Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 January	31 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwalior Gaurav (Book)

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

The publication badly fails WP:NBOOK, its author also likely fails WP:BIO. Article most likely created for promotional purposes. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reliable, secondary coverage of this topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also by my research not notable (yet). gidonb (talk) 02:15, 6 February 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Broadband

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

Not notable, at least not yet. The Comercial Observer story includes it among many other services; the Forbes article is about it, but that article reads like PRto me. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as considering everything, including because this is not better satisfying the applicable companies notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Safiel (talk) 02:09, 5 February 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Burgess

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

WP:TOOSOON for this actress, a few non-notable single-episode roles, etc. Only references were to imdb and a website which did not mention her, leaving an unsourced BLP. Getting more google hits for a volleyball and basketball player than this person. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 03:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly not better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as of now a case of WP:TOOSOON at best.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:04, 6 February 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. Mackensen (talk)

Louis Tharp

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

basically an advertisement for his book DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likely as the current sourcing is questionably solid and thus may also not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was not intended as a promotion for his book. It is just that most of the sources that would meet wikipedia's requirements have been written as a consequence of his book. However, they directly address the subject (Louis Tharp) and I have tried to write this article in a neutral way to reflect on his achievements and not in order to promote him or his book. Please let me know how I can improve it. I only mention the book once, I can remove any mention of the book if that helps. The rest of the article is purely facts about what he's done (writing the book was one of these things which is why I mentioned it). SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to establish notability. Not notable as an athlete or a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot source notability as an author or as an athlete, he does self-promote his activism and professional career on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Yeah, that was actually me too, on his behalf. Trying to fix a damaged reputation. If you do some digging you'll find a defamation case that he won, there are still articles on Google that refer to the original issue, which he won the case about because they are inaccurate, and we're trying to get rid of those. He was arrested and blackmailed for something he didn't do. Won his case, had articles written about it (inaccurately) and won a defamation case against that. What does social media have to do with Wikipedia? If Harry Styles (should find a more suitable example but can't think of any right now) promotes One Direction or himself on Social Media that does not make his achievements any less wikipedia-worthy if you refer to reliable sources in Wikipedia. I am not referring to any of the social media in the wiki article, and he doesn't care about promoting himself. The only thing I'm trying to do is outrank some articles that are complete and total nonsense and have been there for years. This is just some of the material I had to work with to try and outrank them. He does have notable achievements, he competed in the Gay Games, the Outgames and WorldMasters, which are all national or international swimming competitions, and won bronze, silver and gold medals. There are multiple articles covering this and you can check the results for the Masters, Gay Games and outgames here. I made sure that everything I wrote on his wikipedia page has a source. Here is some of the coverage in Seattle Gay News, Wind City times. And as you will see in the talk page I have asked politely for help if anyone has any feedback of how to fix anything. I, nor the subject, will care if you find a particular fact not well sourced enough or too promotional and I can remove or rewrite any details you like. Just let me know and I will fix it. SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete None of the sources here are very convincing, and most are basically interviews, with a significant amount of the material quotes or paraphrases. I don't find better sources, unfortunately, because in general his story sounds interesting. LaMona (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Thanks for your feedback. These are some other sources on Edge Media Network Gay Games Athlete Profile and he was mentioned and quoted in this article. There were more sources that are mentioned on his own site and that of his publisher, but the links no longer work so I think they have all been archived. I know that most sources include a lot of quotes but we're talking about a person. How can you know any information about a person unless they tell you? I understand anyone can say that they won medals in the games, but that is why I included the actual results for proof of that. Someone's actual story , such as how he decided to start swimming and train at West Point can only come from the person themselves or other people involved right? There are a few blogs that he wrote such as this one on realjock. How I understand the guidelines is that self-published sources are allowed to be used when they are about yourself, as long as not the entire article is based on them. So I tried to stay away from using them but if you do think we can use any, please let me know. If it helps, all proceeds from the triathlon book went/go to the west point triathlon team, so there is no way he profits of the book himself. (which is mentioned here at this blog.. which could be used as another source thought I though the Seattle News and Wind City Media would be more credible) But again, if you want me to remove the book, I will.

Otherwise, to try another angle: Besides swimming and writing he is a social entrepreneur and has co-founded CreakyJoints in 1999. This was the first online patient community for people with arthritis. They now have over 100,000 members. The organization has been merged into Global Healthy Living Foundation, which includes other patient advocacy organizations. Louis and his co-founder Seth Ginsberg advocate on behalf of people with chronic diseases such as against the Fail First policy with Fail First Hurts : 1 2 and 3, on biosimilars -where Louis is quoted here and wrote this blog and this one, they do patient research through Arthritis Power (which was covered in the Rheumatologist) among probably other places, etc. etc. I've linked to a few of his blogs and op-eds on this tumblr and he wrote a bunch more. I wish there were better sources covering more about them and their organization because it is interesting and it seems like important work that is making a difference. Still do you think there is something we can use here? For example they had an article in the Boston Globe a week after they founded CreakyJoints, but again this source has been archived and you can also find it on highbeam. So I don't understand why there are no other major publications. However, they are mentioned on PCORI a number of times: 1 2 and 3 Most of these are more about his co-founder Seth though. And then they cover a bunch of the speeches they delivered in this book.. though that is obviously not independent, which is why I haven't used it in this article, but still, it shows the work they do... Moreover, he took an appointment with the Obama Administration. He reports to the Secretary of the Army and serves on the Army Education Advisory Committee which you can see here. He was appointed in 2012 and reappointed for 3 years in 2015.

If there is anything you think I should be using please let me know. SometimesIWriteThings (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Struck multiple Keep votes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 6 February 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Newman (radio host)

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

Notability Dpane7272 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purely local radio personality, with not enough substantive reliable source coverage shown to get him over the bar — the only source here is a single news article about him having a stroke, while no coverage attests to any career accomplishment that we could actually measure against any Wikipedia inclusion standard at all. "Person who exists" is not, in and of itself, enough of a claim of notability to get them into Wikipedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search outcome was the same as Bearcat's -- some minor local sources, but nothing that would rise to notability. Clearly a beloved on-air personality in his market, but not WP notable. LaMona (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually used to listen to the radio program of this individual on WXYT a lot, but without more than a short article from the Detroit Free Press we do not have a claim to notability. He was a local radio personality with no claim to notability, and not even great impact in the local region.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 6 February 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. no evidence of even minimal significance DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REMO Band

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

Zero notability student band per WP:BAND. Speedied A7 two hrs ago, article re-created by WP:SPA, speedy A7 removed by another WP:SPA. Not a damn thing about them online apart from their oddly terse Weebly page, so it's difficult to confirm whether they actually exist. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that they are on lyrics pages! And have a website! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpickleman (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — Bigpickleman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hey NeemNarduni they are on lyrics websites, and this is a real group, email 22demarcon@albanyacademies.org that is the Remo person!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXWEELS (talk • contribs) — ALEXWEELS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Still on Lyrics Websites such as lyricsmode — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXWEELS (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
on this website http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/remo/alpacas_21099147.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpickleman (talk • contribs) 20:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is their Instagram account: http://websta.me/n/remo_official_band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigpickleman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Barnett

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician, with no strong claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC and citing no reliable source coverage. The notability amounts to a single EP and claims of having worked with notable musicians in unspecified ways — but if the albums are going to be the notability then NMUSIC requires two of them, and a person does not inherit notability just because of who they've worked with. And the sourcing here is his own EPK, the iTunes sales page of his EP and a blurb on a non-notable music blog — so it's all either primary or unreliable, with no evidence of any coverage in real media shown. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which people who aspire to become notable in the future get to have an article now just because they exist — it's an encyclopedia, on which the notability and the media coverage have to already be there. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when enough coverage to support an article actually materializes. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 13:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May achieve notability in the future, but may also fade into oblivion. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC at this time. Unable to find good sources for the label his EP is under: Mega Collider Records. Found in directories e.g. with most fields left blank. LaMona (talk) 21:54, 2 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Elvegata

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

It's a street, with a link to a map to verify its existence. But no indication of any notability. Deprodded without comment by original creator, who appears to have created many similar articles and spent this afternoon deprodding them. PamD 17:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at their talk page, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that there is significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteUnremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:44, 1 February 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. Withdrawn by nominator, only delete !vote has been reverted by !voter. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 23:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polish parliamentary election, 2019

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

Too soon. Should probably be userfied for use in a few years. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC) I have been informed this is standard practice. Also, with the move and modifications, there is not the issue of crystal ball so I withdraw my nomination. Happy Squirrel (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it is the next scheduled parlimentary election in Poland; therefore it is likely that people would search for information on it. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion. It's way too soon for the article to have any useful information on the election. ThePortaller (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing precedent such as Next Spanish general election, Next Danish general election, Next Czech legislative election, and United_States_presidential_election,_2020, and an overview of WP:BALL, I now find sufficient grounds to keep the article. ThePortaller (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles for the next elections for the vast majority of countries. No reason why Poland should be any different. There is plenty of potential content - e.g opinion polls. Number 5 7 16:46, 31 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TravelStore

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

Another article by banned user User:Tonyeny Not sure that it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Questionable for the applicable companies notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice toward re-creation if something more notable turns up. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McGoun

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

Fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable. Nothing in gnews. And other coverage is merely one line mentions confirming he held the role. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not all granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat. If you have to park the sourcing entirely on press releases from the government's own foreign affairs office (primary sources that cannot support notability, because the foreign affairs department is the diplomat's employer), then you have not gotten them over the bar that distinguishes a notable diplomat from a non-notable one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to support notability NealeFamily (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of articles [1], [2], in both New Zealand papers and in papers in Vietnam and other countries where he has served that would allow accurate tracking of the postings he has had for what is probably - due to remote location and small population - the world's least significant first world economy. What I have not found are profiles or articles indicating that he played a notable role in a particular incident or negotiation. He sounds like a competent man who has had a reputable career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:09, 2 February 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. Mackensen (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bart JC Devolder

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

Not notable; does not meet WP:GNG. The single source under "references" does not support the paragraph it appears in. Of the external links, one mentions him in passing, one is a directory entry, and three do not appear to mention him at all. Mr Devolder appears to have a very impressive resume, but this does not make him notable. ubiquity (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 15:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear community, I was asked by many to start a wiki page, now this seems harder than I thought. I would like to get some clear reasons why the article keeps being up to be deleted. Being part of this project should be more than enough to be considered 'notable' Thanks for the clear feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper2016 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper2016: Please read WP:BIO guideline first; then please answer how does this biography meets the requirements there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how he meets WP:BIO, only few mentions in passing in press/books. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 5 February 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. czar 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Elena Toledo-Ocampo Ureña

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

fails WP:BIO. ambassadors are not inherently notable including being ambassador to Russia. No evidence this person has done anything except hold the role. LibStar (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 11:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats can be notable if there's enough reliable source coverage of their careers as diplomats to get them over WP:GNG, but are not all granted an automatic presumption of notability because diplomat. If you have to park the sourcing entirely on a single press release from the government's own public relations division, then you have not gotten them over the bar that distinguishes a notable diplomat from a non-notable one. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if she can be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple of routine news articles that mention her, but nothing to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:53, 2 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Østre Strandgate

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Nothing in the article to suggest why this particular street is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at their talk page, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that there is significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable street as far as I can tell. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice for the other street articles, local interest only. Geschichte (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable street with no real refs. Manxruler (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also, in addition to the case pointed out above by @NeemNarduni2:, a significant amount of overlap (and identical style) between the creator of this article and this editor. Manxruler (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable street. PamD 17:25, 1 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odins gate

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

Unremarkable street. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:GEOROAD. Was de-prodded without explanation. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This article is one of a dozen or so on streets in Kristiansand by the same creator, originally each with two "references" to maps.google.com and the Kristiansand tourist office website, neither of which mention the street; now each referenced with a single Google maps link to prove that the streets actually exist. I prodded several of these, and tried to engage with the articles' creator at their talk page, but got no response. Can't find anything remarkable about this street online in English or Norwegian. This would probably be an acceptable entry for Wikitravel, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, nor a gazeteer, and this is not the place for a stub article on each street in the centre of Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I notice that there is significant overlap between the contributions of the creator of this article and those of another editor, whose user talk page is also full of prods and a plea to stop creating stubs on non-notable places in Kristiansand. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless notability can actually be shown this strikes me as NN Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable street. PamD 17:26, 1 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereal Home Theatre

