Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/People

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to People. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|People|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to People. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Wikipedia's inclusion policy for articles on individuals can be found at WP:BIO.

Note: In most cases there is another more specific category than this one.

Please use on these instead:

Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

not Transcluded onto Biography Deletion sorting page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion (e.g. models)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional characters
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion for adult film actors and actresses

People

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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin La Croix

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

Republican running for election in November against the Democrat incumbent, but not elected to anything yet, nor notable per WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. I can't even find any local press coverage of his candidacy online. OnionRing (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 10:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as-yet-unelected candidate for office does not get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — as always, if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced case that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not merely run in it, to attain notability on the basis of the election. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for state legislatures are not notable. If he wins in Novembmer, La Croix will be notable, but he is not notable now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He can have an article if he wins in November. But I have rarely searched a candidate and found less press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 12 July 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. Michig (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Niaz Raiyan

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

The player has made no appearance in a first-class, List A or T20 match and so it is that he is not meeting the notability criteria Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't (yet) meet WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wait until he makes his debut in major cricket. St Anselm (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and others. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, fails WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 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) — Music1201 ^talk 07:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onais Bascome

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

Non notable person Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bascome represented Bermuda in ICC World Cricket League Division Three in 2014, so he meets WP:NCRIC. I've expanded/updated the article to reflect this. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above - meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC point 3. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRICKET point 3.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:55, 12 July 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) — Music1201 ^talk 07:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milano Fernando

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

Non-notable athlete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC, point 3 - "has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above". He played in the 2008 ICC World Cricket League Division Five tournament. Here's a scorecard to show that. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confirming WCL point of Lugnuts, Fernando meets the criterion. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 11:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NCRIC point 3. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts, as he appears to pass the WP:NCRIC requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As obviously meets WP:NCRICKET; the source provided by Lugnuts proves this. Omni Flames (talk) 12:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NCRICKET Point 3.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMetaldave64

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had only passing mentions in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Do note that most of the sources currently in the article are from unreliable sources. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar 06:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I created this article, admittedly, and know little to nothing about the subject of video games. Are not Design & Trend, Christian Post, GoNintendo, and Tech Times reliable sources? Are they not indeed independent of the topic in question? They are somewhat passing mentions, in the respect that they are mentioned briefly in the articles, but the topic itself appears to be the cause of their discussion. I believe that an interview with Denis Dyack indeed makes the subject non-routine for a Youtuber. I'm not asking and stating these sarcastically either, this is my first deletion discussion, and I definitely want to become acclimated to the discussion environment here on Wikipedia. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's standards, you need third party sources about him, not third party sources citing him. If "Tech Times did a story about SuperMetalDave64, then that'd be valid. WP:VG/S has a list of sources to use and avoid. Pretty sure GoNintendo is one to avoid, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see!!! This has been quite edifying, thank you for clarifying this, the notability guidelines on Wikipedia are more linked to availible information in fully reputible sources. That makes perfect sense. Sergecross73, NinjaRobotPirate, and Tokyogirl79. I do know that SuperMetaldave was linked to some some high profile leaks in and around December of last year involving NEOGAF, there may be some interesting coverage in there somewhere. I am too now, however, leaning towards deletion. This is more of draft material, rather than actual article material. My bad, again, thank you for giving a bit more insight into the inner workings on this site. Milo Yiannopoulos' Hair (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got mentioned in a few articles as a source, but there seems to be very little information about him. Wikipedia isn't a who's who catalog where you get rewarded with an article once you quoted by a few news articles. We would need in-depth coverage about the person himself, such as analysis of his skill as a journalist and reliability. I don't see that. One or two of the sources did look like maybe they would go that way, but they merely speculated on the reliability of his sources. If someone can point out something that I missed, I'd be willing to change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few reliable sources using the subject as a source for rumors is not on the path to meeting the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that's actually about this person. He exists as a person and as a YT personality, but this does not automatically make someone notable, nor does the amount of video views or followers. It's insanely difficult for YT (or other social media) personalities to pass notability guidelines and there are thousands of people with far higher follow counts that fail notability guidelines. Heck, PewDiePie's article was repeatedly deleted until 2013, long after his follow counts went into the millions. It's just that hard to pass notability guidelines on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as still nothing at all minimally convincing for his own actual notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Of note is that the nominator later stated that the subject may possess notability per Wikipedia's standards, stating (in part), "I would retract this AfD, but let's rather get a few more !votes and then tag the article for improvement" North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harris (translation researcher)

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

This article is full of references to the subject's own work, but no-where is there a clear claim of notability. It's essentially a CV. Slashme (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mentioned several times in Google Books as an expert in their field, which would make them meet both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. These sources include a book on how to interpret Harris's work on natural translation [1] and a book that describes him as a pioneer in using already translated texts to aid in machine translation, among others. --- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right! I saw a whole list of references at the bottom of the article, and none of them seemed to indicate any kind of notability of the kind that your search shows. I would retract this AfD, but let's rather get a few more !votes and then tag the article for improvement. --Slashme (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, but willing to be persuaded. Neither publishing nor having one's publications cited by others satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, but making "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" does. I see suggestions (e.g. here) that he "introduced the notion of bi-text". But that's not a notion I've heard of, so I can say whether it's a significant impact. I don't see evidence of notable fellowships, chairs, editing, or the like. Cnilep (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My !vote was a weak one, and User:Slashme's 9 July comment seems to come close to withdrawing the nomination. This is looking like a no consensus, default to keep, and I have no problem with that outcome. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm: I'm OK with that outcome as well. --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 29 July 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) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Forsythe

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

Only local trivial coverage, there's no inherited notability from simply competing at the Amazing Race, my searches have found only a few links for exactly this. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appearance on the Amazing Race is not enough alone to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clear WP:NACTOR (etc.) fail. Otherwise, redirect to The Amazing Race 25. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable LA-centric fitness trainer who placed fifth on a reality show. — Wylie pedia 13:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Carendi

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

Still nothing actually convincing of independent notability and my searches aren't finding any better. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article makes no claim of notability, essentially describing its subject as a typical socialite and event planner. --Slashme (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very little and no significant coverage on her even if searching on her maiden name Helene Hellsten. Most mentions are in connection with her husband, Jan Carendi, former North America CEO of Skandia. Fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:55, 12 July 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) — Music1201 ^talk 12:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danialle Karmanos

