Also note WP:AUD; a pharma PR firm mentioned by a pharma website is not indicative of notability.
econsultancy.com: As the source says, it is "in partnership with Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide" and not an independent source.
mmm-online.com: The company is mentioned in a single sentence, with nothing beyond that. Not significant coverage.
consultancy.uk: Doesn't mention the article's subject at all.
gov.sg: Doesn't mention the article's subject at all.
financialexpress.com: Doesn't mention the article's subject at all.
besymediainfo.com Does not discuss the subject beyond mentioning that an ad was "conceptualised by Ogilvy CommonHealth", otherwises discusses Philips; no significant coverage
indiantelevision.com: Same as bestmediainfo.com above; no significant coverage.
business-standard.com: Mentions a "Rana Bawa, country manager of Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide" briefly, but that's it. No significant coverage at all.
PDF from Deloitte.com: Doesn't mention the article's subject at all.
PDF from pacificbridgemedical.com: Doesn't mention the article's subject at all.
Ogilvy.com: Company website. Not an independent source.
ogilvychww.com: Company website. Not an independent source.
ogilvychww.com: Company website. Not an independent source.
marketing-interactive.com: Copy of a press release. See this source.
business-standard.com: Same as the business-standard.com source above, since it's the same exact reference.
indiantelevision.com: Same as the indiantelevision source above, since it's the same exact reference.
mmm-online.com Same as the mmm-online source above, since it's the same exact reference.
pmlive.com: Same as the pmlive source above, since it's the same exact reference.
coloribus: Same as the coloribus source above, since it's the same exact reference.

Now, you're claiming that "all of the sources" meet WP:GNG, but that's quite untrue, as even a quick glance would show that many of them are from the company's website itself, which does not meet WP:GNG's "independent of the subject" requirement, therefore not "all of the sources" show notability. In fact, upon looking at them, none of the sources show notability for the subject. More does not mean better; instead of copy-pasting a wall of references and hoping something sticks, look for actual sources that show notability, because for my part I haven't been able to find any, and none of the ones listed here cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. CommonHealth has been deleted as not notable (and then redirected here); this organisation is likewise not notable. The deleted article stated that parent of this company is Ogilvy CommonHealth Worldwide but that does not have an article. The awards and nominations are not sufficient to confirm notability. – Fayenatic London 00:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as its troubles are noticeably obvious and there's simply nothing else suggesting at least minimally better, delete at best for now and only restart when better, SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could find no in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources during searches. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical Modeling of Liquid Level Systems

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK Bazj (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly not an acceptable Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a textbook. Magidin (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure that could even be turned into an article - too specialized and dependent on process to allow summarization.-- Elmidae (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as nom. Illdigedted lump of textboox.TheLongTone (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only parts that maybe could be salvaged given enough work are already summarized well, see e.g. Mechanical-electrical_analogies#Acoustical_impedance_analogy. Tigraan (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Catalano

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

~~Non-notable author/academic. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NACADEMICS and WP:AUTHOR. Couldn't find any third-party sources at all. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 18:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)~~ Made too hastily, missed some major stuff. 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no sources, no notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

War (Bengali film)

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

No sources, no dates, only two sentences. IP removed PROD. Laber□^T 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find any evidence the movie exists - no movie trailers or mentions anywhere. That could be due in part to the generic name of the film, but even factoring in the actors names I only get Wikipedia pages for the actors. The movie probably exists or is being made, it's just probably not notable enough to draw any attention from media. Elaenia (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "upcoming" is too soon. Can be recreated if and when it has upcome. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Upcoming, no citation, very little content.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some digging:

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: ওয়ার War (Bengali film) Jaaz Multimedia Eskys Movies Jeet Nusraat Faria Mazhar Shankaraiya Mamun

Delete per being (at kindest) TOO SOON. There's a "sort of" trailer promoting the film to star Jeet and to be made by Shankaraiya and Mamun. The total lack of any coverage for a project to star two notables makes me suspect a hoax. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A look at the article shows that past attempts to create the article has Srabanti Chatterjee and Kharaj Mukherjee starring in the movie as well. A look for these names together brings back nothing to show that they're planning on making a film together. When a film is announced and starring one high profile persons India's papers will usually pen dozens of articles on the announcement alone. That there's three well known people makes the lack of coverage seem even more like a hoax - especially since Jaaz Multimedia is a very large company and is smart enough to know how to work the press. We have three different accounts trying to create this page, which makes me wonder if this is a case of sockpuppetry as well as hoaxing. Jeet's article also looks to be the focus of some disruptive editing, so I think this might be related to that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm debating whether or not to open an SPI. I'm going to ask for help from the India WP looking for foreign language sourcing before I file one, though. It's just awfully suspicious that three seemingly unrelated accounts are all trying to create an article for a film that doesn't appear to actually exist in any stage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why are so much efforts being wasted here for a citation-less stub? It should be article creator's responsibility to give at least one citation. And when the interested editor will get that citation, he/she can recreate the article anytime.-NitinMlk (talk) 11:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Doesn't have significant coverage in the reliable sources, in fact it seems to be a hoax. — Sanskari ^Hangout 15:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have significant coverage, and also possibly a hoax. Additionally, WP:TOOSOON applies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK1. No argument for deletion has been made. This nomination is instead an inappropriate response to (and attempt to foreclose) normal editing. Cf. WP:ATD. Discuss whether a redirect is appropriate on the article's talk page and/or on the talk page of the editor who wished to make that choice. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish Nobel laureates

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

User:The Banner made this edit. I believe at least we should discuss first. Joseph (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my vote is to keep this article. Nobel Prizes are one of the most prestigious awards on science. This list has the names, plus official nominations and also other related prize winners such as Giorgos Seferis (He was born in Turkey). I believe this article has more information than the redirect. --Joseph (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Asia Pacific titleholders

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

List of winners belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 17:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No basis for keeping a sublist that is only relevant to a deleted topic. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified fancruft about an non-notable event. Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no notability or coverage. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Jackson (cartoon)

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

Non-notable web cartoon. The only reason I'm not speedy deleting is that the creator is notable. That makes for a credible claim of signifiance, but it's definitely not a sufficient indicator of notability. No other indication that this cartoon is notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the creator is notable, it doesn't mean all of their creations are, as notability is not inherited. Unlike Salad Fingers, this does not seem to have the coverage or sources to establish it's notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is clearly showing no signs of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete no encyclopedic notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S.N.K.P. Selvam

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

Non-notable politician. A local town panchayat chairman is not a politician of sufficient rank or standing to merit inclusion at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official... does not guarantee notability." Furthermore, my searches do not bring up enough material to even pass GNG. He gets a mention or two on a couple of lists, which is insufficient. GAB^Hello! 20:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for WP:POLITICIAN. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren White

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

Unsourced except for IMDb; dePRODded by IP without comment. No evidence of notability - the 3 films she is said to be "known for" are all red links. PamD 16:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing even for WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that she meets the relevant notability criteria for actors or writers. I can't find any coverage of her that would suggest that she meets WP:GNG either. --bonadea contributions talk 10:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails both NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous mosques