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

Article about a company that has not had any references for eight years. Fails WP:CORP. Mind matrix 14:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing that convinces the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find mentions on sales sites, but nothing with content about the company. LaMona (talk) 22:01, 2 February 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#G3 blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimsa International Airport

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

First, this article is unsourced and so has no evidence of notability. Second, its IATA code of MIA is the same as Miami International Airport, which is suspicious. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Speedy delete — Article is terrible right now. I can't convince myself that it really exists. The official website link leads to a page for an airport with a different name. Murph9000 (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't provide sufficient context, and I'm pretty sure this doesn't meet WP:GNG -- ChamithN (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 – seemingly a hoax. I can't find any references online to this airport's existence, and as the nominator pointed out the IATA code MIA is that of Miami International Airport. The image is actually of Shenzhen Bao’an International Airport. Also, is Dhuri really big enough to have two airports as claimed? _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that Rajomajra Airport, linked from this article as Dhuri's first airport, was deleted as a hoax last October. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 14:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Google search does not provide any information on such an airport, and one would expect any airport to at least show some Google hits. What's more, one search result points to the speedydeletionwiki copy of Dhuri Metro, which was speedily deleted by SpacemanSpiff as G3/hoax back in October. The coordinates on the page and the external link belong to Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport, also in Punjab but not the same city. The only thing I can see which may not be a mirror is this website. Also what UkPaolo said.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravikiran singh is live, as the account which made this article may be part of an earlier hoaxing attempt.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is a hoax, it should also be deleted from List of airports in India - Dhuri has currently 4 (!) airports in this list, including this one, and Rajomajra Airport from October is still on this list too. GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you review the recent edit history for the list, the entirety of it probably needs detailed fact checking, and maybe even all of the airports linked from it as well. Murph9000 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the damage has been reverted by David Biddulph (talk · contribs) and I, but a second double-check of the whole list would certainly be helpful. GermanJoe (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if the vandalism goes back as least as far as this edit in November and continued with various IPs subsequently. I was in the process of trying to tidy it up when GermanJoe (talk · contribs) did the same. Hopefully it's picked up the bulk of the problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the vandalism went back further, at least to Special:Contributions/Ravikiran_singh in October. It was reverted on various occasions, but reinserted by subsequent IPs. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence — Courtesy of one of the copyvio tags on Commons at c:File:Area of mimsa international airport.jpg. The image of the terminal building is apparently from Shenzhen Bao'an International Airport.[3] Already mentioned above, but here's the specific image. Murph9000 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, hoax. The geo-co-ords are the same as Sri Guru Ram Dass Jee International Airport too (which does exist and can be seen on Google maps). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a hoax. A major airport serving an Indian town with a population under 5,000 being a hub for Air Canada? Cute.--Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I would've tagged for speedy but browsers actually found a few links which, although still questionable, may at least suggest this may exist but is not clearly known. Delete for now, SwisterTwister talk 03:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, please, and also delete File:Mimsa International Airport logo.png. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:54, 31 January 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. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Gichuru

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

Non-notable person as per Wikipedia standards for WP:BIO. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 13:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Had a prominent role in popular notable Kenyan tv series Noose of Gold ,and the strange circumstances of her early passing at age 28 in a road accident 10 days after predicting her own death on social media made plenty of coverage in Kenyan national press.Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Antlantic306, in addition most parts of the article are sourced. The dead lady was quite notable most for her contribution in the film industry and especially at her time of demise. I can note that she starred in films too that haven't been listed in the filmography section. -- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 06:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed as Keep as I could've swore there was more keeps here ? .... Christ knows but reverting anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 18:45, 6 February 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. G7 czar 14:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berenstain Bears (Atari 2600 game)

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

Was preparing to move draft to mainspace and did so incorrectly. Want to keep working on it in as draft. Darb02 (talk) 13:20, 30 January 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) nyuszika7h (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content rating

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

Contains of only a dictionary definition and a list of links. This should be at most a redirect to Motion picture rating system.

The Finnish Wikipedia article is a disambiguation page, and the German Wikipedia article corresponds to Motion picture rating system, for which no German language link exists. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – Geraldo Perez's comment makes sense to me and I guess it shouldn't be deleted after all, it can probably be improved. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Could be speedy A3 as meets criteria of WP:A3 "consisting only of external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title" Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Once this is deleted, motion picture rating system (Q14775294) should probably be merged with content rating (Q5165090). The latter seems more appropriate as it's more generic. The former mentions exclusively films in its description, but many articles, including the huwiki one, also talk about things like TV series and radio programmes. Though I don't know what's the best thing to do there, really. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this article is trying to serve the purpose of a disambiguation page WP:DAB and looks like an attempt at a Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. That would require some well-referenced content before the "See also" section that is more than just a dictionary definition. I don't think merger would be appropriate unless all the See also articles were merged into this general concept. It may be possible to keep this article if the body were fleshed out more with well-referenced content from the other articles that cover the concept in general. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I changed my mind, this is a useful-to-the-project broad concept article that just needs more text in the body to describe the concept in more detail. While it strictly could be speedy deleted per WP:A3, I don't think that it benefits the project to do so. I also don't see a benefit for merging others into this article although some general info can and probably should be extracted from those other related articles to more fully explain this general concept. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed when going over the edit history that the article originally had significantly more content. Most of it was removed as people thought it poorly written and unreferenced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 30 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Black Rock Underwater Diving Club

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

Inexplicably contested PROD that could well have been speedied. It is the (self-proclaimed) oldest diving club in one city, having existed since only the 1950s: this is not a claim of notability, the one reference is to a directory listing with a self-proclaimed blurb, and this is something that should have been dealt with at PROD instead of bizarrely being thrown to AfD. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Although sources are moderately easy to find, most of them are not reliable. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks to fail WP:ORG — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Drover's Wife: re "only the 1950s", note that 1953 is the beginning of the era of (underwater) civilian diving clubs -- see Timeline of diving technology#Public interest in scuba diving takes off, Recreational diving#History, and British Sub-Aqua Club. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 15:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self proclaimed oldest continually existing diving club in Melbourne with only one reference to that being a directory maintained by the organisation, not notable enough under WP:ORG Anzmibu (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the above reason for deletion had been in the PROD, it is more likely that I wouldn't have contested it. As it was, there was no reason given for deletion, and I as don't delete articles for no reason the fact that I contested it is hardly "inexplicable".Optimist on the run (talk) 13:39, 1 February 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 can change and Wikipedia requires sources; truth is more of a happy accident. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jörg Schilling

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

Self-uploaded programmer CV, with big and ongoing COI problems: Schily (talk · contribs). PRODed and AfDed some years ago,this still fails to demonstrate notability. There is only one source that isn't an obvious fail for WP:RS and that is a lightweight promotional piece by the employer.

There is are two claims to notability: One, they invented cdrtools a CD burning program from some years back. That article has COI problems too.

Secondly, as claimed at Talk:Distributed_version_control Talk:Version control but not even mentioned in this article, they invented Distributed_version_control as part of SCCS. "Distributed version control" is an important innovation and could convey notability to its inventor, but I just don't believe that SCCS is "distributed version control" anyway, nor that the stream of product innovations listed at talk: are really that convincing as a notable influence.

Wikipedia has standards for WP:V and especially for BLPs. This is failing them. Self-promotion is one thing but the combination of self-promotion and lack of any other real independent sourcing is really bad. Viam Ferream (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see SchilliX, his self-named Unix distro. Another self-promotional article, based on himself as the source. Viam Ferream (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No substantial coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. I tried looking for RS on Google and all I found was this passing mention on LWN.net. -- intgr [talk] 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion not relevant to the deletion discussion

@Viam Ferream: From the information you've posted, I'm all for deleting the mentioned articles, but I think you're going way overboard with your insinuations. Please remember WP:AGF. I skimmed over some edits made by user Schily to these articles, and while I agree they don't abide by WP:V and WP:COI, they are generally minor, nothing that seems to support your claim of "Self-uploaded programmer CV". Both of these articles were created by (apparently) independent editors in 2005-2006. Back then, the standards on Wikipedia were completely different and I think the editors can be excused for not following the 2016 Wikipedia standards. The difference is striking when you read the previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jörg Schilling from 2006. -- intgr [talk] 13:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AGF? Then maybe Schily would like to start by not describing other editors as "non neutral" when they go to an article at AfD as "no sources", add some sources from pretty substantial places (IBM and Gnu) and then have them edit-warred to remove them. I'll take accusations of "advertizing" from some people (I'm strongly against it here too), but not from a guy who seems to confuse wikipedia with LinkedIn.Viam Ferream (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to go to LWN.net for a source and the problems Schily had/still has with GPL, can we use this as a source? "Form all I've heard and read, Jörg Schilling seems to be hard to work with. A couple of factors play a role, he seems to be quite arrogant and ignorant about the work and preferences of others."

Sources in the last Afd [4], a bunch of related Talk: pages and the User_talk: page do nothing to dispute this view! There also seems to be a theme here of "Jörg has a different opinion about this " in both the history of version control, and in the interpretation of software licences - the Slashdot link is largely, "Jörg tells Gnu that Gnu is wrong about interpreting the GPL and the CDDL" Viam Ferream (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Viam Ferream: My point is: If you nominate an article for deletion, please stick to arguments that are relevant to a deletion discussion. And if you make relevant claims (such as the COI allegations), then make sure to post sufficient evidence, e.g. links to edit diffs, so these claims can be easily verified by others reviewing your deletion nomination.