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

Nothing at all suggesting any convincing independent notability and searches have found nothing substantially better. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially Mrs. Karmanos throws her money at projects other people create and gets her name on them. Even at that, it is not entirely clear they are notable projects. The article basically functions as a coat-rack for advertisement for non-notable programs at Children's Hospital and Beaumont Hospital.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mentioned in article about Grosse Pointe, Michigan (photographed and short quote) in The New York Times, Video segment from American Black Journal on PBS, lots of details in the "Background" section on Bloomberg, in depth coverage and interview in The Huffington Post, in depth coverage and interview in Metro Parent, press release from NBC News, short article in Corp Magazine, and several mentions and press releases found through HighBeam - Health & Medicine Week, Life Science Weekly, Obesity & Diabetes Week, Cancer Weekly, Women's Health Weekly, Food Weekly News.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As creator of the article, I respectfully disagree that “nothing [about the article suggests] any convincing independent notability[.]” According to Wikipedia’s Notability Guidelines, “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.” Furthermore, “the common theme in notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.” All of the above criteria have been met here. First, there has been “significant coverage” of Mrs. Karmanos and the nonprofit that she founded. As Isaidnoway points out, for example, the 2013 interview in The Huffington Point is more than a trivial mention of DKWIO; the article addressed the Work It Out program directly and in great detail. Lastly, the coverage received by Mrs. Karmanos and her philanthropic efforts has been from "reliable, independent and objective sources" – ranging from national news outlets (such as The Huffington Post and Bloomberg) to respected publications in the Metro Detroit area (e.g., Crain’s Business Detroit and Freep.com). Jvandepu34 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As shown above, she has significant coverage in multiple RS. Being a philanthropist is a lot more than just "throwing money" at projects. Philanthropy has a long history in the US and is an interesting topic in and of itself. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other comments above. Adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than the nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Posterino

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

Still nothing confidently acceptable for convincing independent notability, the German Wiki offers nothing better and my own searches have noticeably found nothing better; there's nothing to suggest there's the needed substantial coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:37, 22 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lamont White

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

Not notable per WP:NGRIDIRON: I can find no evidence online that he ever played in a Vikings game or any other professional game. The rest is mostly unreferenced claims about a semi-pro career playing and coaching, and some referenced ones about him doing community sports work with young people. No indication of notability per WP:BIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing convincing fr the applicable independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete head coach a at a Junior College (2-year), which typically does not meet notability threshholds. I do not see reason to pass WP:GNG or any other measure at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:GRIDIRON, no reliable source that actually states he's ever played an actual prefessional game of football. Omni Flames (talk) 12:30, 12 July 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 both. Some of the !votes appear to possibly be only about the subject article, while two !votes following the nomination (from Rayman60 and Edwardx) appear to pertain to both the subject and the book. As such, both articles qualify for deletion per the consensus in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Patel

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

Young author not yet notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. After several days of proposed deletion on notability, all the article creator could find was some local press clippings, which is better than I could manage. He's written a book, but neither he nor the book appear to have had the kind of substantial coverage required for WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON at best. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related article on the book itself, which it turns out was only published three days before the author article was started:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Numerous issues. Vanity/promotional page by COI new editor to promote newly published book. Not notable. Relies on primary sources and what feels like not very notable non-English sources. Nothing substantial from a respected publication/source. Rayman60 (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up nothing. I am willing to change my !vote if new sources are found. Msnicki (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Young author, one minor book with no reviews. Edwardx (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Uncletomwood (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No credible reference added.--Lawedit (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dice Ailes

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

This subject fails WP:MUSICBIO as the subject hasn't been discussed extensively by independent reliable sources. He has not released an album, neither has the subject been nominated in any notable music award. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I PRODed this but it was instantly removed with absolutely no explanations, I still confirm my PROD. SwisterTwister talk 15:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A case of WP:TOOSOON. Still in college and only just signed a contract with a handful of singles. Needs to prove further notabiality under WP:MUSIC.Karst (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Cherrybelle. Jujutacular (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hasunal Miftah Israfani

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

Unreferenced article on one member of a pop group, in a business that rotates the talent frequently in the groups. No indication of notability per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her association with the group, and no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. OnionRing (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages on Cherrybelle members, for the reasons given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable and fails WP:MUSICBIO entirely. Redirect to main group page. Karst (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons as previous comment. Engleham (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the main group via {{r from member}} per unsourced BLP and above. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Redirect only if needed as this was actually reviewed by a now-uncovered and kicked user, I would've certainly nominated for deletion had I been the one to find it....because there's simply nothing actually convincing for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the time being. When I search the other name this singer is known by, "Miftah ChiBi", I do see some sources but not in any languages I speak so I can't persuasively establish notability. I'll note also that the equivalent page on Wikipedia Indonesia https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasunal_Miftah_Israfani is presently unreferenced as well--looks to be the same page, in fact. Until someone comes along to provide sourcing for literally anything in this BLP, I think this search term should go to the group's page. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as any notability any of these three have are related to their membership in this group, and there aren't sources to establish notability independent from the group. Ca2james (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm calling this a delete with sadness in my heart, because it seems like the kind of topic we should be covering. However, the debate here is pretty clearly a consensus for deletion, especially since those arguing to keep have failed to provide any useful sources.

Part of the problem may be that this person lived before the days of ubiquitous internet coverage. This is a problem which is sadly being manifested in our inexorable slide towards becoming ModernSocietyAndPopCulturePedia. If somebody is able to find some usable sources, ping me and I'd be happy to restore this as a draft for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh