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

The criterium "famous" is highly subjective and not encyclopedic. It could attract a lot of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR content. Additionally, it is not a navigational list; Lists of mosques and all its sub-lists already serve that purpose. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:TNT. A subjective criterion like "famous" needs to be sourced. See List of important operas for an example of a policy-compliant article of this kind. Eperoton (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but.... Neither the nominator nor the previous commentator seems to have looked at the history of the article - for most of its history, this article was List of mosques and the move to the present name was carried through as an "uncontroversial technical request" as recently as last July. Looking at the request, I can fully understand why User:Doncram made it, and why he seems to have made only one minor change (to the lede) to reflect the move. But, unfortunately, this AfD discussion, on a version of the article that has scarcely changed since (one new entry on the list, a few minor changes of detail on existing entries), rather shows why even apparently technical changes can have unexpected consequences. We certainly need to keep the page history, or we risk having every other list of mosques having potential attribution problems. Also, there is a strong advantage for readers in a selective list of better-known mosques when they have only partial details of which mosque they are looking for. But I accept that if this is to operate as such a list, we need to develop clearer criteria for it than we currently have - and that a substantial minority of the current entries are unlikely to meet any criteria the we develop, and should either be moved to the appropriate country list (if not there already) or removed altogether. PWilkinson (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the various other lists of mosques, then Redirect to that lists page. Wikipedia already has a standard for importance called "notability". "Famous" is redundant, and it's hard to see how there could be any reasonable criteria for "more famous" or "better-known" mosques beyond the many lists we have already. For example, list of largest mosques is a list of mosques famous for their size, list of the oldest mosques in the world is a list of mosques more famous than others because of their age, list of first mosques by country, etc. If there's content that hasn't been used in these or the various country-specific lists, it should indeed be merged. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites:, could you perhaps please see the edit-conflicted Comment below (composed without seeing your edit), and please consider revising your "vote!" to Keep this one and merge the other into it, instead of the other way around. This accomplishes the same thing on the surface, but behind the scenes it gives credit properly to the original list of mosques article. Or perhaps you would be indifferent? --do ncr am 15:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I'm not entirely sure I'm clear on what you're proposing. Are you saying that (a) all of the location-specific lists of mosques should be combined into one and deleted or redirected, (b) all of the location-specific lists should be combined into one and co-exist with the "master list", (c) that the location-specific lists should include all mosques while this list should include all notable mosques (let's ditch "famous" for the time being), (d) that this list should be like List of companies of the United States by state, where there are many sections with just {{main}} templates and some lists for some states that do not have their own article (i.e. the current set of lists don't include all mosques so this page is needed), or (e) something else? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (EC) Thanks for the ping and thoughtful comment, PWilkinson, and thank you HyperGaruda for your attention to see something was amiss. Looking at the two lists, now I think that I was mistaken in requesting the technical move of this one from "List of mosques" to "List of famous mosques". This list of mosques was created in 2003 -- ancient times, in early days of Wikipedia (which was started in 2001 and was still small in 2003) -- and is the original one which should be preserved. The Lists of mosques (with plural "lists") was created in 2010 in this first version essentially as a split, merely a copy of "See also" section of the original list (in this version from that time), and should not be given credit, should not be allowed to usurp the original list of mosques. The original has edit history that should be preserved (i.e. the editors who developed the original list in 2003 should get credit, rather than the editor who split it in 2010); the "Lists" one has few edits with little/no significant originality in any of its few edits.

In general, I dislike the creation of, and gaming around, all the "Lists of X", and "Lists of lists of X", etc. that some have delighted in creating in Wikipedia. Usually those should just be fixed by moving those to (or back to) a "List of X". There is need just for one top-level list of mosques, which can link to subsidiary lists by geographical area and/or by other break-downs. Here, I made a mistake in thinking the "Lists" one was the original/primary one, and mistaken in thinking the original was meant to be limited. Rather, the original was intended to be THE list of notable mosques in Wikipedia. We must recall that the future of having really long lists was not anticipated by editors back in 2003, and subsequently there were issues of what is considered "notable" for this list of all notable mosques. Someone had put into its lede the plea to limit this list to cover only notable ones, so that it would not become an inappropriate directory of all mosques. Its lede was: "A list of famous mosques around the world. (Note: Please do not put all mosques in here. Keep this article to notable mosques only.)", reflecting a wish that relatively few mosques should be included in Wikipedia at all. What should have been done in 2010 was that the lede should have been adjusted to acknowledge that the train had already left the station, that the floodgates had been opened, and that by 2010 there had already developed sublists such as "List of mosques in Asia", "List of mosques in Europe", etc. (linked in the "See also" section), that there were multitudes of mosques having articles or otherwise accepted as "notable" for inclusion on the greater list of mosques. So the lede should have been updated "This is a list of notable mosques" or merely "This is a list of mosques" (because the word "notable" is to be understood), and its contents should have been adjusted to clarify it was the master list (dropping the "See also" label for its index of sub-lists). And arguments about list-item notability should have taken place on its Talk page.

It is a separate issue (and for the Talk page, not for AFD) about whether the "List of mosques" article can itself include in a section a list of a well-defined set of the ones "most notable" in a particular sense first, and then index sublists of ALL notable mosques by geography, or whether that section must be split out. I happen to think that is okay to include that section, with the clarification that the "most notable" set be well-defined to be the current set of oldest mosques and/or "first" mosques in each country that are still existing today. This is not a huge number of mosques to cover. Currently there is overlap between section of "famous" ones here (started in 2003) vs. List of the oldest mosques in the world (created 16 December 2010 by User:Swampyank) vs. List of first mosques by country (started in 2012) by User:MatthewVanitas. And there is a current merger discussion regarding the latter two going on at Talk:List_of_the_oldest_mosques_in_the_world#Merger_Discussion. I am inclined to edit the current article to implement the appropriate merger now. Note: an example of a "list of X" starting with a small section of "most notable" X's is List of Methodist churches#United States, which gives 4 top ones and then links to comprehensive sublist(s) of all notable ones by geography (by U.S. state, which repeats entries for the top 4 ones in their separate states). Again, any refinement necessary for such a section in the main "List of mosques" is a matter for Talk page discussion, not AFD. And again, it was my bad for not figuring this out in July 2015. I think it was just too complicated, or I was too busy in some way, for me to figure it out properly then. --do ncr am 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, [but implement "Proposal A" which moves this list. Was "Keep"] and rename it back to "List of mosques", and revise it suitably (including any merging appropriate), and redirect the usurper Lists of mosques to this one. Per explanation in my comment just above. Note, wherever there exists a "List of X" now, we would not accept someone 1) jumping in, creating "Lists of X" with a plural "S" and 2) requesting deletion of the original "List of X", with or without renaming it differently for a while, first. That's what this AFD would essentially accomplish. I am sorry for my previous mistake (in July 2015) in creating this situation where well-intentioned editors would subsequently perceive this current list to be the improper one. --do ncr am 15:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom: In light of recent developments, I would not oppose renaming the article to List of mosques, replacing its contents by that of Lists of mosques (& redirecting the latter), and finally requesting a WP:HISTMERGE of the two. However, I am still against the idea of including specific mosques based on such sketchy and subjective criteria like "notable" and "famous". I mean, how do we choose them without offending groups (nations/denominations) whose mosques are not included? IMO it's best to simply leave out that pain in the a. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a basic stylistic issue. What is the point of such a move? If a list includes only other lists and not the actual subject itself (i.e. no mosques), that makes more sense as "lists". Regardless, isn't that a separate discussion? You're saying to move lists to list of mosques. Neither the name nor the content of this article plays a role in that, no? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, you are right. I was hesitating because of the page history attribution, mentioned by PWilkinson, but redirecting List of famous mosques to Lists of mosques would indeed avoid that issue. - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the various other lists of mosques. Who can judge which mosque is famous and which is not?--Seyyed(t-c) 07:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous encyclopedias list famous mosques in Moslem cities such as Cairo and Istanbul and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. The concept of fame is not especially subjective and is to be expected in an encyclopedia, which will tend to emphasise the most prominent examples as that's good summary style and is what the readership is likely to want. Andrew D. (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous encyclopedias"; a few examples would be nice. - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Encyclopedia of Islam
Encyclopedia of World Geography
The World Book Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia of World Travel'
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia'
Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia'
Illustrated World Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia of Architecture
The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam
Ilmi Encyclopaedia of General Knowledge
Dictionary of Islamic Architecture
The New Encyclopaedia Britannica
Collier's Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia of Asian History