Right now, you're concentrating far more on insinuations about how bad of a person he is. Whether the person conducts himself appropriately in Wikipedia talk page discussions, and whether they're notable for an article on Wikipedia, are two totally unrelated questions. I am well aware that Schily is a very difficult person to communicate with, from the management of his open source projects to my personal exchanges with him here on Wikipedia. But I set all that aside when evaluating whether an article about him deserves to be kept or not. -- intgr [talk] 14:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:Viam Ferream seems to use this as a type of revenge because his biased edits at a different place have been reverted. He tried to add vendor specific documentation to Test (unix) at a very prominent place and as an apparent (but wrong) verification for unrelated text. Vendor specific documentation however is always worse than the official standard document, but the named user seems to have problems with unbiased WP articles. This is why his edit with vendor specific documentation was reverted and replaced by a link to the standard documentation. Schily (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"biased", "revenge" - and I'm the one called out for AGF? Viam Ferream (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way you act does not create the impression that you are acting in good faith. BTW: I cannot see new arguments for the deletion and the previous attempt already has been objected because the article describes OpenSource activities since 1982. Schily (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable programmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep because Schilling is definitely a notable programmer. Between 1996 and 2004 cdrtools was the only open source software in that area. All forks of cdrtools have been abandonned, while the original is still maintained by Schilling almost 20 years after its creation. Such a piece of software is a must have for any general-purpose OS. If you know that on some hardware cdrecord is the only open source software that works correctly you understand why the author of cdrecord is a notable programmer. On many forums skilled users help novice users having problems with media burning caused by wodim and after those novice users follow the advice (of installing cdrtools) they come back with big thanks. Now, if Schilling's opinions about the licensing issue are not shared by the majority, this is a different problem. I think he is right but I don't care (as much as he does) if others don't share his views. BTW, I agree with everything intgr wrote in his reply to Viam Ferream 2 days ago. I would add that the only problem with Schilling is the way he behaves sometimes when he reverts wrong claims instead of first convincing the other editors, or when he adds true facts without the required sourcing. Ekkt0r (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"definitely notable", notability inherited from cdrtools, "true facts". It's not the strongest case ever. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not present any facts that have not already been discussed with the first discussion that happened nearly 10 years ago. So what is your concern? Schily (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep public interest in Jörg Schilling exists due to the ubiquity of his software, his infamous conflict with the Debian project and lastly him being a core member of the POSIX standardization committee. --FUZxxl (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the available reliable sources would only support the second of your comments. The first is arguable (and needs sources which have not been provided as yet), and the last is a bit of a stretch, given the number of proposals which have been rejected. Of course he's notable. But not for the reason he wants to. TEDickey (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TEDickey, Could you identify the claims you are talking about? I'm a lost as to what parts of my “keep” post you refer to. Also, I'm not sure what you are trying to express with “given the number of proposals which have been rejected.” --FUZxxl (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your comment, you made 3 statements (I'm assuming you know how to parse your sentences). I pointed out that the second of the three is the reason for notability. The last one is not well-sourced (and given one datapoint, from 13 years ago, probably your edit should be toned down). It doesn't contribute to notability (take a look at Austin Group and read the source you quoted). This is probably not the place to explain to you how Austin review works, but you might consider subscribing and following it for a year or two. TEDickey (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing this up. I'm sorry that I only provided one datapoint from 2008. I can provide further datapoints to prove Schilling's continued participation in drafting POSIX if you request me to do so. I'm a bit surprised that you think that his work in drafting POSIX doesn't count as notability as per WP:BIO (“The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.” where POSIX is that enduring historical record and operating systems development is his specific field). For my first claim there is certainly a lot of anecdotal evidence even from Debian mailing lists where Debian project members claim that cdrecord is the single most used program for CD burning on UNIX-like operating systems. I can try to find Debian's internal package installation statistics to demonstrate how often cdrecord has been installed but honestly I don't know where to find them. --FUZxxl (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FUZxxl: here are the Ubuntu numbers source: Packages cdrtools+cdrecord+cdrecord-prodvd+cdrecord-2.01 = 80589 installations (16 recently used) = about 8.6% installed. Package wodim: 907339 installations = about 96.8% installed (2198 recently used). So: 1. Ubuntu should stop preinstalling wodim - nobody uses CDs anymore! 2. wodim has easily 100x as many active users as cdrecord. 3. Despite a PPA being advertised in the Ubuntu Wiki, very few people install cdrecord. Wodim looks to work good enough for 99% of users 91.52.18.12 (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a look at the SuSE numbers since they ship cdrecord by default after their legal department had a lengthy conservation with the author and concluded that his license construct is legal. Most distributions sadly decided to follow Debian's FUD instead of doing their own research and ship wodim. Still, wodim is a fork of cdrecord and as such Jörg Schilling is an author of the software. That 96.8% of the users have installed his software (even though it's an abandoned fork) demonstrates how widespread it is. --FUZxxl (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cdrtools still has 5x ~ 10x more page views on WP than wodim and due to the fact that wodim is a fork from May 2004 that never added any useful new code and that is completely dead since May 2007, all Linux users that write CDs/DVDs/BluRays and use software from the cdrtools collection use cdrtools and not wodim, just because wodim is too expensive because it ruins every other CD. Note that cdrecord turns 20 tomorrow (if you start counting at the day of first publishing) and as Debian decoupled from OSS updates in Summer 2004, wodim only contains 40% of the code from cdrecord. Schily (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete This looks like an excuse to have an attack page on someone over an old argument. Theres not enough otherwise to make them notable. 108.171.128.174 (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify: This article was requested for deletion before and a clear consensus emerged that Jörg Schilling is notable. As per WP:N, notability does not expire. I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion. I haven't seen any new arguments so far either. --FUZxxl (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that "everything judged notable ten years ago is a guaranteed pass for judging it again today would have an awful lot of deleted articles reinstated. Even if notions of notability haven't shifted, the bar for proof certainly has. IMHO the notability standard perhaps has gone down a bit, but the standard of proof from sources is far higher. Let alone that this is a BLP and our BLP sourcing and notability policies have very obviously been changed since. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm not seeing notability, then or now. He wrote a program. It was a program enough to be judged notable, but then so do many programmers! Many of us work on famous programs, important programs, influential or widely used programs (someone out there wrote Minesweeper, but I doubt they have a WP article.) Many of us are part of standards groups or industry bodies. None of that matters a jot unless someone writes adequate sourcing about that person, not their product.

His repeated claim to have invented distributed version control as part of SCCS is just untrue.

There is one aspect of Schilling's career that is covered in sources. It is not complimentary. WP is oddly strict on writing people out of the history of the development of shared licensing and copyright metadata when they did make large positive contributions. So why would we give someone an article here when they're best known for their fatuous and project-breaking arguments as to how the whole rest of the world is Doing It Wrong? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe you can influence the results by writing personal attacks and false claims about SCCS? SCCS is maintained by Jörg Schilling since 9 years, but distributed version control is a result from development done by Sun Microsystems and by Larry McVoy in the SCCS area between 1986 and 2001. I recommend you to read the article distributed version control it is not that incorrect as your claims. Schily (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that by writing about yourself in the third person, no-one will notice that the main contributor to your article is yourself? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Please provide clear evidence (e.g. edit diffs) for the claim that he is the "main contributor to [the] article". I skimmed the edit history and I found his own edits to be relatively minor (though not in detail, so I could have missed something). -- intgr [talk] 10:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see him as the "main contributor" either, but he's happy to spin it in his favour [5] [6] (and others) and those look dodgy against WP:COI Viam Ferream (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rules for WP are: no biased or otherwise unproven claims. Do you have a problem with correcting such false claims? Mr. Wheeler first corrected himself and removed his false claims in the essay on his quoted web page that before contained unverified attacks against cdrtools and those anti-social people from Debian still fail to give any verification for their now 11 year old attacks. What Debian does is called libel and defamation and does not belong to WP because it is a crime. Schily (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not transitive. cdrtools is notable - it used to be the default cd writing software on Linux. But that does not make him notable (only "notorious", well said!). Schily-tar is not, Schily-SCSS is not, Schily-make is not, Schily-Bourne-Shell is not, SchilliX is not (in my personal opinion - you may of course disagree, and I know a user here who will disagree very vividly). Of course they are all teh fastest forks out there (according to, guess what, him), but they have exactly one single user, him (see e.g. the Schily SCCS development mailing list). Sorry. If you want a review of these projects, here is one (not by me, via Google Translate). The whole purpose of his efforts appears to be to "avoid" GNU software like the evil GNU tar, GNU make, GNU CVS, GNU Git, GNU bash and of course GNU Linux. Because they are not half as POSIX-compliant as he is (btw: what did he contribute to POSIX exactly? Write the specification for the dead pax command that nobody uses either?). All of them failed - no users, except for cdrecord. I mean, it is amazing how someone can maintain a software like s-tar for 30 years without having any users! Now, get your popcorn ready for his rebuttal below ... Chire (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why GNU make has been written even though smake did exist 5 years before already? Please explain why GNU tar has been written even though star did exist 7 years before already? Your claims are useless and non-scientific as usual and you quote a person that is well known for being unable to make useful bugreports because he cannot use a debugger and who publishes own funny OSS projects that do not compile on certified POSIX platforms. Schily (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What did you contribute to POSIX? - that is still an unanswered question. All we have seen so far is your name on a long list of contributors. But now I understand why you are advocating POSIX everywhere on Wikipedia, it is another WP:COI of yours. --Chire (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pax dates back to 1989, which predates any published work in the area by Schilling. If he added anything to that in the written standards, clarification would help (e.g., a date and verifiable text for others to read). He's only published code since the mid-1990s, so there is no issue of supporting users for 30 years. TEDickey (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you give no verification for your claim. There is published code since the mid 1980s and this can be verified via reading usenet articles from that time. BTW: You should be careful with claims from User Chire as he is known for writing repeated personal attacks that are fully based on his imagination. Schily (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, the earliest published version of smake appeared in 1999, while GNU make 3.69 can be found from 1993 (with diff's going back to 3.55 in 1989). Keep in mind that we're only interested in verifiable sources. TEDickey (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, smake was not under version control from the beginning, but it was published in the mid 1980s already and it is under version control since 1985, see the bottom from a sccs log output:

Fri Aug 23 12:04:43 1985 joerg
       * update.c 1.1
         date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:43 by joerg

Fri Aug 23 12:04:39 1985 joerg
       * readfile.c 1.1
       * parse.c 1.1
         date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:39 by joerg

Fri Aug 23 12:04:35 1985 joerg
       * make.c 1.1
         date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:35 by joerg

Fri Aug 23 12:04:33 1985 joerg
       * make.h 1.1
         date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:33 by joerg

Fri Aug 23 12:04:26 1985 joerg
       * Makefile 1.1
         date and time created 85/08/23 12:04:26 by joerg

Just because you cannot find a verification does not prove anything. Note that you are apparently unable to present me a gmake-1.0 tar archive either. BTW: There was a plan to let smake die in the 1990s, but in 1998 it turned out that gmake is unmaintained and that gmake does not work correctly on MS-WIN and does not work at all on OS/2 and VMS (the space handling from gmake is wrong on all platforms, the newline handling is wrong on all DOS like platforms and "include" ignores existing rules and writes error messages even though the makefiles are 100% correct. A related bug report was accepted in 1989 bit there is still no fix. So smake was enhanced in 1998 and newly distributed in 1998. Then after someone tried to compile cdrtools on OS/2 using gmake to no avail spending weeks for this attempt, it took a few hours to port smake to OS/2 and cdrtools finally compiled on OS/2. Schily (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of your changes to date on this page demonstrate a reliable source, and accordingly is not responsive. Accusing others of stupidity and ignorance demonstrates that you have nothing to say. TEDickey (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any usable source which demonstrates earlier publication. Your working notes are irrelevant in more than one way: (a) they are not usable as a reliable source, (b) failing that, they are unrelated to the topic at hand, and (c) there's nothing to demonstrate their relevance to the program mentioned. TEDickey (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, you repeatedly verified that you are missing experiences from the period before 1990 and for this reason, you don't seem to understand that you usually cannot retrieve all information from the network for this period. Just because you are unable to find the information, you probably like to see, does not verify anything.

BTW: the official reason for this discussion is to collect arguments against a WP article. This has not yet been done here. Instead, people are having a discussion about the missing quality of the article and thus arguments against the authors that wrote the current content. Schily (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So test (unix) (in every shell script, ever) gets blanked as failing WP:MANUAL, but we keep an article on pax! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pax is slightly more notable due to it being a compromise between the tar and cpio factions in the archiver wars (similar to the vi/emacs conflict, there has been a long standing conflict between tar and cpio users), which sadly has found little use. But we are going off topic. --FUZxxl (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether pax is notable is largely irrelevant in itself, since this discussion is not about specific programs, but notability of a person. We seem to be short of verifiable comments in this discussion. TEDickey (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if you are interested in further sources some comments above and I didn't get an answer from you. Now you claim that there is a lack of sources. Could you make up your mind? If you want me to provide sources for my currently unsourced claims, please tell me which claims you'd like to have sourced and I shall gratefully provide sources. --FUZxxl (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You started off with a testimonial in lieu of reliable sources, and I pointed out that you are unlikely to find good sources for anything other than the basic reason for notability (the dispute), since other people have attempted to do this and found nothing worth mentioning TEDickey (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean with “testimonial?” How is an IEEE publication itself (IEEE 1003.1) not a reliable source? I can also point out that Jörg Schilling was awarded for his contributions to POSIX. Do you think they hand out these awards like free beer? And if you like, check the older standard as well, his name is in these, too. --FUZxxl (talk) 10:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I provided one reliable source (the participants list of POSIX.1 2008). I can provide further sources, but it seems like you are not interested in seeing them (otherwise you would have asked by now).--FUZxxl (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting (the image and text are found nowhere else, and the Schily's website says the file was put there 2 weeks ago, on the 26th). By the way, it's worthless for the purpose you intended, since there's no indication from The Open Group who got a plaque (hence, no selectivity whatsoever). I've gotten similar plaques for simply being at a company for a year. Perhaps you will, also. TEDickey (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out a problem with the source: it doesn't say what you said (and pointed out a problem with your viewpoint which you promptly validated, for our entertainment). TEDickey (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these history lessons are about programs, not people. What happened to WP:NOTINHERITED? Viam Ferream (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not present a single new argument for a deletion. Schily (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is not an autobiography, but its subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO either. I see one interview on opensolaris.org (not independent of the subject), a picture of a plaque (not independent) and a passing mention on LWN: a good source for the cdrtools article, but hardly enough to base a biography on. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The plaque was made by the Austin group. How is it not an independent source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUZxxl (talk • contribs) 17:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: the text from @Qwertyus: does not follow WP:DEL that requires new arguments for a repeated attempt for deletion. Schily (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only see a requirement for new arguments under Deletion reviews. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to be funny did not work.