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

Not notable person per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG Kharkiv07 (T) 16:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the 1940', 1950's, and 1960's men dominated business. Women were not to be seen. If Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh had done today what she did in those decades, she would have been featured in numerous papers magazines and websites, etc. That was a very sexist time and we have witnessed a great change in society since then. Contemplating deleting inforamation on a woman who accomplished so much in her life with business, art and family, aside from the medical issues, because it was not notable to the sexist society in which she lived is nothing less that continuing that sexist attitude and ignoring the great strides women have made in society and in business in our lifetime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkbeltgal (talk • contribs) 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the clearest deletes I've ever seen at AfD. This is quite a large promotional piece of original research with essentially no independent sources. No evidence whatsoever of notability. It might be good to look at Frank S. Welsh as well.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This article needs to be kept and fixed not deleted. There are a wealth of sources available about on the internet now. The article passes WP:GNG and the subject lady has established notability. Zpeopleheart (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy? What's the hurry? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete -- there appears to be nothing on this subject in Google books: preview. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. There may be a wealth of sources on the internet but I could not find even one about this person using searches with and without a full middle name and as related to the monogramming. The only references in the article are non-verifiable genealogy sites which are not necessarily reliable references due to lack of sources and are not viewable. Likely only shows family descent and relationships. This appears to be original research. Also, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. The argument that she would have been notable except for the sexist time in which she lived (all the way to 1987, by the way) is grasping at straws. Sally Ride, Judith Resnik and others had flown in space, Martha Stewart was an accomplished author and Oprah Winfrey's show was on national TV by the time this lady died - hardly shows she lived her whole life in a sexist era, FWIW. More importantly, this argument does not cure the lack of sourcing and lack of demonstrated notability. Donner60 (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a memorial. Just not enough material to satisfy WP:GNG. I note that there has been canvassing for this article.[2] There are more worthy targets. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Although she was obviously not one of the most noted people of her day, the research and additions to the article since it was tagged are sufficient to establish the notability of Welsh.--Ipigott (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These additions are (1) a brief entry in "The Encyclopedia of Pennsylvania Biography" for her father which mentions her name as one of his daughters; (2) a reference to a book by Roger Moss but no page citation because the quote apparently does not come from the book and is only meant to identify Ross as a notable person (based on the fact that the book does not come up as a result on Google Books when her name is searched with and without middle name but does come once, in a book by Frank Welsh, probably in the dedication - also, as would seem obvious, she is not one of the persons profiled in the book: see http://www.oakknoll.com/pages/books/120345/roger-w-moss/athenaeum-profiles-a-not-for-profit-education) and (3) a find-a-grave page which lists her year of birth, date of death and place of burial. The genealogy references, for what they are worth, were already in the article. Donner60 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep But there is a need for more sources, I got four hits on newspapers.com but can't access them because I don't have an account. I'm not getting much at all on Google newspapers, Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh or Suzanne Welsh (adding in other terms such as "Pennsylvania" etc...). Looks like a lot of OR here, and we can't use that. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a nice essay I hope finds a home somewhere on the web. (Tumblr?) The issue is simply that since the vast majority of the material is unsourced, and no as-yet unmined sources have been identified, Wikipedia cannot be that home. It would be a misrepresentation to readers about the reliability of the piece. I did consider whether the entry could be reduced down to solely its verifiable claims, but the article would then consist of a list of her family members, one quote from one customer, and her gravesite. That is not even close to the "significant coverage" GNG requires. ETA: I'm seeing Montanabw's comment about the four hits on newspapers.com but since we don't even have headlines or know what the sources even are, let alone whether the coverage in them was at all substantive, I think it doesn't change my view. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as examining this article still found nothing close to the convincing information and simply the article itself overall is questionable enough to delete, as there's certainly not going to be any new information. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to see better sourcing. Are there any books or magazine articles about her that are not on the shallow end of the web? Bearian (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Response. Using search parameters with and without middle name for Suzanne Welsh: Nothing on Project Muse, nothing on Questia, nothing on Google Books except for mention in a book by Frank Welsh for which there is no preview. Considering the Wikipedia article on Frank Welsh which indicates that Suzanne Sagendorph Welsh was his mother, I think we would be correct to assume that Frank Welsh's (world history) book was dedicated to his mother. Donner60 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment The second quote that was in the article, one editor keeps deleting it's unsourced, is found in the book below about the Hagy Family. It is the source notation with pages 411 to 413 I think but under the sources. I got the book just to prove and show a citation for it . I am on travel with only a mobile so I cannot reinsert the removed part with the quote. Once that is done I do intend to move that caution up to an inline citation in article body its self. Anyone could move it back, or we may until I return to my offices. Montanabw what would be the best way to handle that? I am not sure. Zpeopleheart (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Donner60 the book you are referring to in the second part of your comment above is already cited as a proof of the quote held there within. Do you think the book is not reliable or what? Or that the full text of book cannot found online. We can certainly not go by your assumption that there may be something only in the dedication. Please explain. Thanks Donner60 , Zpeopleheart (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the sources to prove that is passes GNG? This is one of the clearest deletes ever. I do not see any independent coverage to pass GNG. WP:NRVE, which says Notability requires verifiable evidence should be kept in mind. Unless I see actual evidence of some sources, I think this should be deleted. The AfD is a good place to show this evidence and if this cannot be found, simply delete this article --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The references that have came up during this discussion have shown notability. It needs a cleanup, but WP:AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carla DeSola

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

There are really no reliable independent sources here. —swpb^T 16:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of indepedent, 3rd party sources to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a different tone and removal of dead links, but DeSola has quite a bit of coverage in independent sources: the NYTimes and elsewhere. This 1978 NYT piece is fairly substantial. She's also discussed in various books on Google Books - for example Creative Spirituality: The Way of the Artist ps191-195. She seems to be talked about enough to have basic bio notability. She may also pass WP:ARTIST #2, as she is often described as the founder of liturgical dance, and/or a pioneer - like here, p83. Other serious, independent refs:[3], [4], [5], p82-100 I'll try to incorporate some of this in the article over the next couple of days. Lelijg (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I've done some rewriting and looked at sources more carefully, I'm even more convinced that there's plenty of reliable coverage to pass GNG. Lelijg (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aside from what Lelijg found, this article in the NYT has significant coverage of her work and studio in the article. This 1976 article from the NYT devotes significant coverage to DeSola. In this NYT article, she is called "one of the country's foremost practictioners of liturgical dancing." Passes GNG easily with significant coverage in RS. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability, plenty of independent coverage. Article IS a mess and needs cleanup, but that is different from notability. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Galea

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

Notability very dubious; fails WP:PSEUDO and WP:ONEEVENT. There is one RS, but it offers minimally significant coverage at best, and then only in the context of the one event, and I really don't think Miss World Malta (pop. 423,000) counts as a "well-known and significant award or honor" for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. —swpb^T 12:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 12:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What we need is NPAGEANT. In most cases, it seems the national winners of pageants that feed into Miss Universe are deemed adequately notable, but I don't know what the standard is for Miss World. Be nice to have an open and shut set of SNGs (suggested notability guidelines) on this. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequate sourcing to pass the General Notability Guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had removed the PROD on this article. My personal interpretation is that Miss Universe and Miss World are sufficiently notable pageants. For these 2 pageants, I am willing to suggest that a participant is sufficiently notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Malta - I am a bit undecided on this one and I feel redirect is a good decision at the moment for the following reasons

It is true that the subject doesn't pass GNG. There seriously isn't enough information to have an article. However, the name is a valid search term and the subject is listed at Miss World Malta. A redirect is a good compromise.
There is a possibility that we may have an SNG in the near future where participants of Miss Universe or Miss World are deemed sufficiently notable. Should this article be deleted, we would lose the editing history. A redirect is a good decision here as the history remains available. If we manage to obtain consensus for an SNG or if enough sources are available in the future, this can be recreated. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I agree, Lemongirl942, it is good to merge and keep edit history where there is the possibility of a need to re-examine an article in the future. I tend to favor keeping a bluelink up when possible, even if it's a redirect. (As they say, redirects are cheap!). And, actually, I just WP:BOLDly redirected another similarly-situated article at AfD. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "Miss World Malta" (pop. 400,000) represents fewer people than many states in the U.S. The subject fails GNG regardless. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to main article, otherwise not notable as stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the comments from Montana and Lemongirl -- we do seem to be approaching a "tipping point" for creating a set of notability standards for these international pageants. And until we do, the better approach (i.e., the least disruptive one) is to maintain the status quo while the community reaches a consensus on how to treat this entire class of articles. I also note that both the nominator and one of the discussants explicitly refer to the size of Malta when stating their rationales. If you've ever wondered how systemic bias gets created, wonder no more -- you're seeing it right here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are in no way obligated to keep an article because of some as-yet-to-be-explicit discussion about the class to which it belongs; WP:GNG applies as ever. I doubt you'd make such a weak argument if you had any "keep" justification specific to this article. And yes, pageant winners of large countries are objectively more likely to be notable than those of tiny countries; beating out 400 million competitors is a thousand times more impressive than beating out 400,000. That's not bias, it's arithmetic. —swpb^T 15:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with swpb. Even if WP:NPAGEANT existed, the notability would still have to be demonstrated via "significant coverage". In any WP:N__ guidelines a subject's notability is always presumed; it's not guaranteed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing else apart from the Miss World to suggest her own actual notable article. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Preserving the edit history seems worthwhile to me as well--have seen a number of discussions on this pageant question just in a short time. (But yes for now I don't see sources for independent notability.) Innisfree987 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Engleham (talk) 19:25, 18 July 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. WP:SNOW, WP:IAR. Nobody has disagreed the article should be deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darien Joseph