My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: This seems like a !vote to keep the list of mosques in [location], which we do already have and which could indeed be expanded. We're not talking about lists of mosques in particular places; we're talking about a "list of famous mosques". Are you saying those encycloepdias have a "list of famous mosques"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Different encyclopedias naturally cover this in different ways, depending their structure and focus. For example, the Encyclopedia of Architecture has "The following is a brief review of some of the most famous mosques of Islam. Although this is not a comprehensive survey, it will illustrate the tremendous variety of mosque forms and shapes in the Muslim world ". My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that there have been numerous AfD discussions about Lists of famous Xs. An argument that was frequently brought up, was the inherent non-neutrality of "famous", and we all know that NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. If we were to keep this list of famous mosques, what would be the criteria of inclusion? - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second example in that search is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous tall men. There was no consensus for deletion and it's still a blue link. But if we are going to look at the history of this, we should start with this page – the actual page in question. Did you know that it was created in 2003 as the plain list of mosques? It was briefly named list of notable mosques around 2010 but that was reverted. It has only had the title list of famous mosques since July of last year – a supposedly uncontroversial move. This word "famous" in the title, which HyperGaruda is making such a big deal about, isn't a fundamental aspect of the topic. It doesn't appear that the nominator has any history of editing this long-standing topic, nor do they appear to have engaged in discussion on the page's talk page. This seems to be a blatant violation of WP:BEFORE – a drive-by, knee-jerk nomination of a substantial page that has existed without major problems for over ten years. Please withdraw it. Andrew D. (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that List of famous tall men has been a redirect since an AfD in 2007, according to its log. Back in 2003, the plain list of mosques was small, but has since grown to such an extent, that the "Lists of mosques–List of mosques in [country/location]" combo was made per WP:SPLIT. That combo is the NPOV heir to List of (notable) mosques. Our List of famous mosques is nothing more than a POVvy excerpt. - HyperGaruda (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: I have synced the blue-linked entries in the List of famous mosques to all continental/national lists, so there is no need to merge anymore. A simple redirect will do now. - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not to the closing admin: What Andrew Davidson correctly points out, and what I said in too many words further above, is that this one is the list-article that is to be kept, and the other/newer list-article should be merged and redirected to it. [I'm willing to do the merging.] (Logistics-wise, perhaps the newer list-article needs to be moved first to, say, ~~"Another list of mosques"~~ "List of notable mosques") The edit history from 2003 trumps newer stuff. --do ncr am 18:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So just because an article has a long edit history, it should be kept? It that what you are saying? - HyperGaruda (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First i am saying that the article created first on the topic is the one which should be saved at the topic (List of mosques); don't reward would-be usurpers. I am less sure about our obligation to contributors to the second, usurping version, but if its edit history can be saved within a reasonable redirect, why not do that? --do ncr am 11:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments in support of having a list of "famous" mosques swayed me to think "Keep"ing this list might be okay. Like if someone (User:Andrew Davidson?) would volunteer to edit it, adopting some working definition of "famous" and removing any non-famous ones, I'd probably be very happpy go along with that. But adopting any working definition of "famous" would be new, and a new List of famous mosques could be created from scratch at any future time at the redirect List of famous mosques that would be left by "Proposal A" below. Or that redirect could be deleted so a new list would show properly as new, if created. --do ncr am 20:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That's usually how WP:SPINOUTs work. There's one article/list that grows until it seems unwieldy, unmanageable, or otherwise like it would be better handled by separate pages. Then those separate pages are created. If the scope is otherwise the same (which seems the case assuming there's some consensus that "famous" is not an acceptable criterion), then the original list would turn into some sort of list of lists. If not all of the content was spun out, it would probably comprise links to the spun out articles and smaller lists of what isn't covered. The point of spinning things out is to remove them from the original page for readability, navigability, searchability, and whatnot. That it's older doesn't mean anything because they're not duplicates. I'm also still not entirely clear what your intentions are (I asked above). I see arguments about "usurpers" and declarative statements about what must happen, but not a clear explanation of why or what the landscape of these pages would look like if you had your druthers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: fyi, the merge/redirect is exactly what Rhododendrites suggested up there on 23 March and with which I wholly agree (see comment at 19:38, 23 March 2016). - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Rhododendrites' 23 March version leaves the main list (organized by geography) as part of "Lists of mosques" rather than as "List of lists". And that version leaves the 2003-started edit history at the redirect from "List of famous mosques" instead of at the main list. That version achieves more or less the same appearance to readers though, besides "Lists" vs. "List" in title of main list. --do ncr am 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call this Proposal A: If I had my druthers, in answer to User:Rhododendrites, I would abide by principles that

a) The concept of "Famous mosques" is not yet defined, and if someone wants to create a good "List of famous mosques" according to some definition they can do so from scratch.

b) a "List of mosques" should exist that indexes all of Wikipedia's mosques, organized geographically. Such an index exists now in the "See also" section of List of famous mosques and also there is one within Lists of mosques.

c) The edit history of "List of mosques" should be that of the original 2003-started list now at List of famous mosques, created by User:Technopilgrim. It should not be that of the 2010-started Lists of mosques, started by User:UnitedStatesian. The current List of mosques has only ever been a redirect and has no edit history worth saving. I am the editor who redirected that to Lists of mosques and thereby was putting UnitedStatesian in the role of being the apparent master originator of the idea of having a list of mosques in Wikipedia, so I or Unitedstatesian are the (perhaps-accidental) "usurpers" I referred to.

d) The edit history of the current Lists of mosques is less important to save, but still important by Wikipedia's principles. It could be saved as the edit history of a redirect, say List of mosques by geography or, better, as the edit history of "Template:Lists of mosques" (proposed next), and that fact could be permanently mentioned at the top of the Talk page of the "List of mosques" which results from this proposal.

e) IMO "Lists of X" are invalid because they are self-referencing. What they really are, are "Wikipedia Lists of X". Only if the topic "Lists of X" is valid in the real world, i.e. if there really exist different historically notable defined lists of X out there (such as, making this up: "Linnaeus's categorization of species", "Buffon's list of species", "Species identified by Darwin" and "Species accepted as of the Seconda Esposizione of 1832") is it justified to have a Wikipedia article about the history and differences of those lists. However, a navigation template is understood to be self-referencing, to be a navigation aid to Wikipedia articles. So it is okay/good to have a navigation template named "Template:Lists of mosques" that indexes Wikipedia's distinct list-systems of mosques, which are:

List of first mosques by country
List of largest mosques
List of the oldest mosques in the world and
List of mosques (all of them, organized geographically)

Specifically then I would:

Merge content of List of famous mosques to other lists. (HyperGaruda may have done all or part of that already.) Replace by index of geography-based lists (i.e. its own "See also" section).
Move List of famous mosques over redirect to List of mosques (currently a redirect to Lists of mosques)
Move Lists of mosques to Template:Lists of mosques and edit that to be a navigation template indexing Wikipedia's distinct lists of mosques. Or move it to a plausible redirect to List of mosques. Record fact of where its edit history ends up, at top of Talk:List of mosques.
Edit Lists of mosques to redirect to List of mosques
Put Template:Lists of mosques at the bottom of the list-articles that it indexes.