Let me assume that people are interested in OSS specific information, let me give a small list of facts that could be verified in court:

1982 star was written to unpack a Modula-2 source tape on UNOS. The archive format was retrieved by looking at the data.
1982 a prototype for a LRU based history editor with cursor control was written, the shell was called via "system()" at that time.
1984 The first fully integrated shell (bsh) with the above history concept was written on UNOS. ksh at that time had to call the external program vi for editing the history and integrated a first own editor implementation in 1986.
1984 working on the UNOS kernel (really VBERTOS, a variant that was enhanced to support the BSD virtual memory concepts) in special: a bus coupler driver, the debugging interface and file acceess.
1984... smake/bsh/ved was in use by H.Berthold AG and the schily tools (bsh/ved, ...) have been on UNIX in high schools in Berlin since ~ 1985.
1985 star introduced a private enhanced tar format that supports all file types and not only files, directories and symlinks.
Summer 1986 the first SCSI generic interface was designed and implemented on SunOS-3.0. Two years later, Adaptec came up with ASPI that reused most of the basic concepts of "scg".
1987, first star experiments with a FIFO that permitted to keep QIC tape cartidges to stream.
Autumn 1988, after Bill Joy contributed the SunOS-4.0 sources for the diploma thesis, the "fbk" (File emulated block device) was designed and written as a finger exercise for the VFS interface. This idea later reappeared in 1993 as "loop driver" on Linux.
1988-1991 design and implementation of the WOFS filesystem (published 23 May 1991 as diploma thesis). A Copy on write design that does not need a fsck program because it implements transactional stability via COW. It may not be the first COW at all, but it is the first implementation that does not need to rewrite all directories up to the root directory in case an arbitrary file is modified. Basic concepts like the method for fast retrieval of the most recent superblock location have been adopted by Netapp in WAFL in 1993 (Netapp aquired a patent for that idea in 1993 that is void because the idea was not new at that time) and by Sun Microsystems in ZFS in 2000. Sun also adopted parts of the "gnode" (generation nodes) concept in ZFS.
1994 the FIFO code was fully integrated into star and is active by default.
4 February 1996, cdrecord was first published in source form.
1997, smake implements better portability than GNU make and is required to compile schily software on various platforms where GNU make fails.
2000/2001 negotiation with SCO for opensourcing the Source Code Control System. Two weeks before the source should be handed out, Caldera Linux aquired SCO and had no interest in OpenSource.
2001 start of OpenGroup collaboration
Autumn 2001, star is the first tar implementation that supports the POSIX tar extensions finally standardized in December 2001
September 2004, star includes working support for incremental backup and restore. GNU tar still fails to support a working incremental restore today as it chokes with some directory rename operations.
September 2004, a lengthy discussion with Jeff Bonwick from Sun about ZFS and backup technologies lead to the definition of the SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA interface for lseek() to discover holes in sparse files from userland processes.
January 2005, SchilliX first boot.
February 2005 star is the first program that includes CDDLd code taken from the later OpenSolaris that was published at 14 June 2005.
May 2005, star supports the now ready SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA implementation on OpenSolaris and becomes always faster than ufsdump.
17 June 2005 Schillix is the first published OpenSolaris based distro - before Sun published their next release.
2006 The Bourne Shell was made basically portable and the history editor from "bsh" from 1984 was added.
2006, enhanced the "hsfs" filesystem source code from OpenSolaris by support for ISO-9660-1999 and Joliet, added final support for avoiding kernel panic()s as a result from rotten filesystem meta-data
December 2006 negotiations with Sun regarding opensourcing SCCS, SunProMake and the SVr4 packet system have been successful and the programs have been published as OSS by Sun.
January 2006, the first portable SCCS source (derived from the Sun sources) was published.
September 2010, implemented and published a modern K&R cpp implementation based on the original code from "John F. Reiser". This implementation is needed for compiling dtrace in a OSS environment and replaces the closed source cpp from Sun on OpenSolaris
January 2016, the Bourne Shell now basically only lacks support for $((expr)) to be fully POSIX compliant.

This is not much and I may have missed important facts, but there are many other people with WP articles that have much less relevant information. Schily (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in 10% of that you might be able to find a reliable source to discuss here (forget the rest). I suggest you start with the part that could be of interest on this page. TEDickey (talk) 01:10, 6 February 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) Ya sh ! 12:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanders (Green Party)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - notability is not inherited. Rcsprinter¹²³ (jaw) 10:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (note) 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (engage) 10:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Lots of third-party references. Zigzig20s (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy. WP:POLITICIAN is irrelevant because we use it in cases like people elected to major offices about whom no profiles have been written. The standard Sanders passes is the WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." It does not matter what prompted that coverage. When those sources exist, as they do here in the form of in-depth profiles and interviews in major media both in the U.S. and Britain, we accept that as evidence of notability. It is not a question of whether you or I think Larry Sanders has notable accomplishments. The fact that the BBC, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, Rolling Stone and other media write him up at length means that he passes WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. He doesn't appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN or indeed WP:PROF. Mr Gregory is right that WP:NOTINHERITED is complete rubbish and usually misunderstood. I'm willing to let this one stay but if Bernie Sanders doesn't get the Dem nom for prez, and slips back into relative obscurity, I'd advise reconsideration. Claudebone (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"As reporters beat a path to the door of Mr. (Larry) Sanders’ terraced house..." [7] The Independent, 27 January 2016. Larry truly has been having a moment with British press. ~~That said, I endorse User:Claudebone suggestion to keep this for now, and reconsider whether to keep or merge to a section in Bernie's article after... well, just after. For now, however, it may be~~ better for Wikipedia to close this, reason: when a man is drawing this kind of attention, it makes Wikipedia silly to have an AFD template on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my caveat, because coverage of this man is truly so massive that, WP being WP:NOTTEMPORARY, this article passes WP:GNG. User:Rcsprinter123, I think that if you re-read WP:NOTINHERITED, You might see your way to gracefully withdraw at this point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is no good reason to delete this article. There are many good reasons to keep it. Bernie Sanders has stated that his older brother has had a profound influence on him and has shaped his outlook on life and his values. The proposal to delete the article is yet another example of the silliness, bordering on wilful vandalism, demonstrated by those Wikipedia Dining Room Monitors who want to turn Wikipedia into a dull, group-sourced version of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and who look down their noses at those of us who want Wikipedia to be truly encyclopaedic.124.186.99.210 (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Most of the keep arguments above are irrelevant (notability is not temporary, articles aren't kept just because AfD templates look bad, yada yada), and most of the third-party coverage of this individual appears to be mostly in connection to his brother, which makes this a pretty borderline case. He was, though, on the Oxfordshire city council, which is a political office at the level of a non-metropolitan county, which I assume is roughly similar to a state- or province-level office (see WP:POLITICIAN #1) although I guess an argument could be made that it's more like municipal. WP:POLOUTCOMES indicates that municipal offices aren't usually considered enough for notability unless there's additional coverage beyond that; in this case I think the borderline political office plus the extra attention through his brother is maybe enough to qualify as substantial coverage. rʨanaɢ (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. When I first knew of the page and the AFD discussion, many months ago, I felt "fair enough, delete it, I can't be bothered to get involved" - nothing about his political role in England made a really clear-cut case for him to have a page, even if on balance I might have kept it myself. But looking now at WP:BASIC, I see that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He is receiving significant coverage - the fact that just at the moment it is in largest part in connection with his brother does not mean that he is not receiving it. It wasn't until today that I made any connection between him and his brother, but I looked today at the Larry Sanders (Green Party) page precisely to find out whether the person that was about to be interviewed on BBC Radio4 is the same as the Green Party politician that I already knew of (and as it happens the appearance on BBC Radio4 did mention his standing for the UK Parliament as a Green Party candidate). If connection with a news story means somebody who is already at least close to notability gets further "significant coverage" in RS, it seems to me that there isn't real scope for debate. And yes, I know WP:NOTNEWS: but "news coverage of [this] individual [does go] beyond the context of a single event" - Larry was already close enough to being notable without the connection to his brother for an article about him to be reasonable. DrArsenal (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Looking further, and to explain my opening sentence, there have been articles about this Larry Sanders at least twice in the past - one deleted in February 2010 and one, that I actually was referring to above, deleted in the last year, before the current one was created. DrArsenal (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the telly again today [8].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe Larry Sanders (politician) would be a better title --ʬʬ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article could use some work, it should be moved to Larry Sanders (politician) as per ʬʬ. Article shows notability and is better sourced than some of the short articles I've seen. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no reason to delete this article. It seems to be a factual article and photo about a human being. There is no reason to delete any or all content from this article at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.28.245 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the brother of a notable person does not make that person themselves notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 6 February 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. Strong opinions have been expressed on both sides, but there is no doubt where the consensus of this discussion lies. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish boycott of the Western Wall

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

Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. The core content relates to the long-known cherem (ban) of the Satmar Rebbes and the Neturei Karta sect against their followers visiting the Western Wall. Satmar's position is already discussed and sourced in Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel. To call this a "Jewish boycott" is POV, and to try to build a "case" that other Jews should also boycott the Wall by adding the spurious opinion of an Israeli intellectual is moving into WP:COATRACK. Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete as per nom Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have neither of the "other" xxx-related deletion discussions been added by any of the above editors? Is this a POV nomination? Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would a Jewish boycott on the Western Wall require a Palestine or Islam AFD notice? To do so is to admit that this article is a COATRACK. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir Joseph, open any "Jewish" newspaper and tell me that Palestine and Islam have nothing to do with Jews and Israel. Frankly, I wish they didn't, but they have been unfortunately inextricably linked thanks to the Zionist – (you know, the Jewish national liberation movement) - conquest of Palestine against the will of its Muslim inhabitants… I often find this; many Jews like to link the two when it suits them ("Jews are the real Palestinians") or acknowledge a link to prove their POV ("the Wailing Wall was never a Muslim holy site"...) and then exclaim there is no connection between the two when it somehow offends their sensibilities… Are you insinuating that we are to ignore the link between this 57m length of masonry and the cycles of sectarian violence and killings it has ignited between Palestinian Muslims and Jewish Israelis who have rival claims to the site? That the entire site is termed the most contested piece of real estate in the world is now insignificant? Come on, Sir Joseph. This type of selective linking phenomena should also be documented on Wiki :-).... The listing on AFD Israel and Judaism alone, ignoring the "other side" in the ongoing regional conflict (to prevent input from editors with a non-Israeli/Jewish perspective?) smacks of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. (Not quite sure what you mean by COATRACK.) Chesdovi (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - yawn. You're basically putting words into my mouth. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not involved in this till I saw this AfD, but in my opinion, this comment suggests you have a bias in this topic and aren't capable of editing from a WP:NPOV. I apologize if I'm wrong to suggest this, but if you have an external relationship to some of the groups involved in the boycott, it may be preferable to avoid editing these pages. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have a point. I will try and add views opposing the boycott. Chesdovi (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please also both note that both the Satmar rabbi and Leibowitz both mention that the Jewish control of the Wall is an affront to the Arabs, hence the link. Chesdovi (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do you think anybody cares what the Satmar Rebbe holds about the Western Wall? He also held the Six Day War was the work of the Devil. That's not someone whose views on Zionism and the Western Wall we really need to include here, but if you wish, this whole article can become one little section in the Western Wall article, not a new article.
Not someone we really need to include here? Two quotes from the above thread: 1. "Do you think anybody cares what the Satmar Rebbe holds about the Western Wall?" 2. "This comment suggests you have a bias in this topic and aren't capable of editing from a WP:NPOV." Sir Joseph: Are Rabbi Teitelbaum's views so abhorrent they can not be included in this delightful encyclopedia? Compare Did Six Million Really Die? Chesdovi (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
His views are fringe, and certainly not worthy of an article. If you feel it's worthy, then include it in the Western Wall article, as pointed out by Debresser, I think it's already mentioned in the Satmar article. How many more times do you need to push your anti-Zionist POV? We get it, but what you are doing is POV. There is no JEWISH boycott of the Western Wall, that is the whole point of this AFD. I of course have no idea what you refer to by your link to Zundell's book. Unless you are referring to Teitelbaum's getting rescued by the Zionists and then showing himself as an ingrate? I honestly don't know what you did with bringing that book into the mix. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Did Six Million Really Die? to demonstrate that fringe views are incorporated into Wiki. My "pushing of anti-Zionist POV" may be the only antidote to your pushing of Zionist POV. How many Israel orientated pages exist on Wiki? Too many to count. Anyhow, whether you like it or not, there is a Jewish boycott of the Wall. And not only is it Jews who obediently observe this boycott, all the reasons advanced for a boycott are rooted in traditional Jewish values. Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. Sorry to bring up the Holocaust again, but I recently saw I Met Adolf Eichmann. Testimonial was given by a Dutch Jewish lady who Eichmann saved from certain death "because of her legs". Do you think she was ever grateful to the Nazis for saving her life? As a matter of fact, she was not. They were evil and remain evil. And the Zionist's had no active part in saving Teitelbaum's life. On the contrary, some generally preferred, understandably, that all anti-Zionists perish in the gas chambers. In an attempt to defend the way you see the world, you seem to want this article to go up in smoke too. Chesdovi (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, please can you point out where WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR has been violated? There are sources which clearly refer to this boycott. I also don't see what you mean by "trying to build a case". This is about documenting this notable phenomena deserving of its own dedicated page, not trying to persuade people not to visit the site! It is titled "Jewish" because the boycotters are Jews, not all of whom are affiliated to the Satmar community. Chesdovi (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:SYNTH is when you gather together information that is not related and use it as examples to "prove" a subject's veracity. Lumping Satmar's views with Neturei Karta's approach to say there is an "issue" called Jewish boycott of the Western Wall is SYNTH. The Israeli intellectual's opinion has no place in this discussion at all; certain groups are boycotting it for their interpretation of religious law, and then you throw in this guy who thinks the Kotel is more like a disco, and wants all Jews to boycott it. Honestly, all these disparate threads point to OR. Finally, the choice of title is too universal – if there would be such an article, which editors below have termed a FORK, then it should be called Satmar boycott of the Western Wall. When you say Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses, you understand that "Nazi" refers to a specific group. Nazis in Germany and Nazis in Austria are the same thing. A "Jewish" boycott also sounds like a specific group: all Jews. But that is not true; the boycott only applies to certain groups within Judaism. To imply through the title that other Jews would also gladly boycott the Kotel is POV. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There may an issue with the page title, but I still do not see how this contravenes SYN. This page will document Jews who boycott the wall for various reasons. Chesdovi (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be similar to Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe? Not all Jews resisted. Could I suggest: Jewish resistance to visiting the Western Wall in Israeli-occupied Palestine... Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For three reasons. 1. This is already discussed at Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel, so this is a WP:FORK. 2. In continuation of #1: Giving this subject a whole article is WP:UNDUE, because this is a very minor and not so notable minority and point of view. 3. The term "boycott of the Western Wall" is a description, not a term. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is not "discussed"; it is mentioned in passing in one line, as it should be on that page. Secondly, it is not only Satmar who observe this boycott.