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

As a parent, I do not want 16-year olds creating autobiographies on Wikipedia (see WP:YOUNG). This is for their own good. I've already speedy deleted this twice as Darien Joseph (Personality) and salted; before I go any further, I would like the community to confirm this the correct thing to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BASIC for lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" - there's just one, minor secondary source of a local paper's six-sentence article about Joseph starting a fashion blog a few months ago. The "best music video" award from the Port Lincoln City Band does not seem to be a significant award. I can't find any other RS coverage online, as either "Darien Joseph" or "Darien Hage". --McGeddon (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines in almost every respect; note no WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above and WP:TOOSOON. Good luck, kid. OnionRing (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG guidelines; searches for RS to back up the notability found nothing (although I'm not an oracle, so I'm as imperfect as the next person!) - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all of the above. Maybe down the road they will meet WP:GNG, but not just yet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. The current content of the article may even be a hoax. The claimed 100,000 followers at Jo-Jo's talk page is questionable at best. I was unable to locate any Youtube channel, just a website for a Youtube partner company that advertises none of their client names. It's not even clear they have clients. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; WP:TOOSOON. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we have is 100% fluff except a local story from a paper in a city with 14,000 people about how a 16-year-old has created a fashion blog. In my county of 800,000 plus people the local paper runs for much of the year articles on successful high school seniors, some of which will mention not just what they plan to do but what they have done. None of them are ever close to being good grounds for someone passing GNG and this is such a case as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 9 July 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. J04n(talk page) 19:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Shanbhag

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert! Rishabh Shanbhag may be canvasing for meat-puppets.

See https://twitter.com/iMast777/status/751288769605545986 (Cache ; Cache, as Image )

Delete/Keep/Comment Section of this AfD

Comment: Plenty of refs, but none that actually suggests notability Maproom (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Rishabh Shanbhag looks to be part of a very narrow subculture, which has earned him one interview & mention in one single article in the tech section of online Forbes. (see below section "Research, Information, Observations & Notes"). RQ (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious self-promoter is obvious, never mind that all these fatuous claims were made about a subject who was seventeen when the article was created. I'm thinking all those cites are less by way of the editors inserting them being lazy, and more that they were counting (accurately enough) on the average Wikipedian glancing at the article, saying "Ooo, lots of cites!" and never bothering to follow any of them up. (While we're talking about lazy.) Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hey there! I personally feel that this page should stay as it is. Before we start, there are a few points that I want to clarify. Kindly have a look at my research and points further below User:Synterest (talk) 08:51 AM, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete: as nominator. I see nothing the above discussion, or in the article itself, to change my view. Maproom (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable internet personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as examining this still found nothing actually convincing, delete by all means as there's nothing to suggest better at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research, Information, Observations & Notes - by RQ (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The most/only "prominent" thing I could find on this Rishabh Shanbhag, was an article written by a "Contributor" (Antony Leather) in Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2015/05/08/iphone-hacking-behind-the-scenes-with-an-ios-jailbreaker/print/

Everything else I could find about Rishabh Shanbhag is from his own, or his collaborators, hand.

His previous website: http://imast777.me/ is empty.
But used to be a thin content spammy commerce thing,
- Google still got some pages cached, via search [ site:imast777.me ]

His current website: https://rishabhshanbhag.com is just a single profile & contact page.
Though Google also got +20 indexed Lorem Ipsum pages [ site:rishabhshanbhag.com ]~~, which was there for about 2 years.~~ (striken, because while the Lorem Ipsum pages has indeed been hosted on that specific domain, then that specific domain didn't exist in 2014)

He's is only 19 years old (DoB = 19.Nov.1996), but still: I would have expected someone attempting to claim fame for developing software or websites, to have a bit more juice to their website. And he does (on his one page website) claim to be "an award-winning web developer and entrepreneur who has worked on various websites, packages and ...".
No actual award(s) are mentioned or referenced, and looking into the "frequently cited by publications" then it looks like lazy half-arsed journalists & bloggers doing twitter rehashing or straight twitter embedding. (The already first mentioned & referenced Forbes thing, being the only exception).

The Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabh_Shanbhag
Has a remarkable edit history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rishabh_Shanbhag&action=history
It has really only ever been handled by 2 editors:

Jilkoms : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jilkoms
Who only got to edit on Wikipedia for less than a month, before being shut down for "Massive sockpuppetry" in 2014.
Synterest : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Synterest
Who's been editing nothing else but the "Rishabh Shanbhag" article, and only after Jilkoms was shut down.

RQ (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research - by User:Synterest (talk) 08:51 AM, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

1) iOS jailbreaking in no way is a "narrow" subculture. The main app, Cydia, the creator of Cydia saurik, and other developers/hackers in the iPhone community such as geohot still have their pages (even though many have contested for deletion - as you can see in the talk pages especially that of geohot).

2) I have no connection with the user you have stated. I simply fell upon this page on iMast77's aka. Rishabh's Twitter

His previous website: http://imast777.me was an e-commerce store for users to purchase iPhone unlocks, aka. reversing a SIM lock, which is currently down (most likely up for a revamp) - has been down since he bought his new domain. His current site is https://rishabhshanbhag.com, I myself am not sure how those "Lorem ipsum" pages are there as he only added the domain recently to his social media pages and doing a quick WHOIS, I found out that "Creation Date: 23-jun-2016"^[1], so it's most likely that Google hasn't de-indexed the previous owner's pages.

I also see that you've added a "not in citation given" for the packages mentioned in the article.

Let us start with the first one - ActiSearch which has been referenced here on iDownloadBlog^[2] and DailyiPhoneBlog ^[3]. Now these 2 references have been already added to the Wikipedia article. But after doing a quick search myself, I found that ActiSearch has been also featured on AppAdvice ^[4] which is a verified source for tech news (also verified on Twitter^[5]. I also found that it has been featured on iPhoneHacks ^[6], iJailbreak ^[7], iPhoneCaptain ^[8], Best Cydia Tweaks ^[9], iSpazio (this is an italian website) ^[10], Apple Spot (Dutch website) ^[11], Info iDevice (French) ^[12], Apple Team (Greek) ^[13] etc. just to name a few.

Some articles don't mention the creator, but every package made which has been uploaded to Cydia, can be found using the package identifier (which in this case is com.imast777.actisearch). Using this, we can find out that "iMast777" is the creator or author of this package. You can use this link and look under the author section: http://cydia.online/package/com.imast777.actisearch

You can make use of this link - http://planet-iphones.com/cydia/author/iMast777, to find out all the other packages which he has created.