This "Proposal A" now achieves the main intentions of everybody's concerns expressed so far, I think. A vote for this would be "Keep, but implement Proposal A" (which moves/renames the AFD'd list, but that is a Keep outcome). --do ncr am 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mosques as suggested earlier as this is still questionable, even though imaginably acceptable. No serious needs for deletion perhaps though, SwisterTwister talk 04:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compatible with "Proposal A", right? --do ncr am 20:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Why do we need to have a list of famous mosques. If they are famous then they do not need this article in order to be famous. Another thing to point out is that being famous is subjective. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with "Proposal A", which does not leave a "List of famous mosques". --do ncr am 20:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as lacking notability. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A.Jay

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

Presenter of a Ghanaian student TV show whose only claim to fame given is winning one of the Ghana Tertiary Awards (an apparently minor tertiary-education award) for his show. Sources for his music career are all WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:BASIC. McGeddon (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see the significance of the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historywiki11 (talk • contribs)
Delete as per nom, obviously promotional article for an individual who won a non-notable award. GAB^Hello! 20:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes they won an award, however it is not-notable. Unable to confirm notability through reliable 3rd party sources. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, nothing convincing of notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Henry Neville theory of Shakespeare Authorship

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

Not entirely sure what the purpose of the article is - especially given that the formatting is fairly poor, and a lot of [wikilink] and [footx] codes are randomly in there for some reason. It doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but looks like it could have been pasted from somewhere? In any case, it should be merged with the Henry Neville main article if there's any merit in the content whatsoever in my opinion. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 07:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete(changed to userfy, see below) (struck once again and withholding judgement for now) – Don't think it's a copyvio; my best guess, given that there are notes like "[wikilink??]" and the formatting of the bullet lists, would be that the author wrote the article in Word and hasn't gotten the grasp of wikiformatting. Either way it looks to be OR. (changed to keep as of 8 April 2016, see below) —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could hold-off deleting unless I've finished formatting (and you've read it). I've only been working on it in the last 4 hours. This was written as agreed in response to a discussion of the Shakespeare Authorship Question of 24 November 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&oldid=692321093 . RalphWinwood (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but at the moment the article is basically illegible. If you are planning to make it presentable, I recommend it be userfied (at e.g. User:RalphWinwood/Sir Henry Neville theory of Shakespeare authorship) so you can work on it there before posting it in mainspace, per Help:Userspace draft. It's not appropriate as a published article at the moment. (Per WP:USERFY#NO you can't do that yourself until this AfD is closed.) —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article formatting has been substantially cleaned up. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a mess, so the creator would do well to learn how to properly code and format before continuing to write pages like this. But, we are here meant to be looking to see if the subject of the page is or is not notable. It seems to me that there do indeed exist references which might suggest that the idea Henry Neville wrote the Shakespearian works. These include [30] this book this book etc. I think this suggests the subject may indeed be considered notable, although it seems highly likely that the page needs to be WP:TNT. JMWt (talk) 14:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most formatting issues now and the references should be clearer. As mentioned, this article was proposed in November.RalphWinwood (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've also alerted the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare. That should hopefully get some extra eyes on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whatever the merits of the article. WP:TNT at this point clearly doesn't apply, from what I now see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The page looks a lot better now that the formatting has been cleaned up, so userfication might not be necessary. I will withhold judgement on the overall notability of the topic for now, other than noting that WP:FRINGE probably applies. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Changing to userfy This article is riddled with OR from the looks of it and is still a real candidate for WP:NUKEANDPAVE. ~~Still, the multiple books about this theory make it a notable subject.~~ This material really should have been developed in the article about Neville and then spun off rather than started from scratch by a new unsupervised editor. Incidentally, once the deletion question is settled this should be moved to Nevillian theory of Shakespeare authorship as the current title is both clunky and in the wrong case. (Please see Category:Shakespeare authorship theories for other such entries.) This article really needs to be re-worked and it's apparent that the proponent for the article doesn't understand editing. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do explore the references. I don't believe you will find examples of OR. As to the need for a separate article I refer you to the earlier discussion on this from 24 November 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question&oldid=692321093 RalphWinwood (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did check through some of them and it appears that most of the assertions are correctly cited, but the type of OR outlined at WP:SYNTH is a more pertinent concern with for example the Parliamentary biography and the Lesser book, which seem to be being spun to support the theory but don't themselves support it. Just my impression. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article doesn't include a problem with WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." In this case it is Leyland and Goding who have published the same argument as in the article. Their argument runs:

- Neville's mentor translated Polybius (Lesser et al.);

- Neville uniquely promoted Polybius's "mixed govt" in Parliament (Lesser);

- Neville assisted Beaumont and Fletcher's play about "mixed govt" (Lesser);

- Shakespeare is the only other playwright who dealt with "mixed govt", in Othello (Lesser);

- Shakespeare's Sonnets include a code (Hotson, Rollet, James, Leyland and Goding et al.);

- The Shakespeare code derives from Polybius (Leyland and Goding);

- Neville used Polybius in his diplomatic codes (Leyland and Goding). RalphWinwood (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended the article per the notes in previous comment.RalphWinwood (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced article about important topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Merge back to Henry Neville. This substantive content in this article on its purported subject amounts to two paragraphs, compared to one short one in the biography. There are lots of theories out there as to who else might have written the plays. The appropriate way of linking them is via a category for "suggested authors of Shakespeare's works" or such like. Plain deletion should not be an option, but I do not think this is worth a free-standing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much important stuff to be merged, it would make the Henry Neville article cumbersome. There are possibilities for the article to be extended further. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I agree there's not much to it, though it's gained some attention recently that put it ahead of the Derbyite theory of Shakespeare authorship, IMO. One option could be to give it a couple of grafs in the Shakespeare authorship question article. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This article doesn't meet even the minimum WP guidelines, especially in sourcing, for WP:FRINGE topics. The editor needs to learn basic WP standards and rewrite the article to comply with them. In addition, I see a few WP:OR vios. I suggest this be moved from the mainspace to be reworked and resubmitted before it is allowed in the main encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify the WP:OR violations you see.RalphWinwood (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edited one out by cutting the Schoenbaum citation. When I have time I'll list some others. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I think I get this one. Schoenbaum says the sonnets are cryptic but he doesn't suggest there's a code. Many scholars have observed that the sonnets are cryptic. Perhaps the cryptic nature of the sonnets and the dedication deserves its own sentence and several citations.RalphWinwood (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This entire paragraph appears to be an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH: "Neville himself was born in the building that later became Blackfriars Theatre. Later his father assisted with the lease of Blackfriars to the Children of the Chapel for this purpose.[4] Neville spent his boyhood at Billingbear near Windsor where his father was a forester.[5] Windsor is depicted in some detail in The Merry Wives of Windsor." Tom Reedy (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to modify this article to improve it factually and for balance. Please don't interpret the following as obstructive, I simply don't understand how this para is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The information about Blackfriars and Billingbear is readily verifiable fact. Brenda James notes intimate knowledge of Windsor and that the Merry Wives has this also. This is her synthesis - which perhaps should be cited.