2. "Minor and not so notable minority and point of view" - that means that we would not give this excessive coverage in an article about, let's say the Western Wall. But as this page is dedicated to this point of view, it is perfectly in order to document this boycott.

3. "A description, not a term" - what is the WP policy here? Is Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses also up for deletion? Chesdovi (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this point of view is accepted in Satmar, and is part and parcel of their general ideology, as opposed to other groups, it is fitting that the Satmar article should mention it. Likewise a mention of this point of view would be justified for professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz.
That does not detract from the fact that this point of view is fringe, and as such should not be dealt with at length, and for sure should not have its own article.
The difference being that the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses is notable, while this is not.

Add argument number 4, that I am not sure the term "boycott" should be used for refusal to visit a place. Usually the word implies a refusal to buy products, not to visit. E.g., I don't boycott churches, I just don't visit them (for religious reasons). Debresser (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CONTENTFORK of Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel. Also a clearly mistitled article. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and it is WP:CONTENTFORK of Satmar (Hasidic dynasty)#Satmar and the State of Israel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content fork be use the boycott is advocated by ooher groups beside from Satmar. Chesdovi (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says, "The boycott is maintained chiefly by Jews affiliated to the Satmar hasidic community and Neturei Karta.[3]" That's in the lead, the one other source that you bring that is not Satmar is Liebowitz and even he talks only about extensive prayer and overall veneration. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then the lead will have to be changed to indicate that the boycott is observed by various communities. NK endorsed a boycott befotre the Satmar Rebbe introduced his own ban. Toldos Aharon also maintain it. And I was most surprised to learn that Rabbi Wosber also upheld the boycott. I wonder how many of his followers also refrain from visiting the site. And the sources say Leibowitz actually was against people visiting the sit. Chesdovi (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:COATRACK, also as per arguments made by Nom. Before I get to the reasons for deletion, I want to ask editors to consider how it is possible for an editor acting in good faith to research an entire article on the Western Wall featuring a sentence of such profound ignorance as: "The Western Wall... forms the only surviving section of the retaining wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem." (Four visible retaining walls survive from the Second Temple: Eastern, Southern, Northern, and Western).

That said, it is an enormous leap from citing an opinion of Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a distinguished scholar who openly acknowledged his own penchant for advocating opinions held by no or few others, and extrapolating form it a boycott movement. There is no evidence that any person or groups abstain form visiting the Wall because of the opinion of Yeshayahu Leibowitz.

What is a fact is that secular Israelis rarely visit the wall; just as secular Europeans rarely make the pilgrimage to Lourdes, but we do not have articles about French boycott of Lourdes.

It is also true that since the creation of the State of Israel, Satmer Rebbes have instructed their followers not to visit the Wall, their opposition is understood as part of a doctrinal conviction that no Israeli government should exist until the Messiah arrives. This arcane position is appropriately covered at: Anti-Zionism, Satmar (Hasidic dynasty), Joel Teitelbaum, Zalman Teitelbaum, and Aaron Teitelbaum making this a WP:POVFORK. Leaping form the position of a circumscribed sect like Satmar to Jewish is very like writing an article about the Christian boycott of electricity and sourcing it it to the Amish.

Frankly this article is bizarre. It is so blatantly in violation of WP:POV and WP:UNDUE (not to mention Cherry picking,) that it is hard to believe that it was written by an experienced editor, all of which makes me wonder if it is in fact some sort of WP:POINTY, with the creator acting out his ire over some unknown grievance.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Western Wall "is the only surviving reminder of the massive building work undertaken by Herod the Great." (Six Religions in the Twenty-first Century, pg. 201) The other three flanks are all later additions, obviously. Trust me, I helped get the Western Wall its Good article status :-).

Whoa. This is an egregious example of the kind of cherrypicked evidence central to Chesdovi's POV and FACTUALLY WRONG editing on this topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't deny the facts. Don't dispute them and save your honour! Chesdovi (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's correct and you're wrong. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the proof? That E.M.Gregory's last post was in bold? Chesdovi (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there, I've seen the tours, done the archeological digs, etc. Your statement is not true. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? You went in defiance of the boycott?! And what about the Midrash which says only the Western Wall of the temple remains intact? You remind me of Nahmanides who, upon arriving in Jerusalem, saw with his "own eyes" that the Tomb of rachel was "in fact" situated outside Bethlehem and not north of Jerusalem as he had previously derived from his understanding of scripture. Well, post-1967 Israeli digs may have revealed a few ashlar stones on the South-Western tip (part of the Western flank, no doubt) and a smattering of Herodian stones on the South-Eastern tip, but E.M.Gregory's claim that "four visible retaining walls survive from the Second Temple" is a fabrication of the highest order! For most part, and you will attest to this, all the flanks consist of layers of stone added in later centuries. Even only the first seven visible layers of the Western Wall remain from the Temple era. While many sources state that the Western Wall is the only surviving section, I concur that the wording can be improved somewhat in light of your visitations. How about: "The Western Wall is considered a sacred spot for Jews as it forms the only surviving section of the retaining wall of the Second Temple in Jerusalem located closest to the site of the Holy of Holies"? Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi, perhaps you need to change the Southern Wall article too, which begins: The Southern Wall is a wall at the southern end of the Temple Mount and the former southern side of the Second Temple (also called Herod's Temple) in Jerusalem. It was built during King Herod's expansion of the Temple Mount platform southward on to the Ophel. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. This page does not document a "movement" - there is no such movement. It is merely a phenomena and if the page name does not accurately depict this, it will have to be changed.

3. There is not yet evidence that Leibowitz influenced a large segment of Jewry, but his views do seem to have some effect: "…At the time there was enormous problems about the Western Wall, there was all the confusion that followed the liberation. Leibowitz called it then the "Disco Wall." Rabbi Getz did not accept Leibowitz's view, "But there was a lot of truth in what he said." In principle he rejects any ceremony at the Western Wall, "...of any kind. I might give in to the paratroopers because I have special feelings for them… On the other hand I might say "No" even to them – there should be no ceremony at the Wall….." (JPRS Report: Near East & South Asia, Foreign Broadcast Information Service. 1991. p. 4.) Military ceremonies at the wall were put into question, partly because of Leibowitz.

4. The fact that people simply don't visit certain sites is one thing. But not to do so intentionally is referred to as a boycott. They want to go, but intentionally refuse to do so.

5. It's not only Satmar. How do you suggest referring to the groups of Jews who boycott the Wall for various reasons?

6. I can't see how this article is WP:UNDUE. I understand that UNDUE applies to a fringe view within an article's subject matter, e.g. Flat Earth...?

7. Please explain the POV violation here. This page does not exist to document the adulation most other Jews have for the site.