The second package which I've mentioned on the page is NoNewApp, you can blame me for this one because I didn't mention any references for this. Sorry, my bad. Googling it, you can find out that it has been featured on iDownloadBlog ^[14], AppAdvice^[15], Modmyi^[16], iPhone Italia ^[17], Appleophile France ^[18] etc. to name a few

The third package needing citation in the article was iDebstore - only one reference was added i.e. But it has also been featured on other websites such as Jaxov^[19], RedmondPie^[20], MacGenesis ^[21], VeryRite ^[22], TheHowMade ^[23],Tesux ^[24], iPhoneItalia ^[25], ValueWalk ^[26], iCulture (Dutch) ^[27] etc.

iDebStore was in beta phase when it was released in 2012 but is currently no longer active in 2016, the idebstore webite currently redirects to iMast777's Twitter now.

Those seem to be the only issues regarding packages. Also, he created most of these packages in 2012, back when he was only 16. So I doubt age should be any concern here.

Now for the frequently cited part in the end, the journalists embedded his tweets in those articles & they seemed to be verified sources to me such as CBS News, Complex (magazine) etc hence why I added that to the article since most people in the iOS/Apple/iPhone community take him & his tweets regarding tech very seriously.

Whereas the International Business Times article ^[28] clearly states this:

However, that seems to be passé as iOS, Windows developer and security researcher iMast777 has figured out a way that allows developers to test jailbreak apps and tweaks on iOS 6.1.1 beta 1. The method, explained below, helps developers jailbreak their devices running on the very first beta of iOS 6.1.1. which had picked up a method from a blog post from http://iMast777.me (back when it was up) which would allow developers to successfully jailbreak iOS - [[[iOS Jailbreaking]].

I'm honestly not sure how you did your research. If you searched for "Rishabh Shanbhag" then you didn't do it the right way, the very first paragraph in the Wikipedia article states that he is better known by his online alias "iMast777" and his creations. I hope you look into all of this & kindly re-consider. Thanks you.

User:Synterest (talk) 08:51 AM, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Response - to User:Synterest from RQ (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since no question ever existed about Rishabh Shanbhag's being owner of rishabhshanbhag.com, then a WhoIs lookup seemed a venue of pointlessness, and I therefore initially didn't do it (a WhoIs lookup is still pointless in terms of establishing noteworthiness, since any idiot can register a domain).

That Google has Lorem Ipsum pages indexed for that site, is because Google crawled the site, and found those pages.

That Google got some of them dated to 2014, is because Google read them to be so. Look at this screenshot, taken from Google's cache, which clearly tell the tale of site claiming to be at least from 2014 (much older that the domain it's served under). Or this screenshot, also taken from Google's cache, which clearly tells Google that the page is from "NOVEMBER 19, 2015".

Why did Rishabh Shanbhag allow the indexing of those Lorem Ipsum pages(?)

There are only one of two fundamental reasons for that to happen.

A. He didn't care a flying fuck if the Lorem Ipsum pages got indexed or not.

B. He couldn't handle the technical requirements for it not to happen.

Considering how hard he seem to want to claim fame for web development, then reason A seems unlikely, because: If you intended to care about your reputation as a web developer, then you do care about NOT clearing your old site, and open a new site to the entire world, before it has reached a minimum level of maturity.

If it's reason B, then that goes to show that his knowledge within the field of web mastering is at kn00b level. It's really easy to avoid getting indexed by well behaved search engines, implying e.g. Google, Bing, Yandex, ...

I took a quick tour down your references list, namely

2. http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/19/actisearch/

3. http://dailyiphoneblog.com/2012/11/20/cydia-tweak-review-actisearch/

4. http://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/11/actisearch-jailbreak-tweak-search-numerous-sources-using-an-activator-action

5. https://twitter.com/AppAdvice

And that's were I stopped, because not a single one of those mentions "iMast777" or "Rishabh Shanbhag".

- and since when did something posted on Twitter get to be treated as reliable & noteworthy sourcing(?!?).

I think you're confusing notability of software, with notability of the programmers who made it.

Incidentally, I found the International Business Times article, which you've cut & paste a quote from, rather amusing for two reasons:

- Calling iMast777 for a "Windows developer and security researcher" doesn't really testify to great journalism (Windows development is not a testimony to iOS skills)

- International Business Times didn't actually do much (or any) real journalist work; they admit so themselves in the article end line "[Source: iMast777 via Redmond Pie]" (and Redmond Pie doesn't even have a Wikipedia article about them.)

You say: "I have no connection with the user you have stated. I simply fell upon this page on iMast77's aka. Rishabh's Twitter"

So, you simply fell on the "Rishabh Shanbhag" Wikipedia page thanks to a tweet by Rishabh Shanbhag (iMast777, and then started to take care of the page on 6.Nov.2014, and have done so ever since, as the only thing you do and have ever have done on Wikipedia, in immediate succession of the banned user Jilkoms. (I still smell the stench of WP:COI, and even stronger when seeing the cleaner being used, but not to where the stench comes from.)

RQ (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mason (canoeist)

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

Non-notable canoeist has been tagged for notability for more than 18 months. Does not pass GNG Maybeparaphrased (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It can be tough to be the son of a famous father (Bill Mason). I cannot find sufficient material on the son, Paul, to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports) or WP:AUTHOR. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both Wikipedia:Notability (sports) and WP:AUTHOR. Edwardx (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have the WP:SIGCOV to warrant inclusion. It seems the article makes his largest claim to fame based upon WP:BLP1E. Mkdw ^talk 18:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 12 July 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) 16:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Chippy

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

Model and runner-up in a minor beauty pageant. This person lacks significant coverage by reliable sources. RS citations are 1) a passing mention in an article about another contestant and 2) a list of contestants. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Prod contested. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability. She didn't win, she came in second place. "The People's Choice" has no criteria/selection listed, it's just a link to the pageant and contestants. Only one of the publications is directed specifically to her. Questions regarding BLP - verifiable statements, social media, etc. Nikto wha? 06:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is a "social media" poster and I agree that the sources are insufficient to establish notability. She may be able to become notable later, but this is WP:TOOSOON. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither her beuaty pageant nor her modeling is at a level to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if she had won the beauty pageant in question, I am unconvinced that would make her notable, but as a runner up she clearly is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 11 July 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. J04n(talk page) 13:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Hong Lu

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

Despite the extremely promotional content there is no indication that Jun Hong Lu is notable. There are no Google News hits. The only source that looks reliable at a glance is the Arab Telegraph, but at a closer look that publication does not seem reliable, and I couldn't find a masthead or an indication of editorial oversight. Huon (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I'm really not convinced this person is notable. Looking at the sources, most do not appear to be reliable/independent. Sro23 (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is a notable indivdual below are just few references i could find , he has been given lots of awards which may not be well covered and report by the press.