~~Delete~~ Changed to Keep due to new sources found While the subject of the article could potentially be notable, RalphWinwood is only here to push the Neville theory (an ArbCom sanctioned matter). If someone who does not have a history of pushing fringe theories volunteered to work on this article in their own user space (not RalphWinwood's), I would change to userfy. But if we userfy it and RalphWinwood remains the main editor, this will just end up at MfD. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC) Addendum: I have found three sources that are independent of the theory and demonstrate notability for fringe topics. Two of them I found on accident while trying to find anything else by the publisher of the original book, so I'm curious how the main contributor of the article failed to find them if he really was trying to be neutral and not just POV-push. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make the best article possible. Please make suggestions for improvement or even go ahead yourself and improve it. Newcomers are encouraged to be bold and that's the line I've taken in the belief that refinement will follow. If there are informed rebuttals of Neville's candidacy they should go here too - I just don't know of any material objection other than that the whole Shakespeare Authorship Question is for the lunatic fringe (despite its many notable adherents).RalphWinwood (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with you being new, it has to do with the fact that all of your edits are singularly focused on pushing the idea that Neville is definitely the author of the plays. If you were operating from a neutral perspective, whatever you believed wouldn't be an issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I am a default Stratfordian, I do not think that the Shakespeare Authorship Question is only for the lunatic fringe. There are too many open questions like the missing years, unexpected knowledge etc., etc. The question of authorship is one that may be legitimately debated provided that this is done in a sober and scholarly manner. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm inclined to agree, but it should not be handled by accounts that obviously registered purely to advocate a viewpoint that the overwhelming majority of academics in relevant fields do not support. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what the account is alleged to be registered to be. What matters is the article that results, and this one falls into the scholarly and sober category. Don't forget, anybody can edit Wikipedia, and if articles get one-sided, they can be edited rather than deleted. Your objections seem to be based on WP:I don't like it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Even a cursory glance over the account's edits renders the SPA assessment to be more than mere allegations. As I said before, if an editor who was not here solely to push the theory as WP:THETRUTH were the main contributor (even if they believe the theory, but operate from a neutral perspective), then I'd be fine with them working on it. WP:IDLI is not an issue there, because it's not the article subject in itself that I have an issue with. You might begin to have an argument with WP:ATTP, but I have not attacked the main editor, merely pointed out that his behavior is the sort that generally leads to topic bans in this area and results in articles that require WP:TNT. In this case, we have an article built on sources advocating the theory instead of sources independent of the subject, as is required for WP:FRINGE material (and even though it is on the more level-headed fringes of fringe theories, it is still fringe per ArbCom). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome exploration of my edits. The commentator objected to my attempt to rebut the status of the Shakespeare Authorship Question as "fringe" on the SAQ page. The one random survey of 265 US Shakespeare academics showed 17% considered Shakespeare was possibly not the author. The SAQ page (following ARB decision) and its characterisation of the question as "Fringe" is predicated on the selected opinions of people who are experts on their preferred candidate (William Shakespeare of Stratford) but who are not necessarily experts in the proportion of their peers who share their view. I would suggest that this proportion can only be determined by counting, and the only count we have is the NY Times Survey of 2007.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As was explained on the talk page, that phone poll is useless in every possible way (too small a sample size, phone polls "prove" creationism). Tertiary literature more adequately summarizes mainstream academia because academia is a field that thrives off of pointing out the errors of big names. There's a long list of sources in the SAQ page that addresses the fringe issue, and it's not just some guy's opinion as you downplay it as. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The equation of the SAQ with "creationism" is a false one and a familiar argumentum ad absurdum only. Re. "opinion" vs quantitative data I refer you to my previous comment. By the way, 6% of this random sample of the 265 Shakespeare academics considered an alternative candidate "probable". The application of the pejorative term "fringe" to the SAQ is not based on evidence; but like an equation with "creationism" it may well serve to discourage further investigation of the topic.RalphWinwood (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison of tactics used by proponents of fringe theories is sound. The sample size was infinitesimal, and if you truly understood quantitative analysis, you'd understand that. Pointing to your previous comment and failing to address other comments is not a good idea. The assessment that it is fringe is based on a long list of sources that are already given in the article, as has been explained for you before. Also, how is it that you completely failed to find any negative sources when I accidentally stumbled across two just trying to find anythnig else by the publisher of The Truth Will Out? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful to you for pointing out these rebuttals and will certainly review them closely. To your point about the long list of sources in the SAQ article. I very much hope that the article will retain the 1st para reference about scholars discussing the SAQ purely to "disparage" it. The reference cites this from Alan Nelson Nelson 2004, pp. 149–51: "I do not know of a single professor of the 1,300-member Shakespeare Association of America who questions the identity of Shakespeare ... antagonism to the authorship debate from within the profession is so great that it would be as difficult for a professed Oxfordian to be hired in the first place, much less gain tenure...". In this environment it would not seem unreasonable to surmise that the level of doubt surrounding the Stratford candidate may well be under-reported.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One of the big problems is that AFAIK there hasn't been any academic response to this particular theory, which means that it's going to be a problem to find reliable sources. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article eight books have been written about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Those are not Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Independent_sources, as is required. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eight is enough to almost make it mainstream. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Eight books that are not independent sources. I noticed that some of them otherwise are from academic publishers, but they're still advocating a topic that is still currently fringe. When independent sources are describing it as alternative but mainstream and not fringe, then the fact that those sources are not independent wouldn't matter. Until then, they may as well be primary sources in terms of sustaining notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they not independent? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The article refers to "eight books [...] written supporting their theory." What is really needed is a tertiary analysis that reviews the field, as is currently used in the SAQ article, with the Christ Myth Theory, and various other fringe topics. The article doesn't list those books, which also raises the issue of whether or not they even meet WP:RS. So far, going through the article's history, I'm seeing:

The original book: The Truth Will Out (James, Rubinstein)

Three books by the authors of the original book: Who wrote Shakespeare's Plays (Rubinstein), Henry Neville and the Shakespeare Code (James), Understanding the Invisible Shakespeare (James): by the authors of the first book

A book co-written by an author of the original book: Sir Henry Neville was Shakespeare (Casson, Rubinstein)

Three books written by the above co-author: Enter Pursued by a Bear (Casson), Much Ado About Noting (Casson), Sir Henry Neville, Alias William Shakespeare (Casson, Bradbeer)

Only one book with no other connection to the original authors: Decrypted: Shakespeare, Sir Henry Neville and the Sonnets (Leyland, Goding)

So when it says "eight books," it's not like every single one of them was from someone with no connection to the original authors. All but one of them are by the original authors or someone they have co-written with. There's also the curious name of the publisher of many of these books, Music for Strings. In trying to find anything else by them, I did find this critical work, as well as this one. I found those accidentally while trying to find anything this "Music for Strings" publishing company (which appears to be a music publisher). And yet, they have not been added by our supposedly neutral main editor. Those two sources, however, do establish notability provided someone incorporates them into the article. Actually looking for independent sources (despite WP:BURDEN), I found this as well. I have changed to "keep," but only in the hopes that these sources are incorporated. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the research to demonstrate that keep is appropriate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Ian.thomson for the rebuttals. They should be reviewed with a view to including.RalphWinwood (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've included reference to 2 of the 3 rebuttals in the Introduction. I suggest not including reference to The quest for Cardenio: Shakespeare, Fletcher, Cervantes, and the Lost PlayBy David Carnegie, Gary Taylor p70-72. I haven't read the whole book, but I have read from your reference point. Carnegie and Taylor do not rebut Casson's assertion that Neville may be the author of Shakespeare. Rather they assert his evidence is comparatively weak in identifying Neville's hand in Double Falsehood/Cardenio because he relies on image clustering and does not use stylometic analysis. Indeed, they express interest in his research (p71) and thank him for his collegiality in relation to information on Don Quixote (p72)