8. Why I am accused of having a "grievance"? --- Chesdovi (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many Jews are there in the word? How many Jews boycott the Western Wall? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many Jews boycott the Western Wall? I don't know to be precise. Possibly around the same %age of how many Jews there are in the world in relation to the non-Jewish population? But probably more than were involved in the 2004 attempt to revive the Sanhedrin. How many people believe in the Flat Earth theory? Does it matter? Chesdovi (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the article wasn't entitled Jewish attempt to revive the Sanhedrin. If 10,000 Jews "boycott" something, you can't call that a Jewish Boycott. That is a 10,000 Boycott, if it is a boycott at all. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would not make much sense: Jewish attempt to revive the Jewish council. The reason why I titled the page "Jewish" is because that is what I felt made it notable: Jews boycotting a Jewish religious site. Just because an page is called, let's say, Muslim support for Israel, does not imply all Muslims support Israel. Chesdovi (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor. This is a new article, which the creator immediately proposed or DYK, where an objection was immediately made that "it is wholly unverified (that cannot be in a DYK), and it isn't even remotely neutral." Nom has been supported by 5 experienced editors, the sole editor arguing for keep is the article creator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as none of my arguments above have been sufficiently refuted. Two editors feel this is a fork, which it is not. Another editor seems to be driven by an opposing POV. The nominator is the experienced editor, but I feel on this occasion she has not really explained why the use of "Jewish" here is unacceptable. Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unrefuted argument, as Nom stated, is WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR. There is no discussion of a "Jewish boycott of the Weester Wall" Here: [9] is a search on the phrase article creator appears to have invented as he built this WP:COATRACK, which contains examples of isolated Jewish intellectuals and sects that, for a variety of reasons, but not because they participate in boycott, do not pray at the Western Wall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my statement that this is OR, as you are creating an issue called "Jewish boycott" when in fact these are disparate and minority groups avoiding the Kosel, each for a different reason; and SYNTH and COATRACK, as you are lumping together apples and oranges (the Satmar Rebbe and Yeshayahu Leibowitz? Come on) to prove a point; now I see that we have the POV opinion of Rabbi Samuel David Munk of Haifa to round out the article (who is he? He doesn't even have a Wikipedia article to show notability). Yes, they are all Jews, but no, they do not represent all Jews. It would be more accurate and less inflammatory to say Boycott of the Western Wall. But these are all disparate and minority groups and opinions. There is no issue here. Yoninah (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "they do not represent all Jews" is not an issue here. Something can be called "Jewish" without meaning all Jews. I am also at odds to know why you view this as "inflammatory". That is your personal POV not liking the view taken by other Jews viz-a-viz the Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why was this relisted? We had a discussion and we have a clear consensus to delete. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Sandstein: why are you relisting it? There were 5 deletes to 1 keep. Yoninah (talk) 13:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's been animated discussion, the article looks better than those we usually delete, and several "delete" opinions strike me as a bit ... odd, in terms of how vehemently they are expressed. I wanted to see what people who are not regular editors of Israel / Palestine-related articles think. I don't have an opinion on the merits of the deletion request, though. Sandstein 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a Catholic high school teacher in some small town says the pope isn't Catholic, is that notable enough then to include in his Wikipedia entry? That's what we have here. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page "looks" good because the creator has been aggressively appending sources that do not actually support his argument, but, rather, merely contain key words that appear to do so. If I and others sound vehement, it is because this article is a blatant abuse of Wikipedia by an editor attempting to create boycott that does not exist in the real world. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source: "There are certainly many hundreds of families in Mea Shearim who boycott the Western Wall, vestige of the Second Temple and holiest shrine in Judaism, on the grounds that it is 'occupied by the Zionists'." Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably Neturei Karta and Toldos Aharon. "Hundreds" in a population of hundreds of thousands is a minority opinion. Put it on the latter pages and stop this campaign for a COATRACK article, please. Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neturei Karta and Toldos Aharon. How do you know? Because they are citied in this amazing and informative article?! I am sure there are other sects, Mishkenos Haroim, etc. And I can not fathom why social minority trends are not to be granted recognition on Wikipedia. I don't see COATRACK here. All sources deal exclusively with boycott and the rational behind it. Chesdovi (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to me like there are plenty of non-Satmar people mentioned in this article. I looked at the Satmar article and there was little to no mention about the wall. There was a brief, small mention that Teitelbaum had banned it in 1967. I'd recommend just renaming this article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: that is not the reason for this AFD. The article lumps together all kinds of minority groups and opinions to develop a thesis that there is something called a boycott of the Western Wall. No source makes this contention, just the article creator. That is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Yoninah (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what would one call this phenomena? Why can this page not just list Jews who observe a boycott? There isn't just "something" called a boycott of the Western Wall, there is a boycott of the Western Wall, meaning there are Jews who intentionally do not visit the wall for various reason rooted ion Jewish theology. Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing in fringe people, I took a look at some of the new people the COI POV pusher is using in the article and it is laughable. The name dropping is like saying the a catholic in Tuscaloosa is against the Pope therefore an article against the Pope is a valid and notable article for Wikipedia. Furthermore, some of the people he is using, has no issue with the Wall, just using the Wall as as "idol" of sorts, certainly not as a boycott. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 04:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source: "In the aftermath of the capture of East Jerusalem by Israeli troops, Leibowitz proposed that worship at the Wailing Wall be forbidden..." Chesdovi (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even he never said boycott and two, he's not such an important figure, you're only using him because he agrees with your pov. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. He does not need to use the word "boycott" for him to "boycott the wall! 2. Who is an important figure for you? Mahatma Gandhi - or will he also not suffice because he was an anti-Zionist whose views were not in accordance with your POV? 3. Of course this article cites Leibowitz. That's because he held the POV which advocates a boycott!!! We would not add Shlomo Goren's support of Jewish presence at the Western Wall here unless we can find a source in which he mentions his opinion about Jewish opposition to Jewish visits to the Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firstly many groups mentioned in this article would object to usage of the loaded term 'boycott' to describe their abstention from visiting the Western Wall that they still have affinity for. The fact that Satmar and other Jewish groups do not visit the WW is already mentioned in the Western Wall entry, which makes this page rather bizarre and random Shackwelllane (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that your personal take on the matter? I could just as well claim they are "proud" and feel "privileged" to observe the cherem. Do we have sources? You may feel "boycott" is a loaded term (no doubt linked to your POV regarding Boycotts of Israel and a subconscious instinct to view the word negatively, with connotations of a biased and unfair attack against a just cause - would you care if the only boycott that existed in the world was the Chinese boycotts of Japanese products?), but I prefer to retain the neutral usage of the accurate term and WP:SPADE. Chesdovi (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - See this http://www.truetorahjews.org/images/hakosel.pdf for example, it is not the WW per se that they have anything against, far from it. They say they are halachically prevented from visiting, and they bemoan the calamity that befell the Jewish nation when the WW fell into in the hands of Israel. True, they say they also oppose the WW's transformation into a place of historical and national significance from the place of worship that it supposedly exclusively was. But "A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons." The word protest is not mentioned once in this entire document - they claim there is a halachic prohibition on visiting in the current circumstances - the word boycott is simply not appropriate. They write in Hebrew: "The temptation to visit the WW itself is greater than that of a child to visit its mother." There is no cherem on visiting the WW.Shackwelllane (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Put simply: Some Jews boycott the Wall. Chesdovi (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to express my strong agreement with E.M.Gregory's reply to Sandstein 's remark that "the article looks better than those we usually delete", that this is due to the fact that Chesdovi has a long history of cherrypicking sources and individual statements from those sources to put together an article that looks well-sourced, while in reality it is his synthesis which builds the article about what is in reality non-subject. A good case in point is his recent article Palestinian wine, which is actually quite a ludicrous term, if you think it over a little. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition please notice that I have replied above to Chesdovi's reply to my "delete" with arguments to refute his objections. I have also added a fourth reason there why I think this article should be deleted. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Despite all the noise above, there are actually very few relevant arguments presented. (1) Problems with the title have never been valid reasons for deletion; the correct approach is to think of a better title and open a move discussion. (2) The argument that the opinion is only that of a small group is also irrelevant. We have tons of articles on small groups and fringe opinions. What you have to do is make a case for non-notability using the guidelines there. The guideline WP:FRINGE might help, though it's mostly concerned with fringe theories rather than fringe opinions. Sandstein is correct to be wary of opinions expressed with particular vehemence. I'm not sure so I'm not voting. Zero^talk 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument might justify separate articles on the individual authors and groups who refuse or abstain from praying at the Western Wall for a variety of reasons. It does not support keeping this article since there is not sourced support for grouping or linking these stances.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Search and ye shall find. Chesdovi (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note This week a major change in the way space is allocated for prayer near the Western Wall was announced - there were headlines and news coverage worldwide - but I cannot find a single mention of this alleged "boycott" in any of those stories (I ran a series of word searches), probably because This article is a blatant violation of WP:NOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well maybe you should try reading the local news. [10]. Chesdovi (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a news search on "Boycott of the Western Wall" [11] It reads: No results found for "Boycott of the Western Wall" Here is a google search on "Boycott of the Western Wall" - nothing [12] Google books: [13] nothing. Search in JSTOR: [14] nothing. Search in Haaretz.com [15] nothing. WP:NOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a news search on "Druze attack on Safed" [16] It should read: No results found for "Druze attack on Safed" Here is a google search on "Druze attack on Safed" - nothing [17] (except pages generated by the Wikipedia article itself) Google books: [18] nothing. Search in JSTOR: [19] nothing. Search in Haaretz.com [20] nothing. WP:NOR? Chesdovi (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not only that the title of the page violates WP:NOR because you invented it, but that no such boycott exists in the real world, in other words, you invented not merely the title, but the concept that there is such a "boycott", addusing cherrypicked sources that use the words "boycott" and "Western Wall" without supporting your WP:SYNTH assertion that such a boycott exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So it's been two weeks and strong consensus is to delete this? Can someone delete this? Sandstein?? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An admin will attend to it when it turns up at WP:AFD/Old. Sandstein 16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fable. gidonb (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an article about religious Jews opposing the occupation, not Jewish boycott of the Western Wall.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 10:53, 6 February 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. czar 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Jirsch

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

WP:BLP of a writer, which is written with a significant public relations tilt even when toned down from the blatantly advertorial version that the creator originally tried for — and which is sourced entirely to primary sources and YouTube videos with not a shred of reliable source coverage shown. As always, Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which anybody gains an automatic entitlement to have an article just because she exists — it takes reliable source coverage about her in media, not PR profiles on the website of her own publisher or videos of her speaking, to earn a place in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete After a thorough search, I found this, this, and this. These sources are not, to me, evidence of enough coverage for a standalone article; but the fact that I've found these might mean somebody else may find more, and I'm willing to be persuaded. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR and WP :BIO. Hat tip to Vanamonde93 for managing to find two puff pieces on her in trashy tabloids, and one further passing mention, but this doesn't constitute significant coverage in WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional, no evidence of reliable source mention.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:00, 5 February 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. Editors favoring keep haven't engaged the issue. That there were three previous AfDs closed as "keep" is irrelevant. AfDs aren't binding precedent; there is no doctrine of stare decisis here (and for all that, an administrator could have easily closed the third nomination as delete instead of keep, but I digress). That a WikiProject finds the site reliable doesn't get it over the threshold on its own: a source can be reliable without being notable (which is why WP:NNC doesn't apply here). Passing mentions on other websites don't make a website notable, nor does mention in unpublished doctoral dissertations. Contra some participants, policy is the foundation for these decisions unless there's a really great reason to ignore them, but no such argument was made. Regarding the charge of canvassing; it appears interested editors from the other side were invited and participated, so it doesn't affected the outcome. That being said, KDS4444 (talk · contribs), please don't do that again. Also, while AfD is not cleanup, it is a reasonable argument and expectation that for an article whose notability was first challenged in 2007, progress would have been made since then. No prejudice toward recreation with reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of the site itself. Mackensen (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Freak Hideout