References, Furthermore, if you find it difficult to search anything on Jun Hong Lu on the internet, please try to search "Guan Yin Citta" which is foundered by Jun Hong Lu. Jun Hong Lu deserves a place in the Wikipedia. He is extremely well known especially for Buddhists in Asia among the Chinese speaking population. There is one official English website for his Dharma door which is guanyincitta.com.
Please review the followings as I strongly believe the page should not be nominated for deletion at all
New Release:

Beverly Hills Courier- At Museum of Tolerance, Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for global ethics (IPCGE)- a worldwide peace organization awards its Inaugural Peace Prize to Three renowned recipients : Prof.Jun Hong Lu, Gerald Levin( Former CEO of Time Warner), Gianni Picco former UN Secretary General of the United Nations, Page 5,-Line 15,news title: Inter Parliamentary Coalition for global Ethics awards Inaugural Peace Prize. Link: https://issuu.com/bhcourier/docs/bhc050815 what is IPCGE: http://www.ipcge.org/index.php?en
Arabic News Link: http://www.arabtelegraph.com/2014/05/22/4295/
International Symposium on Cultural Diplomacy & Religion 2014-ICD "The Promotion of World Peace through Inter-Faith Dialogue & the Unity of Faiths”A Lecture by Master Jun Hong Lu (World Renowned Chinese Buddhist Leader) Link: http://www.cd-n.org/index.php?welcome-address-3 what is ICD: http://www.cd-n.org/index.php
Television Interview: World renowned Chinese Buddhist Leader. Link : http://en.a9.com.tr/watch/185115/World-Leaders-Discuss-Peace-Religion-and-Politics/Master-Jun-Hong-Lu-World-Renowned-Chinese-Buddhist-Leader
Justice of Peace On April 2016, Lu was awarded as Justice of Peace in New South Wales Australia. Registration No. 215281 Link: http://jp.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/public/welcomePublic.do (database you need to search the registration no. 215281)
British Community Honours Awards Promoting community cohesion and social integration In October 2012, he received the 'British Community Honours Award' at the House of Lords, United Kingdom.[2] This award is recognised and honoured by Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II for members of the British Community for their contribution to British Society. Link: http://www.bcha.info/?s=LU+JUN+HONG Link: http://www.bcha.info/awards-events/bcha-awards-dinner-2012/
The Denmark Royal Press Reporter Mr Peng: Reporting about Master Lu Link: http://loong.dk/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=34390 All the above references have been embedded into the article unfortunately the unwanted attention and vandalism have always come back and broke or delete the link which by the time you come across it may not be a whole picture. Hence the page should not be nominated for deletion at all.
This person is a significant religious leader who was recently invited to the 2015 UN Vesak celebration sitting on the first row out of the attendance of 6000 people who are all Buddhist or religious leaders in one way or another. I managed to find a very bad imiage to support the claim on the vesak's offical website-- it is the 7th photo on this page http://www.undv.org/vesak2015/en/news_detail.php?id=125 and Lu is the person on the very right in the black suit.
His English Subtitle programmes http://guanyincitta.com/en/multimedia-archive/compassion-of-a-bodhisattva-epitome-of-a-great-leader/
His photo visiting the United Nations headquarters in New York City to speak at a Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) meeting Photo by Luiz Rampelotto/Pacific Press/ http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/487337034
His English Subtitle Programmes ( from this video you can see hundred of thousands of his followers which definitely makes him notable) http://www.itunesmp3.mobi/mp3?id=TFVFNWVsRnZSVFU0UTBVPQ

Zyw333 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) — Zyw333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment I have come across the followings which i believe would be relevant and reliable source.

ABC Radio Australia write an article about Jun hong lu is the founder of guan yin citta dharma door, mentioned he has been awarded world peace ambassador http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/chinese/radio/program/亚太华人/《亚太华人》：专访世界和平奖得主卢军宏/1062318
Australia New http://www.xkb.com.au/html/cnc/shetuandongtai/2013/0715/107744.html
South Wals MP Mark Courehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Coure and David Coleman http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=241067 Australian house of representative visting 2OR Australia Oriental Radio :*Television Station http://2or.com.au/2or-australia-oriental-radio/
Jun Hong Lu is the founder of 2OR Australia Oriental Radio and Television Station－Australia Oriental Media Network.http://www.2ornews.com/Aotv
MPs visit would indicate and acknowledged Jun Hong Lu's charity organisation contribution and importance to the communities.

I would appreciate if anyone understand Chinese and English at the same time, would easily come across tons of news, posting, comments about Guan YIn Citta Dharma Door and Jun Hong Lu himself. there are lots of people out there in world who has made a great contribution to the communities and society but did not get too much exposure to the media either by self preservation or other reasons and that is the whole point someone needs to present them in a platform like Wikipedia to the public. hope what i found could improve the page. Thansk !Zyw333 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1.People's Daily , One of the most reputable well recognised and influncial newspaper in China had written a page about Jun Hong Lu https://issuu.com/peopledailyuk/docs/19a01-20 part 1- Page 19 With Picture https://issuu.com/peopledailyuk/docs/20a01-28part 2- Page 27 With Picture
2. AACNTV had an interview with jun hong lu while he was honoured with Wolrd Peace Ambassador Award at U.S. Congresshttp://www.aacntv.com/node/2081 What is AACNTVAACNTV founded in 2008 English Registration Name in US is American Chinese Television LLC
3. Video about World Peace Award (Buddhism) 2012 by the UK-based The Unity of Faiths Charity Foundation,Former Deputy Mayor of London Victoria Borwick who presented the awards to him. The following video recoded captured the moments of the ceremony starts from 2.00.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJCLpyz3SbA
4. Jun Hong Lu Books Publication have registered ISBN Number but free of charge ! http://www.bookwire.com/books/all?query=Australia%20Oriental%20Radio&pn=1&ps=20Zyw333 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thank you for your time and attention depsite someone still has no clue above ,this is a discussion board about should we keep this page or not based on whether jun hong lu is a notable person NOT ABOUT HOW CHINESE OR any authorities perceive jun hong lu and his charity organisaiton, HENCE we need to give an opinion . Would you please make sure whoever written on here knows WHAT ON EARTH they are doing, We are here not to discuss about how Chinese government hates/ like jun hong lu and his charity organissaton, not about CULT as i repeated above no such thing in western countries, As you can see there has been enough attention and discussion about jun hong lu's orgnissation activities eithetr it has been adored or discredit by others, He deserve a page in here. Please let me know if there is any necessary to relist all the sources above. Thank you very much for your effort.Zyw333 (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Zyw333 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Zyw333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment for someone based in Australia he gets zero coverage in major news sources like Sydney Morning Herald or ABC Australia. LibStar (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. complete lack of Australian sources for someone based in Australia. Many of the sources cited are passing mentions. Serious COI concerns here indicating self promotion. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a famous Buddhist Master among the chinese community over the world.I have found reliable organisation reporting Lu Jun Hong activities (not from the own event organiser). http://www.cd-n.org/index.php?welcome-address-3 There is downloadable brochure on the right of the link, which shows his meetings with the famous Pope Francis and other world religious leaders (March 31st - April 3rd, 2014)(Page 22). Therefore, I believe that he is notable individual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuuuu1000 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 21 June 2016 — Yuuuu1000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Jun Hong Lu Chinese Media news Coverage Online Cyu1980 (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC) — Cyu1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

funny that this is your first ever edit. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment in my experience in wikipedia the swarming of an AfD by several single purpose editors not only indicates conflict of interest but also a lack of notability. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Revise Mr. Jun Hong Lu has a large number of followers from various countries especially these Chinese origin. He mainly concentrated on Chinese traditional culture and Chinese Buddhism.