Comment. I am reluctant to change my vote because of RalphWinwood's insistence that the SAQ is not a fringe theory, and therefore not subject to the guidelines of WP:FRINGE, which opens the door for time-wasting disruption in the future. Nor has he indicated that he has read the guidelines governing the SAQ, much less that he has agreed to comply with them. I would like to see him demonstrate that he understands the of the encyclopedia project, especially WP:POV. Otherwise I think this article will become yet another SAQ [WP:WAR|battleground]. I've had enough of that to last the rest of my life. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted two rebuttals as suggested by Ian.thomson and I'm very happy to look at others. It seems to me that this discussion has been most productive and the article has benefited greatly. On the question of WP:POV, I'm certainly very excited by the case for Neville and very interested to discover more. I don't believe that this prevents me writing a balanced article about his candidacy.RalphWinwood (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article looks to be in much better shape than when I originally !voted on this, especially with the balance that RalphWinwood has introduced. AfD isn't meant to be cleanup, but it looks like it's acted as such in this case. Despite any SPA concerns Ralph has acted in good faith and I'm pleased to see that. I still have reservations about the content of the article, but on the whole it doesn't seem overly POV-pushing, and is supported with a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources. So I'm happy for the article to be kept; any content concerns can be ironed out at the article itself. —Nizolan ^(talk) 14:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. If the number of votes are an indication, it appears that the article is going to be kept, but it is far from being a neutral report of the theory. Despite the boiler-plate disclaimers, the number of unexamined assumptions crucial to the theory ("Windsor is depicted in some detail in The Merry Wives of Windsor", "The calamitous change of fortune suggested in the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays", etc.) is enough to disqualify it on grounds of WP:NPOV alone, and there is no academic response to the specific theory included. In addition, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH still abound (see every statement sourced to History of Parliament Online, theatre Database, and other non-SAQ sites). All in all, it has too many problems meeting the minimum standards of an encyclopedia. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have voted twice.RalphWinwood (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments I take it that you are not disputing the factual foundation but rather that there is an impression that the synthesis is occurring in this article. This can easily be remedied by adding references to the syntheses of the SAQ authors and I'll be happy to make these changes. To your point about "neutrality", I've declared my POV for this candidate, but I'd have to call a foul on your comments. I Googled "Tom Reedy Shakespeare" and after an hour or so following links found literally volumes of Tom Reedy comment all opposing the questioning of Shakespeare's authorship. Nevertheless, I'm more than happy to work to improve this article and welcome specific suggestions or edits to this end.RalphWinwood (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neo McCartney

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

Non notable, too soon, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far too soon. Almost no 8 year old children in the world would meet WP:GNG, and the only coverage is local to Derby. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too soon, fails WP:NSPORT. Bishonen | talk 19:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- Not bad so far for an eight-year-old, but not up to Wikipedia's notability standards. --Finngall ^talk 00:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UPANDCOMING. Only a tiny few 8-year olds are that established enough to gain notability. I say give it a few years and see how his notability goes as long as he doesn't end up like Todd Marinovich. Donnie Park (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet, maybe in the future, but right now it's just WP:TOOSOON. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Teairra Marí discography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Make Me Cause a Scene

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

No references, no assertion of notability. I favour making this into a redirect to the artist's discography, but article creator differs. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect only perhaps as this may not need explicit deletion but it's also still questionable for its own solid article. SwisterTwister talk 15:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teairra Marí discography. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on content and available sources, a redirect seems reasonable here. Teairra Marí discography appears to be the best target. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article already deleted at 15:22 on 5 April 2016 by Bishonen (talk · contribs) "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A3, A7" (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bajót.z

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Should be speedied, but creator and then SPAs have been removing speedy tags. ubiquity (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Infobox aside, the content of the article only restates the name (WP:A3); there is no credible claim of significance (WP:A7); and the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for bands. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. I don't think repeated removal of the (very reasonable) speedy template ought to entitle the creator to the full pomp of AfD. Bishonen | talk 15:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, this is clearly a Yalexandrov creation, and speedy was the best move. GAB^Hello! 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ukphonebook.com

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

Fails GNG. Not edited in 2 years prior to today, originally created as promotional content 7 years ago. Nordic Dragon 14:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 14:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBSITE. Only source I could find is [31], and it's not exactly suitable. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are mostly just link repositories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are simply finding nothing noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article has been moved to Draft:Ryan Goodfellow (footballer) and the resulting redirect deleted at 09:56 on 6 April 2016 by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Goodfellow (footballer)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. SSTflyer 13:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 13:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 13:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Delete per WP:NFOOTY

Delete: Author has a conflict of interest, and as mentioned above, the subject fails to meet notability guidelines for footballers. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No references. BLPs require at least one reference. ubiquity (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not played in a Fully professional league so fails WP:NFOOTY, nothing to suggest he passes GNG any other way Seasider91 (talk) 17:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, apologies I didn't mean for the article to go live when it did - my first post and still learning the basics of the wizard! I have finished editing the article, added in references and updated statistics. He has played in a fully professional league (Scottish League 1), and currently still does (Scottish League 2). Many other players in his team have articles published on them having played at no higher level so I assume this means he meets the criteria? I appreciate there may be a bit of work to do to the article yet and feedback is very much appreciated. If the article is recommended for deletion does this mean that I will lose all of the work I have put in so far? Worried that i've spent all this time on the article for it just to be deleted! Thanks very much, Lee

Copy what you have so far to Draft:Ryan Goodfellow or User:Leegoodfellow/Ryan Goodfellow (you don't need the "(footballer)" part since there is no one else with that name), and you can work on it as long as you want. However, from your name it looks like you're his father or brother. If this is the case, you have a conflict of interest and shouldn't be writing the article at all. ubiquity (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per MSGJ. (non-admin closure) Nordic Dragon 14:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For posterity, the article was userfied. The redirect to the userpage was deleted by MSGJ, as Nordic Dragon says above. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanoss Band

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

Does not meet criteria under WP:BAND, no general coverage whatsoever. Also, autobiography and the author seems to insist on keeping even maintenence templates off the page. No longer a penguin (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@No longer a penguin: The article has no content other than a redirect and a CSD tag. Are you sure you submitted this correctly? CSDs do not go here. Nordic Dragon 14:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nordic Dragon: I was confused by what happened. Page creator, User:Vanossaro1567 seems to have moved the entire page (with the deletion template intact) to his/her userpage and created a new page as a redirect. Not sure what's to be done. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@No longer a penguin: I have requested help at WP:AN. Nordic Dragon 14:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the cross-namespace redirect and removed the AfD template from the article. The creator ought to have waited for the outcome of this discussion, but I suppose the best option now is to close this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Being incomplete isn't really a valid reason for deletion and as most of these are incomplete.... By your logic every single related list here should be deleted ... which won't ever happen, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of serving Generals of the Indian Army

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

The list is not always clear, roughly Indian Army will have one 4-star General, about 200 3-star Generals i.e Lt Generals and about 600 2-star Generals i.e Major Generals serve in the army at a particular time. So - List of serving Generals of Indian Army - must include about 800 officers and details of their positions. So the present list doesn't show the complete date not even 25 % of the original and expansion to that level may be highly impossible. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a valid reason for deletion. We have numerous incomplete generals' lists (like Australia and the UK) and we just need to let people have time to work on it. Other articles, eg List of infantry divisions of the Soviet Union 1917-57 have also been incomplete for some time until filled in. Having some of the information available is useful!! Buckshot06 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sure, it could be better, but I frankly don't see its incompleteness alone as warranting its deletion. GAB^Hello! 20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - let's don't demolish the house while it's still being built! Vipinhari || talk 20:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Eisa

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

NN alleged Arabic "clan," no reliable sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade. The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did.