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

Virtually all of the links given in the "references" section are no longer functioning (or never were). Others lack independence from the subject, or are Alexa rankings (which do not qualify as useful indicators of notability). Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent, verifiable sources in order to be retained— nothing here shows that, and my own search turned up only more trivial mentions and sources lacking independence. Previous deletion discussions relied on assertions of notability (irrelevant: see WP:ASSERTN) and on its subjective importance to the Christian Rock industry (see WP:IKNOWIT for why that doesn't matter) and I suspect the fact that there have been three such nominations which have failed will also be mentioned (that doesn't matter either: see WP:LASTTIME). What matters— the only thing which matters— is the existence of multiple non-trivial discussions of the subject in reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Which there just doesn't seem to be.KDS4444 ^Talk 16:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as never having been notable despite the decisions of prior AfDs to keep. While notability is permanent this never showed notability ever. Show me that it is notable and I will change my opinion, assuming you call me here from my talk page (I'm not active at present, but respond to messages on my talk page coz I get emailed). Fiddle Faddle 16:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Which was done as a courtesy notification— you're welcome KDS4444^Talk).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of impact and coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after 3 AfDs surely someone would have added the nontrivial RS by now if the truly exist. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOIMPROVEMENT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous discussions. assuming good faith on the sources having once existed is fundamental to this encyclopedia. It's not necessary to be mean. Then contacting only the two people who previously nominated it for deletion, without contacting any supporters (besides me who originally started it), is considered WP:CANVASSING. The website is likely the most well-referenced standard in the American Contemporary Christian Music genre scene. Using a google search, I see pages and pages of websites from major notable artists that are referencing JFH's reviews [21] [22]. Having the article deleted will only service to create 500 red links on articles [23]. Royal broil 04:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has been established by 3 prior failed AfD's and the fact that over 1800 main space articles currently link to the article. Many if not most of those articles are using this website as a reference and it is valuable the encyclopedia to not have a redlinked reference in 1,800+ articles. Apparently many people in this project feel it is worth using as a reference, further demonstrating notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fourth attempt to delete this article again appears to be POV pushing.Nyth 63 16:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previously AfDed for WP:WEB and WP:CORP, no notability sub-guideline is identified here. As for the claim, "Article requires non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent...sources", no, notability is not a content guideline, see WP:N#Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. Since deadlinks are good as WP:RS references, just harder to locate, the nominator confirms that he/she has not read some of the good-faith sources already provided for this topic. Moving on, WP:BEFORE B4, B5, and B6 are issues. B4 has been dismissed with an argument whose source says, "If an article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion, sometimes users will recommend 'Keep'..., arguing that because the article failed to gain a consensus for deletion before, there is no reason to renominate it. This is a good argument in some circumstances..." B5 shows a large number of links being proposed for turning red, this number was reported in a previous AfD, and turning this many links red would seem to be a high-priority consideration for the nomination. I'm not convinced that 1800 edits to the encyclopedia are possible linking to a topic that has failed to attract the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell). As for B6, there are three foreign language websites not reviewed in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at best as this seems notable for its field, likely not a serious deletion task. Notifying the only still considerably active past AfDers as well, Walter Görlitz and Carrite. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pinging me. The project was notified and quite frankly, I'm tired of the perennial nominations for deletion. I agree with you that it's notable for its field. The number of articles and labels that link to the reviews here are substantial. In my brief survey yesterday, that was the majority of mentions I found via Google. I looked at other reviewers and review sites and it was nowhere near as plentiful. With that said, I don't think that the deletion of this article will jeopardize its use as a source because, as you wrote, it is well-recognized. If this is an attempt to delete references and reviews as not notable and then to delete the articles because of their lack of references, then I have a problem with the deletion of this article. If it's simply an effort to apply GNG to the far corners of Wikipedia, I'm fine with its deletion as an article, provide, and only provided, that it still recognized as a niche RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not aware that causing the appearance of redlinks was a reason for retaining an article on Wikipedia. That's a new one for me. I've also mentioned that the outcomes of previous AfDs had no bearing on this new discussion. Some editors don't appear to have heard this. As for the three foreign language sites not reviewed— which are these? #1 is an Alexa ranking, #2 is a dead link to a website called "Lead Me to the Rock" (English, I am pretty sure), #3 is a link to a site that allows me to find a Christian retail store near me (in English), #4 is published by Jesus Freak Hideout itself (in English), #5 is a dead link to a press release (in English), #6 is a dead link to Sparrow Records (the resulting 404 error gives the reader nothing to pursue beyond its disappearance, but I am pretty sure it was in English), #7 is a dead link to what looks like a trivial mention in a listing of merchants starting with the letter "J", #8 is a dead link to a marketing website (in English), #9 is a link to an interview performed by JFH with another person (in English),#10 is a link to an article written about the band GLO by JFH (in English), and #11 is another Alexa link ("Site information", which appears to be in English). None of these are foreign language pages, and I examined all of them. Even the dead links appear to have been at best dubious arguments for notability (a dead link to a marketing web site is still a marketing website, failing independence; a dead link to a trivial mention is still a trivial mention; a dead link to a press release is still a press release, failing independence). Not one of these sources appears to be evidence of real-world notability. I am not saying it isn't referenced by lots of Wikipedia articles— any article whose notability has been established by reliable independent sources should be allowed to stand, and I am not arguing that JFH isn't reliable or independent. I am arguing that it is not notable because it has not been the subject of such sources. I have no argument with you, Walter: we are both on the same page. I am only trying to apply the guidelines for notability here, and this article seems to come up short. Too short, in the end, to justify retention. KDS4444^Talk 16:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability can be interpreted to mean that a fair number of people know about the subject, i.e. it is not trivial. If you click on the what links here tool from the subject page, you will see that there are well over 2000 pages that link to the article, which is verifiable evidence that a lot of people that are aware of the subject. Secondly, you are wasting your time proving that the current links are broken. Please refer to WP:NEXIST: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The fact that these sources existed, and that more are available (easily found with google) is what matters, not whether they are actually in the article. See also Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.. Also your contention that previous AfDs are irrelevant is silly. The previous arguments that exist in those AfDs do not disappear into a vacuum. The fact that this page template links to them in an infobox certainly proves that they are considered relevant. WP:LASTTIME was quoted at the top but in that section is the statement If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. This fourth nomination appears to be frivolous to me. Furthurmore per WP:FALLACY you are Denying the antecedent (and its variants, like the fallacy fallacy) is a formal fallacy. Nyth 63 11:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I searched for it and got mentions in 3 doctoral dissertations, all plausible topics (City Church, Tallahassee: Blurring the lines of sacred and secular Medic, Katelyn. The Florida State University, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2014. 1559547. )(Behind the scenes of "The Steve Taylor Story": A documentary Gibson, Sarah Edith. University of North Texas, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009. ), (The industry, geography, and social effects of Contemporary Christian Music Lindenbaum, John Daniel. University of California, Berkeley, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3383280. ) An ordinary news search turns up articles like this [24] establishing that it is a "Christian music website". I think we can confidently keep it. More significantly, however, I don't think we should run endless AFDs, certainly not on outfits that have been shown in previous AFDs to demonstrably exist and that are obviously not mere advertising or POV pushing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by admin comment: that so many articles link to something is not an argument for keeping. That an article has been unsuccessfully nominated in the past is also not an argument for keeping. That an article has been unsuccessfully nominated in the past is also not an argument for deleting. If I were closing this, I'd look for keep arguments that have some specificity to them and cite policy; so far, E.M.Gregory is the winner, and probably the only winner. Come on y'all: you can do better than this. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument and discussion are not restricted to policy only. Policy is subject to change and is not the same today as it was 15 years ago and in continuing to evolve. To say that only arguments or votes that city policy are valid is a logical fallacy and I would expect better from an Admin. Of course, the the comments about red linking ARE arguments per se, as several editors have made it. (I think, therefore I am, so to speak). There just does not seem to be any current policy that directly addresses this particular situation so one cannot be cited. Stating that the previous AfD's are not relevant in any form is also a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent as I quoted from policy in my previous comment above. Nyth 63 12:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would have us base decisions to include or to delete on... intuition? We have policy so we know what to do and so we can avoid guessing-games and long, drawn-out discussions like this one. I am not convinced that you can make an argument to retain an article based on the premise of a policy that you would like to see exist but which so far has not materialized and which quite possibly, in my own mind, never would. I am sure that is a fallacy of some kind but am unsure of my semantics beyond that. KDS4444^Talk 20:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thank you for the kind words. Here is The Christian Post: attributing something to "Jesus Freak Hideout, a Christian music resource website and ministry.] [25] My search on Jesus Freak Hideous at Christin Post here: [26]. I'm sure if other editors look there is more out there in other RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How much more thorough does this need to be? It has talked to death four times already. Consensus seems pretty clear for keep. Nyth 63 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This publication is used by other reliable sources, such as Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music right in this search. It is also mentioned in Contemporary Musicians right in this search. These two instances are enough for me to consider this publication a notable website, for inclusion as part of this ever growing encyclopedia.The Cross Bearer (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If reliable sources cite it, then it's likely also reliable. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether it's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:N is a measure based on evidence that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the keep votes have demonstrated how the website has received significant coverage. There are probably thousands of brief references to JfH's reviews, but it's a lot harder to find something substantial. I think that these sources probably exist, but the might be offline, and if online, seem to be buried by the gazillion brief quotes attributed to the site.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:10, 5 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer dirrig

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

Fails WP:NPOL Ueutyi (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL and WP:GNG; he is an organizer in college for Christ's sake, barely even a politician. I have suspicions about whether there is a COI involved here. Basically, no coverage. WP:BLPPROD may have been a better option. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe even A7 speedy. Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources except one article/quote. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this was a hoax at first; if you took the hoaxing material out, it would still be non-notable. GAB^Hello! 14:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unsourced article about a youth political activist with no discernible claim of notability under WP:NPOL. And on the content level, "shares genes with German Chancellor Angela Merkel", "best and worst laugh in Central Ohio" and "Clinton's unfortunate euthanization at the hands of Mitch McConnell" are all pinging my bullshit radar. Delete with fire; I'd even have speedied this if I'd seen it before nom did. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this prank article ASAP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 2 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Ward (sheriff)

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

This person is the sheriff tasked with dealing with the occupation of the wildlife refuge in Oregon. He is only known for dealing with this particular event and all references listed in the article are linked to that event. Although some addition, trivial, information about his background is presented, all that information comes from articles related to the occupation. Therefore, this person is not notable per WP:BLP1E and should be deleted and probably redirected to Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoutr (talk • contribs)

Delete/merge: entirely agree with nom. WP:BLP1E clearly applies. Bondegezou (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and Redir Also agree with nom. While the RSs at this bio article are somewhat more compelling, note that every one of them is dated during the Occupation, lending support for the perception that he only as Wikipedia-style "notability" in association with this single event. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)struck by author, see new !vote belowNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually false. Only two (2) of the six (6) references are dated during the occupation. LavaBaron (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I erred, it was not intentional. I thought I had looked at each, at least in the version I check, whatever that was. In any case, it's moot for a different reason, see below. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: To where? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge - Cwobeel (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. Really only known for a single event, and thus not sufficiently notable according to our notability criteria. WP:POLOUTCOMES gives us however the possibility to consider an elected politician in combination with a single event the possibility to pass the bar of notability (POLOUTCOMES uses the term may, and thus that requires a personal evaluation). I am not so sure his activities in the lodge qualify to pass that bar for me, although he may in teh future if he has a big role in ending the mess. L.tak (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC) L.tak (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose as per the longstanding precedent described in criterion #7 in WP:POLOUTCOMES: Local politicians whose office would not ordinarily be considered notable may still clear the bar if they have received national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. Ward is a politician holding elected office, not a civil servant - the office of sheriff in Oregon is a political office subject to competitive election. Further, Ward has received extensive and non-incidental (i.e. biographical) coverage in numerous local, regional, and national RS, including, respectively, The Burns Time-Herald ([27]), The Oregonian ([28]), The Los Angeles Times ([29]), etc. etc. Further, WP:ONEEVENT absolutely permits a standalone article when "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one."LavaBaron (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (regular strength)attempt at humor LavaBaron has educated me on a guideline I did not know before. In my struck remark above, note I did say the RSs seemed a bit more compelling, and as he is a local POL with international coverage, I'm persuaded he passes muster for his own article. Thanks for the lesson, Lava. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to myself, I belatedly realize the thing Lava pointed at is an essay. It still sounds good to me though, so I'm sticking with my "oppose". Hopefully other respondents will address that argument with some head on rebuttal... anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Definitely only known for one event so far. Parsley Man (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - per WP:BLP1E. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E can only be invoked if 3 of 3 criteria are met. This article fails criteria #1 of BLP1E as only 2 of 6 RS cited in article refer to the "single event." Argument and, therefore, "delete" !vote is invalid. LavaBaron (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of one of your supporting (not about a single event) sources used in the article [30] -- Here's another one used in the article from the same local rag [31] --- And how does this primary source [32] support notability??? We both know the answer here, it doesn't. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule I terminate response in routine RfDs when editors begin firing back with sentences that end in 5 question marks, or characterizing local newspapers as "rags" to support their position. I think the extreme nature of your response is sufficient validation of the !vote I've registered. Take care - LavaBaron (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooking substance due to emphasis (???) or descriptiveness (rag) doesn't help your argument. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blasting out a bunch of question marks / exclamation points and invectives like "rag!" ≠ "substance." That's why I'm ~~overlooking~~ ignoring your comment. LavaBaron (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel very ignored, please stop, I can't handle being ignored like this. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a place to advance your policy-based arguments for your position, not throw tantrums. If you really find it necessary to treat us to this behavior, please feel free to do it at my Talk page and post a wikilink here. It will help keep things progressing in a readable and topical way at the AfD. Thanks! LavaBaron (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin - Note that the extraordinary step of protecting the Talk page for Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was recently applied due to suspiciously sequenced edits from relatively new SPAs. Please take this into account in evaluating this for a consensus. LavaBaron (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron, you need to be very careful when tossing stuff like this out; I checked every editor here and no one has less than 500 edits. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said any editor here had less than 500 edits. This is a reasonable preemptive courtesy backgrounder to the closing admin. I don't plan to sit here watching this AfD and I have no idea who will post here between now and the time it's closed. You need to be careful questioning the GF of other editors. LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ward is a local elected official and while that might not merit a page on its own, his involvement with the crisis does merit it, as stated by LavaBaron. 331dot (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The sheriff, Daniel Staton, of Multnomah County, the most populous county in Oregon with the state's largest city, Portland, doesn't have his own article and understandably so. Sheriff Ward's typical involvement at Malheur doesn't warrant a standalone article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An armed group taking over federal property and disrupting a whole county is hardly a 'typical involvement', as it is a federal matter. Ward has gotten significant attention for his attempts to end the situation. LavaBaron seems to accurately quote Wikipedia guidelines in this area. 331dot (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, he quoted an essay. However, I do think the essay's reasoning applies, and I think its criteria 3 that can not be met, meaning Ward should have an article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

331dot, where is this significant attention you speak of, it certainly isn't in his article. Have you looked at the sources in the current article, like these two [33][34] -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, could be in this biographical feature on Ward published in The Oregonian (c. 319,625) ([35]), or this feature profile published in The Los Angeles Times (c. 653,868) ([36], etc. etc. etc. LavaBaron (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People in the UK are aware that Ward has gotten death threats and had his offer of a safe exit rejected. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the French are also aware of Ward(and his image). 331dot (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's see what the closing admin says, my crystal ball is showing likely REDIRECT. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have 4 !votes for OPPOSE, 2 for Redirect, and 2 for Delete, as well as policy-based argumentation for Oppose verses 5 question mark battlecries for Redirect. So, with all due respect, I think your crystal ball needs a good polish. LavaBaron (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Oppose per WP:POLOUTCOMES as said by LavaBaron. MB298 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Oppose - way too early to throw this around per WP:RAPID. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone says "merge" please read this useful essay about voting "merge" at AFD. In short, it asks that people specify what they think merits merging. That should help prevent later drama. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's gotten a lot of national media attention. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while local sheriffs are not normally notable, there has been enough coverage of both him and the event to pass. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep local politician who has gained enough notice to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 6 February 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. czar 20:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark Loudermilk