As per below links of which reflect his achievements and fit into Wikipedia's criteria. In the last several years, Mr.Jun Hong Lu has been making an impact and making an effort to promote World peace and Culture exchange, how to practise Traditional Chinese Buddhist in modern society. Below are a few selection of the resources for your reference.
He is the founder of Guan Yin Citta Dharma DoorLink http://guanyincitta.com/en/world-stage/ which qualified that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"
Below are Chinese Media News about Jun Hong Lu.

Chines People's political Consultative Conference Newspaper-official Chinese State Newspaper. write an article http://epaper.rmzxb.com/search.aspx?type=2&keyword=卢军宏&paperType=rmzxb
163.com is a reputable website in China and around the world-they published an article about Jun Hong Lu spares no effort promoting Traditional Chinese Buddhism.http://news.163.com/12/0403/01/7U4KJE1F00014JB6.html
English Source APECF-This is a non profit organisation founded by dignitaries, renowned scholars, social activists, internationally influential enterprises, and research institutes in the Asia-Pacific region. The foundation engages in extensive and constructive communication and cooperation with many other organisations in the region.http://www.apecf.org/en/foundationnews/20150504.html Topic: Dialogue Among Civilisations, Promote World Peace 3rd Paragraph- Jun Hong Lu -Vice president of Asia-Pacific Information and Media Union, spoke about the subject. Ed Royce, Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Bob Huff, senator of California, and Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor, presented an award to Mr. Xiao Wunan for his dedication to Sino- US relations.
China Overseas: http://www.chinaoverseas.org/show.asp?id=7017
CHINA TV MEDIA GROUP USA INC has reported about the above event and uploaded onto Youtube on about 00:30 Jun Hong Lu was giving a speech. China TV Media Group interview

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiejhan (talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 June 2016 — Maggiejhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep and Revise I appreciate the editors who have been working on this page. In the event that there is no consensus and that this page is kept, the sources that I have added are all the official news press release from the various provincial government in China and the central government in Chinahttp://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2014-06/13/content_2700277.htm. If you should consider that the China Government's press releases are unreliable sources, then I will suggest that this page should be deleted because it is only representing biased information about Lu Jun Hong, even though his cult is already considered illegal in China. This is evident from the fact that the so-called buddhist master has never went to China for a single event, and that all the social media webpages related to Guanyin CItta and Lu Junhong cannot feature any parts of these names in the social media groups — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 11:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep and Revise~~ Readers should be given an opportunity to learn that there are controversies surrounding Lu instead of presented with promotional materials. I have done my best to use sources from experts on the subject matter which in my personal opinion are better than news reports made by reporters who are not experts in the issue. I further iterate that the controversy should be included as the topic is on Lu, even if he is only having issues in China, Malaysia and Singapore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 09:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. — Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as examining this found, of course, the noticeable amount of sources, but it's the information that is particularly not convincing for notability. None of it balances to suggest he's actually notable for any of that thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 18:46, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I understand and appreciate you went a great length to find all the sources just right on the 7th day since the page been nominated for deletion, since you have referenced a lot sources in Chinese then you must will not miss the fact that the reason why there is no a single event in Main land China not because it is illegal. It is because China first of all at the moment is not a very religious country and secondly does not allow big public gathering according to the law, BUT THERE ARE MASSIVE EVENTS IN HONG KONG every year WHERE is also part of China!!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cca0vGIFXec Jun hong lu never claimed he is any Buddhar representative, only some of his followers claimed he is which to be fair is really our of his control. He and his charity organisation devoting themselves to promote world peace and Chinese culture exchange and that is why he been honoured so many awards in US, UK and been invited by UN as all the sources provided and trying to approve so far. NOT AN ARTICEL TO APPROVE IF THE BUDDHISM HE TAUGHT IS THE TRUE AND MOST orthodox ONE WHICH ALL YOUR EDITING IS ABOUT . All the references you quoted is all about criticising his teaching in buddhism but NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS EFFORT TO PROMOTE WORLD PEACE.He is an Austrilian Citizen, It should be a free world for people to believe in whatever they want to and follow whoever they like to regardless how the other organizations comment about him and his teaching and should not be criticised only certain organisations have a different opinion. Thank you for your advice and i am sure people who work on this page will keep your opinion considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyw333 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment I guess you do not understand Chinese then. Let me translate the first article for you. The first article is a press release from the State Administration for Religious Affairs for P.R.C.

We don't need to include a full translation transcribed here. It may even present copyright problems. Hatting for now, but may have to be removed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Recently, I received several calls from some Buddhists, informing that they had friends and relatives believing in Guan Yin Citta, some even went overseas to participate in major events organised by Guan Yin Citta. Based on the responses, the Australia based Chinese creator of Guan Yin Citta, Lu Jun Hong, self proclaims to be a representative of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara (Guan Yin), and frequently uses "Totem Reading" to tell fortunes and avert disasters. According to some rumor, there are famous venerable receiving tutelage under Lu Jun Hong, learning Guan Yin Citta. Thus, the believers asked if Lu Jun Hong is really a representation for Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, and if "totem reading" conforms to Buddhist teachings.
After receiving the responses from the believers, I considered the questions with high priority. Through intensive research, my responses to the relevant questions are as follows:

1. Through the history of China, there are indeed reputable venerable who were regarded as reincarnates of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. However, these occur after the venerable passed away, and through their deeds and teachings, they were believed to be reincarnates. There has never been a case where a reputable venerable openly mentions that he is a reincarnate or representative of any Bodhisattva.
2. The so-called "totem reading", according to Guan Yin Citta, refers to an animalistic totem representing us in the heavens. Through observing these totems, we will be able to tell the fortune of that person. In Buddhist sutra and teachings, there has never been any sayings resembling "totem reading". Astrology, palmistry and face reading, divination etc are all considered to be unorthodox, and are prohibited by Buddhist teachings.
3. Although Guan Yin Citta uses concepts and theories used by Buddhists, the understanding of these are superficial and self-interpreted. Even basic concepts such as "five senses", "twelve links of dependent origination" etc, were given twisted explanations and are completely different from Buddhist teachings.

As for the rumor regarding reputable venerable receiving tutelage from Lu Jun Hong, I'd say it deviates from Buddhist teachings and traditions.
Next, according to some reports, before Guan Yin Citta organised some major activities in Malaysia and Singapore during March this year (2014), 11 major Buddhist organisations has jointly made a press release, pointing out that Guan Yin Citta is a Buddhist associated cult, and not orthodox Buddhism, reminding believers not to be cheated by them. From this, we see that the international buddhist community has a common understanding that Guan Yin Citta does not conform to Buddhist teachings.
From our understanding, Guan Yin Citta has also conducted various illegal major activities and illegal soliciting in China as well.
I beseech all provincial Buddhist federations and temples across the country to conduct more activities to teach the public and local Buddhists to be more patriotic and interested in learning, right belief and right actions, raise greater self awareness to oppose the wrong influences from Guan Yin Citta. I will also remind all Buddhists to learn from Buddhists community with the right belief and right actions, increase their ability to differentiate rights from wrongs, in order not to be cheated.