This follows several current AfDs on others in the grouping, the lead AfD which is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Zeitawi, and for which the overwhelming sentiment is to Delete. Ravenswing 11:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the previous AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Zaghab. clpo13_(talk) 17:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with major kudos to Nom for searching through putative sources for a series of similarly unsourced articles. This Arab surname (see for example Mohsen Al-Eisa) lacks sources that support the grand assertions made by this page, and my searches failed to find any.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you! Obviously these surnames exist, but that doesn't follow that they can sustain articles, let alone these grandiose claims. I expect that claims of descent from Muhammad (and really, what other kind of "descent" do you have other than "direct?") are as common in the Dar al-Islam as claims of possessing pieces of the True Cross are on the other side of the fence. Ravenswing 18:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all to suggest confirmed notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus, but can be recreated if adequare sources are ever found. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sharei

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

NN alleged Arabic "clan," no reliable sources proffered. Unimproved in a decade. The article was AfDed nine years ago with a bundle of similar ones, and in one of those brutal decisions common to the era closed as a keep based on the pious hope of the keep proponents that sources might eventually appear.

My comment from that AfD was "These articles represent the sole contribution to Wikipedia of User:Phsychyzed, of which he says of himself on his talk page 'Phsychyzed is a nickname created by child and has now risen to be one of the most famous "nicknames" in use on the internet.Nobody really knows what the nickname resembles but ofcourse many have given the simplest of guess where phsychy means crazy and zed just being the alphabet letter.' The earliest of these articles is over a year old now, and at no point has any attempt to improve most of them been made. Right now the only info I'm seeing on the web refers to (a) these articles and their mirrors, (b) repeated blogging by a Jordanian teenager named Al Zeitawi looking for pen pals; and (c) a business by that name in Abu Dhabi. There are no verifiable sources for this info, not a single one. I understand that people want to bend over backwards to be Arab-friendly here, but I strongly suspect WP:HOAX at this point."

No newer sources substantiating any of the information in the article have turned up since, and the article remains unimproved in all that time. Fails the GNG, but then again it always did.

This follows several current AfDs on others in the grouping, the lead AfD which is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Zeitawi, and for which the overwhelming sentiment is to Delete. Ravenswing 11:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just as Nom states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, nothing more to add. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 00:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UNC Clef Hangers

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

Non notable college band. Awards are not major. Albums are not on "important" label. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which presently has no mention of this a cappella group. Per the article, it is the oldest a cappella group at the university. A merge will enhance and improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this is best connected to the University itself, unlikely independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 19:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Bukhari

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

WP:GNG He was dead and had nothing to do with anything!!!!!!!! Petebutt (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. His death in a plane crash is a classic case of NOTNEWS, to start. His role in 9/11 was nonexistent, and he was initially suspected but soon cleared. Cue apologies by news media. There is no long-lasting significance of this footnote to the 9/11 investigations, even if this minor incident did get a few news stories. If it must be kept, perhaps combine it with Adnan Bukhari and rename it, or find some other page on the 9/11 aftermath or investigations to which we could merge a few sentences' worth of the articles. GAB^Hello! 21:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E. Perhaps reference the confusion in articles related to 9/11 suspects/investigations AusLondonder (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably could have been CSD'd, absolutely no notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Bukhari

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

WP:GNG The guy was a suspect but cleared very quickly. Why is there an article about a non-person? Comp;letely non-notable. Now if the guy had been cleared and THEN found to be involved, that would be a different matter!! Petebutt (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E (1st choice): This individual was caught up in a terror investigation due to some circumstantial evidence, but was soon cleared. An agent was fired, but was then re-hired. Ho, hum. Sure, there's some news coverage, but where's the lasting significance? This is a low-profile person who is unlikely to make the news ever again. As my 2nd choice, might we be able to merge a bit of the information to some "9/11 investigation" article (or even combine it with Ameer Bukhari to form another article)? GAB^Hello! 20:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:1E. Perhaps reference the confusion in articles related to 9/11 suspects/investigations AusLondonder (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the two above criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must agree, clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ShopSocially

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

Notability is thin at best. Most sources are PR pieces or do not bestow notability (e.g., "recognized as a top 10 internet startup" by a non-notable company). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure promotion, non-notable company. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as noticeably promotional and simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly promotional page which fails WP:GNG. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 00:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 West Midlands (Regional) League Premier Division

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

No indication of WP:GNG being met. Little or no independent references. Season articles of 10th level of English football. I would imagine this is well below the cut-off line. Nominating four articles in total. C 679 05:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles are also under discussion as part of this nomination:

C 679 05:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I suppose, cut-off line for both seasons and clubs are exactly 10th level and for a few previous seasons all the (SEVENTEEN) 10th level league season articles are exist.Martinklavier (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. For these seasons (and many others) we have articles on all leagues at this level (see, for example, Category:2012–13 in English football leagues), so it looks like the cut-off line is level 11. If the outcome here is inconclusive, I suggest this should be discussed at WT:FOOTY. Number 57 08:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE. Are you offering any policy-based reason to keep these articles? C 679 09:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OSE is not the lazy, negative argument that some editors seem to assume it is – "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." As we have articles for all the other leagues at this level, it would be inconsistent to delete these ones. We don't have a specific notability guideline for league seasons, so there isn't really any policy to go on except WP:GNG, and I think there is sufficient coverage of the leagues to pass this – for instance, Birmingham Mail and Express & Star seem to have decent coverage of the Midland Alliance, one of the leagues in question. Number 5 7 10:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - One of the criteria quoted suggests level 10 is well below cut-off line for season articles. Just saying below cut-off line would suggest all three leagues which start at level 10 should have their season articles deleted. Well below cut-off line would suggest all level 9 leagues should also lose their season articles. This would leave only 6 leagues having season articles out of the present 20. Cut-off for club articles is below level 10; it should be the same for leagues' season articles.Drawoh46 (talk) 10:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I don't think the articles are that important and all three need some serious expantion and sourcing, but Number 57 & Drawoh46 have me convinced that these articles are useful and should be kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable." according to the wiki project football. As this leagues members are eligible for the FA cup it is notable Seasider91 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league is notable but are 127 seasons of it each notable in their own right? C 679 05:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles need improving and referencing - not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caloosa Middle School

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

Non-notable school lacking significant third party coverage. Also see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Niteshift36 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is some coverage in third-party news sources, but it is routine and local (albeit amusing). I thought that this book perhaps provided significant coverage (see chapter 5), but the school serves as quite a brief case study and I'm not sure whether the author is truly independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida) as is the longstanding tradition supported by the thousands of middle schools in the redirect from school article category, and documented in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to deleting and redirecting the term. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District of Lee County (Florida). I agree that there's no coverage I could find that suggests treatment other than the redirect recommendation in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Violation Technology