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

Subject's only major role is Power Rangers (all his other roles were small, guest appearances or cameos) and lacks coverage in entertainment or reliable news sources other than random Power Rangers fan sites. Not enough evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. I am also nominating Christina Masterson for the same reasons:

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE, unlikely solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, no evidence for WP:NACTOR that thus appear only in minor TV roles outside of Power Rangers Megaforce. ApprenticeFan ^work 15:12, 31 January 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Homa

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

Probably good, but nonnotable chair designer Staszek Lem (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One possible mention of him in this German source, but can't say this subject is notable enough. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On pl wiki he is auto-notable due to being professor (pl wiki treats all professors as notable). But for en wiki, I can't find anything to help him pass WP:PROF, ARTIST or GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the adequate notability. His publications (whether in English or Polish) cannot be traced on Web of Science or other major scientific database to meet the notability criteria. Arashtitan 15:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? This is a designer, not a scientist. --Hegvald (talk) 19:29, 3 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Hill (Canadian actress)

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of an actress whose most substantive claim of notability is a low-rated television series in which she appeared as a minor character in a grand total of two episodes. This does not pass WP:NACTOR, and the sourcing here is exclusively to IMDb and the webpage of the show — which are not reliable sources for the purposes of demonstrating notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that she's particularly noteworthy. I suppose that this could redirect to the article for the TV series, but I think that it's unlikely that this will be a valid search term given that the show never became popular and she was only in it for a few episodes. I just don't think that this would really be used enough to warrant the redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She made her local newspaper: [37] and [38] from Winnipeg Free Press. But I don't think that's really quite enough. It's probably too soon for an article as of yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 3 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driftbomb

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

Non-notable musician lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Ueutyi (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, musician has sources Julianbudderson (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Not a single "source" here is a reliable one; they're all directly-affiliated primary sources. A musician does not, for instance, get a Wikipedia article just because he has a page on Twitter or Soundcloud or his own record label's website — he gets an article when real media are writing about him. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Julianbudderson is the creator of this article. Meters (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is based completely on primary sources created by the subject himself and/or his record label, and contains exactly zero claims that count for anything in the face of WP:NMUSIC.

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when real reliable source coverage is there. Bearcat (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it is with primary sources, there are a couple "real media" articles about the artist on the internet that can be added as references to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MComan23 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — MComan23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoever says reliable sources actually exist for this subject are only kidding themselves. Most links found on Google were to Amazon and eBay. Non-notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources and non-notable. WP:Too soon. Maybe next year. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources. Even the releases discussed in the article are only four weeks old. WP:Too soon. Note that the article creator seems to no longer support the existence of this article, given his blanking the article here with edit summary "This is my page and i would like it to be deleted" Meters (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 3 February 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Islamabad

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

Subject of this article is a property of an established hotel chain which lacks individual notability. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate non-trivial coverage for this particular property, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first, I thought this was a clear keep because of WP:NGEO. However, looking more closely at the guideline, it says that commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. I find no reliable sources that aren't to promote the building. I feel a redirect to Constitution Avenue (Islamabad) isn't plausible because looking at the only reference, it is a travel guide, and so the article might be deleted by its' own. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also as none of this convinces the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 31 January 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. czar 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's views on slavery

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

The material most relevant to the topic is sourced almost entirely with primary sources, most of which are hadith based, which are themselves not considered reliable. A look at the Talk Page of the article shows that the situation is basically hopelessly incoherent. What's even worse (and most concerning) is that attempts have been made to use this ill-sourced article to support addition of badly sourced content on good articles like Muhammad recently. It's as if this article has become a virus that is trying to infect healthy hosts. cӨde1+6^TP 03:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. HyperGaruda (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The part that is somewhat reliably sourced with secondary sources is a WP:COATRACK about the much more encyclopedically written Islamic views on slavery. Everything else looks like original research based on primary sources (i.e. ḥadīth: traditions, sayings and stories attributed to Muhammad). - HyperGaruda (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT per WP:PRIMARY and WP:QUOTEFARM. There's almost nothing there sourced from up-to-date RSs. The title itself is problematic, because historians don't generally write about "Muhammad's view" on the subject. They make generalizations about the hadith, usually without getting into historicity of specific reports. Eperoton (talk) 13:45, 30 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Venture Bros. characters

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

This article is an endless wall of WP:OR, WP:FANCRUFT, and trivia. The talk page shows discussion going back to 2006 of the article being overrun with fanwank, but no attempt has been made to curb it. The edit history shows literally nothing but IPs adding and adding more and more minor details with no attempts to cut anything back. I was also completely unable to find reliable sources to verify anything, only fan wikis and IMDb. Much like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Total Drama characters (2nd nomination), I think the only viable option is to nuke this from orbit and very likely not start over, as it's likely to attract the same hordes the Total Drama page did. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It requires trimming but lists like these are standard. Just because the article requires cleaning doesn't mean the subject matter's not worthy. Oh and that other show looks like a fairly unnotable show to me, never even heard of it... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So do you expect it to clean itself up? Who do you expect to do the trimming when it's just been growing like a cancer? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did we delete articles just because they need trimming? I appreciate what you're trying to do here TenPoundHammer, and I understand that articles like these tend to be breeding grounds for little more than fancruft, but Mr. Magoo and McBarker is right - standalone character lists are pretty standard. The Venture Bros. article appears to have a handful of reliable sources. Do none of those mention anything worth including here? I won't go so far as to vote "Keep", as I see that the main series article has a fairly lengthy "Characters" section, and it may be that this list here is redundant. But at the very least, I'd rather see someone parse through all this and determine whether anything can be merged, instead of having the article deleted outright. And if no one is willing to put in that work, then I would recommend that we air on the side of caution and keep the article where it is. --Jpcase (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: So do you expect it to just keep siting around forever and gathering more and more fancruft, bloating to the level that the Total Drama page did? Clearly, no one, no one, wants to take a chainsaw to this, so wouldn't the better option just be to blow it up good and then determine whether to start afresh? If it sits, it will only stagnate in its unsourced, heavily fancrufty state, I guarantee you. And that does no one any good. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Sure...but I don't see how just leaving the article alone is necessarily going to hurt anything either. I mean yeah, it's always ideal for an article to be in perfect shape. But there are a lot of fan cruft filled articles out there, and I don't think that the plausibility of their improvement in the immediate future should be the determining factor as to whether or not they're deleted. The key thing that we need to look at here is notability. The Venture Bros. meets notability criteria - no question there. And while I haven't had the time to personally read through any articles, I have no doubt that there are at least a few third party sources out there, in which the characters of this series are discussed. So the question ought to be - are the characters of this series notable enough to have their own standalone article, or would it be better to simply merge this into the article for the main series? I'll let others reach that determination. If someone wants to "start afresh", deleting everything here and replacing it with better content, then I'd have no problem with that - but until that person comes along, I don't see why deleting the article would be necessary. --Jpcase (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as standard list of TV show characters. If it needs trimmed (yes, it does), then trim it, but please keep in mind that basic primary character info can be primary sourced (i.e., trim, not gut). VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, standard list of characters from notable TV series. Any issues, such as unnecessary detail, are fixable, and given how many of the series' individual episodes have been separately reviewed by reliable sources, much of it is clearly verifiable by secondary sources (and all is verifiable from the primary sources). The nominator's comments are a laundry list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If he's so upset about the state of this list, he can take the time to familiarize himself with the series and secondary source coverage/commentary on it so as to be competent to fix it. Or else he should move along to something he can fix. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 5 February 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brant II

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

Does not seem to meet WP:BIO standards. Mostly seems to be relying on inherited notability here. only (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep why is there not a requirement for nominators of articles to do research... There are many many articles on Peter, whether or not his parents are famous he is written about allover for his lifestyle and appearances. in the New York Times, harpers Bazaar, People, Vogue on major network television..... He is an archetype to certain subcultures he is very notable... "Doesn't seem" since when are cases prosecuted on doesn't seem if you looked things up it wouldn't seem. Define and find out your case before you present it .Masterknighted (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm also somewhat puzzled about this repetitive use of the word "seems" in the nomination, as in "seems" not to meet standards, "mostly seems" to be relying on. When you nominate an article you need to have somewhat more than a general idea. But lets assume this is just a matter of style and carefully look at the article and its references. Peter Brant II is the main topic of many articles in major media, not in relation to just one event. Thus he clearly meets the WP:GNG and there is no case for deletion. Under the implied WP:NOTINHERITED rule, notability requires verifiable evidence and a person is not notable by Wikipedian standards, just because his family is famous. However, if the verifiable evidence of notability is there, he would still be notable, as is the case for Peter Brant II. A famous family doesn't rule out notability! gidonb (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI'll never fully understand the justification behind some articles staying and others being deleted. Especially when there is more than enough materials to write a complete unbiased piece. In this regards, the page has been published since 2014, there is opportunity for improvement, should be labeled accordingly. Toddman4 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the subject of this article is in-deed notable. He has had several notable publications write about him and is well known in social circles on New York. Jimgerbig (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Peter Brant II is notable and the article should be allowed to remain. Deletionism is bad for humanity.Comprised (talk) 06:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Close as keep per WP:Snowball? gidonb (talk) 14:34, 31 January 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. by Anthony Appleyard. (non-admin closure) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piss metal

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

Can find absolutely no sources citing this term, and it appears to just be a stub advertising the band. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:17, 30 January 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 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 30 January 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. Overall consensus to Keep as meets PROF (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Nelson

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

Non-notable individual with no third-party sources; fails WP:GNG. Article creator has since been blocked as a promotional account. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 02:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps for now unless there are further convincing signs of the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He is both an IEEE Fellow and an ASME Fellow. That's two passes of WP:PROF. His Google scholar profile shows an h-index of 54 and over 30 papers with over 100 citations each, well over the threshold for WP:PROF#C1. And though I can't find clear evidence of it, I strongly suspect that his professorship at ETHZ is a lot closer to a distinguished professorship at a US university than to a regular full professorship; if so that would be another pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Eppstein, an extraordinary nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I believe that perhaps Bradley J. Nelson (professor of Robotics at ETH Zürich) is notable enough for a living person to be included in Wikipedia; however, his citations on GoogleScholar, WOS and RG should not be confused with other Bradley J. Nelsons including Bradley J. Nelson from the Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington or Bradley J. Nelson the Orthopaedic Surgeon from University of Minnesota. Arashtitan 15:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's why I linked to his scholar profile (curated to be only his pubs) rather than just a search by name (which could have other researchers with similar names). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article itself says he is a fellow of several of the main technical societies in engineering, an unambiguous demonstration of notability of W:PROF. It would be good form for the nominator to withdraw this. Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PROF as elected fellow of appropriate societies, numerous very highly cited papers (from the Google Scholar site David Eppstein links 17 with 150+ citations all on robotics), and several awards. I don't see a problem with promotional language in the article. ETA: to write that the creator was "blocked as a promotional account" is incorrect; the account was blocked as breaking the guidance on account names and multiuser accounts with no prejudice to recreating a single-user account with an appropriate name. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:48, 3 February 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) sst✈^(conjugate) 05:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanagarthi (Konaraopeta)

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

Only a template. 333 -blue 01:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Kanagarthi, Konaraopeta. The nominator's statement is no longer true. The article was nominated 1 hour after creation. Content has been added since then. This is a verifiable village with ~2,300 persons per Census India, thus passing WP:GEOLAND. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per vote above. Hint:Usually don't bring populated places to AfD, they are presumed notable; if a clear hoax, then G3: Noyster (talk), 12:17, 5 February 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. SpinningSpark 14:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Weihrauch

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable footballer that fails WP:NFOOTBALL as not played in any fully professional league listed in WP:FPL and also fails WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For background, I tried to PROD this before noticing there was a previous AfD... so tried speedying it as a re-creation, but the reviewing admin said there were claims of significance postdating prior AFD. Hence why we're here. Player fails the subject-specific notability guideline because he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, and I can't find enough significant independent media coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. No prejudice against re-creation if he plays for Bayern's first team or for anyone else at fully pro level. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played yet in a fully pro league. --Jaellee (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL and GNG at this time. I wish him a successful continuation of his career. Hopefully the next entry he or his fans start will be a keeper! gidonb (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:07, 1 February 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.