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

It's likely because it was translated from a Chinese language, but I cannot make much of what this is - but it is not a candidate for CSD:G1 because it is not patent nonsense. It appears to be a technology, maybe under development, which bears issues with WP:CRYSTAL if this is the case. It appears to be more of a concept of technology, and from what I can tell somebody is developing it. But this said, it almost feels like a bit of an advert, doubly so owing to an inclusion of key words in the text. I'm not entirely sure, however I'm pretty certain it does not belong here quite yet if at all. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly nothing keepable, certainly nothing suggesting improvements. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a student essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect or Merge An essay like written above. A search for the term provided nothing but this. It seems what they refer to as "illegal activity" is using the device in the wrong manner. In the west we commonly call design like this "idiot/dumb proof". Using that term I found idiot proof on Wikipedia, which lead me to the more correct Defensive design, where the redirect should probably direct. That article doesn't happen to cite any sources either so even a merge could be merited. There possibly exists another, larger and more proper article for the same principle so if such an article exist I vote redirecting there. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is incomprehensible because it is a machine translation. The same author has also created 抗违章 which is on the same topic. I've tagged that page for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. To be specific, the author has copied the first paragraph of two pages from Baidu Baike.

I suspect that the article subject to this AFD is a Google machine translation of the full version of the same two pages Baidu Baike pages. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio of [32]. Slightly different translation, but I'm pretty sure they are the same article. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 09:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Brother Canada (season 4). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 4 HouseGuests (Canada)

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

There is no content on the page that is not already on the Big Brother Canada (season 4) page. Having equivalent pages for previous seasons is not reason enough for this one to have it, especially as no one has actually added any substantial content to it for a week. Katanin (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Music1201 ^talk 03:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article. There seem to be some nicknames included on the candidate for deletion which could be added to the main page. Other than that, I think just redirecting it after salvaging the little usable content would work. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main article for now. No prejudice against recreation if and when there's something substantive (and reliably sourceable) to say — while permissible once there's some actual substance to it, a page like this does not need to exist as a placeholder in advance of there actually being content for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect these don't need separate articles, and there's already a list in the season's article. Peter James (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mercutio Badalocchio

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

Looks a lot like a hoax. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it's a hoax. --Cavarrone 07:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this hoax. GAB^Hello! 20:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It does appear to be a hoax. There are no mentions at all in anything I can find. More telling, however, is that the painting was listed by Christie's as being of "a man", not 'Badalacchio.' I fumbled around with misspellings and couldn't find anything either. [33] Chris vLS (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Nordic Dragon 09:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noris Joffre

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

Delete: insufficiently notable performer; fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 02:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator didn't properly research the subject beforehand. Here are several articles published by reliable sources on her: [34] [35][36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahnoneemoos may be right about the performer's notability, but the article as it exists now is meaningless, and I did do a google search but nothing came up in English. All of the links cited by @Ahnoneemoos are in Spanish, and not all indicate notability, i.e.:

Noris Joffre presenta a su madre biológica - Joffre "introduces (or names) her biological mother"
Noris Joffre se tatúa un ojo en la nuca - Joffre "gets a tattoo of an eye"
Noris Joffre celebrará el día de las madres con maleta en mano - Joffre "[will] celebrate Mother's Day"
Noris Joffre: "Cómo reconocer un imbécil" - "Noris Joffre: 'how to recognize an imbecile'"

However, in light of the new evidence I withdraw this AFD nomination and thank @Ahnoneemoos for the new info which I will research and translate as best I can. Quis separabit? 12:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chow-Li law

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

Non-notable adage. The references have nothing to do with the subject and a search for the subject or its inventors reveals no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism has no coverage I can see in the links provided, and it's just a little bit coatrack flavored besides. It more or less rings as something made up in school one day, if only by the creators, but that would be more or less in name only - this is pretty much a variant on an old adage that says the same thing about literally anything: there is always somebody who is better at what you do than you are. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage of itself within reliable sources. Google search for news even was totally empty except for the Wikipedia page. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Variants do appear online, but no coverage in reliable sources makes this a minor internet meme, not an encyclopedic subject. The cited statements in the article are WP:SYNTH. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Money, in its physical sense, has no real value. It's worth is derived from our common understanding that is to be valued. It is true that there are few references to the Chow-Li law online. However, by existing, this article adds to its worth. It allows individuals to absorb the law into their lexicon and make it common place. --Montecarol 14:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is a mix of WP:ITSUSEFUL, and "putting it on Wikipedia will make it notable" (which reeks of circular reasoning). Please read WP:N and WP:NOTNEO. Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the internet-famous (?) neologism was notable, that article would be a WP:COATRACK for the research that produced it (which is on its own unnotable). Tigraan (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that this meets notability (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yun-Tae Kim

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

I originally tagged this article for speedy deletion although it was declined. I am nominating this article for deletion the following reasons:

This article is clearly an autobiography (hense the creator's username)
The subject of this is article is not notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
There are no references.
Promotional — Music1201 ^talk 00:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm withholding judgment on this one, as I do not know Korean; it would be ideal to find someone who does and could perhaps interpret some of the Korean-language sources (and others that may exist but are not listed here). GAB^Hello! 00:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL #2 (pursuant to the footnote: A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists.). Notability is the key concern here, but the nom doesn't explain why the article shouldn't be viewed as notable. The article does give references (and indeed it gave references when it was nominated for deletion). In combination with the references at the Korean Wikipedia I think these establish notability. The subject doesn't seem to pass muster purely on WP:ACADEMIC, but just going from the sources here and on the Korean wiki we have multiple feature-length articles in reliable news sources (including a significant regional news source and News1, a major national news agency), coverage in Korea's official news agency Yonhap News, and a feature-length interview in the Jeonbuk Ilbo, a major regional paper. So it seems to pass the basic notability criteria. Hopefully this also serves as a reply to GeneralizationsAreBad above.

In regards to the other concerns:

Is the username the only reason for the COI concern? Just the username probably isn't sufficient; "Kim" is an extremely common Korean name, indeed 1 in 5 Koreans are called Kim. The CV style needs to be reformatted, but again that style is common in Korean and you see it in use a lot on the Korean Wikipedia. Not sure there's an immediate reason to think that the article is an autobiography.
I don't see any obvious promotional content on the article. The content is short but seems to be written objectively. More detailed concerns should be taken up as a content issue rather than at deletion. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Laugh Factory owner is serious about comedy". Los Angeles Times.

[2] Brian Lowry. "Laugh Factory's Jamie Masada Looks for Funniest Person in the World - Variety". Variety.

[3] Kevin Noonan. "Jamie Masada Continues Delivering Thanksgiving Alms at the Laugh Factory". Variety.

[4] Hollie McKay. "Stand-Up Comedians to Receive Free Psychological Treatment at Hollywood's Laugh Factory". Fox News.

[5] Variety's "The Movie That Changed My Life". pp. 46–48.

[6] Vintage Tomorrows. pp. 296–. (subscription required)

[7] "The Laugh Factory And Jamie Masada, No Laughing Matter". Canyon News.

[8] Comic Insights. pp. 264–269 (and maybe more) (subscription required)

[9] "Masada goes into spin tale". Variety. (subscription required)

[10] "Jamie Masada". Variety. (subscription required)

[11] "Stand-Up Guy". Los Angeles Magazine. (subscription required)

[12] "Laugh Factory Founder Hopes to Unite Countries through Search for 'Funniest Person in the World'". Los Angeles Daily News. (subscription required)

[13] More articles...

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]