The above is a direct translation from the article. Anyone who is well versed in Chinese can feel free see if I have mistranslated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.92.124.221 (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment FIRST OF ALL, we are here to discuss whether Jun hong lu is a notable person to deserve a page on Wikipedia NOT about the Buddhism he teached is recognised by some and/or Chinese authorities or any authorities in the world. Please keep focus on this.

Then like I mentioned above if you read carefully, he has never claimed he is the representation of Bodhisattva if his followers believed he is there is nothing he can do about it.
Secondly, if you really Passionate about how the Chinese think about Jun Hong Lu. People's Daily https://issuu.com/peopledailyuk/docs/19a01-20 part 1- Page 19 With Picture wrote an article about him endorse him for all his achievements and awards. People's Daily is the state owned and run Newspaper earns more authority than any of your reference quoted. Jun Hong lu is having another Grand Dharma Talk in Hong Kong 3rd July 16. I believe no one would have any objections about HK is part of China! and if the Chinese authorities had any issues with the up coming events, they would have prohibited it by now but so far everything is going as planned , you could participate too as it is free administration as you went great length finding about all the sources. it is the time to see it yourself !
Thirdly Please do remember he is Australian who can speak Chinese. He and his organisation promoting world peace and Traditional Chinese Culture not solely Buddhism Teaching like other practical monks. IF anyone have been living in WESTERN COUNTRIES LONG ENOUGH, they would understand and appreciate there is no such CULT exist. People has the liberty to believe whatever they want and follow whoever they want to. If according to your research that Guan Yin Citta is not well recognised by some of the Chinese authorities at the moment and make it as cult, then Dalai Lama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama's page should definitely get your attention and should be clearly removed as per BBC Chinese News http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/simp/hi/newsid_1340000/newsid_1348100/1348140.stm said i quote Dalai Lama engaged in activities to split Tibet from China and been exiled ever since.
Finally whatever Buddhism jun hong lu has been teaching is not a reason for him not having a page on Wikipedia, He and his organisations has been gaining a place on the International Stage and soon would be more recognised by public medias, I would appreciate if the administrator would give another though about this page and should definitely not be deleted.Many thanks Zyw333 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you thread carefully,I did not suggest delete the page. I only said it should be considered to be deleted if the followers of Lu do not allow a fair opinion of him.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by the newspaper you have quoted is more credible than the Chinese government itself.
Thirdly, there were many occasions where Lu speak of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara speaking through him, which clearly implies he is a representative of Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara, which is a blasphemy as far as Buddhist teachings are concerned, and many occasions where the public called him a reincarnate and he did not dispel those as wrong either. These are the very behaviors which, according to the Buddha, are acts of the devil, and according to Chinese government, an evil religious organisation.
Like I said, my reference are all spokesmen if the government and not just a subsidiary of a newspaper. If you wish to question my sources, then can you explain why are the so-called acclaimed awards that is received only reported in some doubtful Arabian newspapers and not found in UN reports or European/American newspapers?
Even if I'm doubtful of your information, I'll not delete any information you have given. So please respect my information and note that these informations ate given by the government. I know hong kong is a special administration region, and the main government is only responsible if it's defence and foreign policy.that's the only reason why lu can still have activities in Hong Kong but not in any provinces of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccctttttt (talk • contribs) 09:23, 30 June 2016

Keep. I consider theChinese source translated above as sufficient evidence for notability , along with the supporting material. DGG ( talk ) 14:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm sure that a relisting is not what anybody wants here, but given this went to a no consensus last time, and given User:DGG's late contribution, I feel it would be inappropriate and controversial to take the decision to delete without clearer consensus. KaisaL (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as enough coverage in reliable sources have been identified for WP:BASIC to bemet Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only because I also believe the one translated source may be enough for now. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 9 July 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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miller (photographer)

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

A7 was declined but there is no claim of notability, one ref is own website and other ref is a series of photos from The Daily Mail which in itself confers no notability? Fails WP:BIO. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 07:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added to the article regarding his Guggenheim fellowship. Gab4gab (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the introduction paragraph on both new sources give a narrow pass of WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Guggenheim fellowship is enough to pass WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillian Laumeister

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

I find only one source, one of the ones cited in this article, with any substantial coverage of this person. The product might be notable, but it doesn't appear that he is, with most mentions of him doing no more than identifying him as the creator. Largoplazo (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just found and added a quote along with another secondary source (Co.Exist) to the article/references. K.Koopa (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The source, in discussing "Listen to Bitcoin", mentions him only to say that he's the creator and to quote a comment from him about the source's main topic. The only thing the source says about him is that he's "an undergrad studying game design at UC Santa Cruz". This isn't substantial coverage of him, as called for by WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 8 July 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. J04n(talk page) 15:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Brown (motorist)

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

Non-notable individual asserted to have been the first individual killed in a self-driving car. The concern I have about this article is the car is not, in spite of news reports, a true self-driving car. Tessla markets this is a an "autopilot" feature. Individual is known for WP:1E. reddogsix (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This tragedy is shaking up the transportation industry, especially in the sub-sectors that are developing self-driving cars. It's all over the news, because automotive autopilots were touted as the safer way to get around, due to eliminating human error. It's also remarkable for being the first fatal accident in over 130,000,000 miles of all Tesla vehicles on Autopilot. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So you have indicated why the article is popular, however, you failed to indicate how the article meets Wikipedia guidelines for notability. You have not indicated why this is not a WP:1E. reddogsix (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Omar Mateen, the shooter at the Pulse (nightclub), is a 1-event article and there was no problem with it. The events there shook up the LGBTQ community; the accident that killed Josh Brown shook up the autonomous driving community. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And right there you just called out why this article is different than Omar Mateen. The accident that killed Josh Brown is shaking up the community...not Josh Brown. Josh Brown's only contribution to this accident was being there. If Josh Brown was the person shaking up the community, you might have something. But, he's not. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. User:Shultz the Editor is correct that this story is a big one, but Autonomous_car#Safety_record and Tesla_Model_S#Autopilot are both already covering the crash itself and its ramifications in much more detail. That may end up being split into a fourth article about the crash or about self-driving car safety, but it looks like we don't have the grounds or in-depth sources for a full biography of the deceased here. --McGeddon (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And re-title with the focus on the accident and its ramifications in detail. This is a significant event noteworthy in itself, but the specific victim (self-victim as he deliberately misused the system against its specific instructions) is not. The article should be about the event, not the biography of the victim except for details relevant to the accident. [[ aside - For example 8 driving tickets in the 6 preceding years, all for "failing to obey a traffic device or sign". All, very likely speeding tickets that the driver, a former Navy Seal asked to have reduced, a common thing for Judges to do if they "like" the driver. As an ex-Seal with no other issues, a high probability. ]] Jjk (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:1E. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I argued in the talk page of the Tesla Model S article, this type of incident, like the plug-in car fires in the past, call for a lot of attention and speculation. Therefore, it is important for editors to keep in mind that Wikipedia is NOT a media outlet, we do not report the news (see Wikipedia:NOTNEWS), so as per WP policies the content has to be encyclopedic (see WP:NOT). IMO, the notable facts to report about this incident (Wikipedia:Notability) are just two: the fact that this is the first known accident with a fatal victim while the car was driven by a self-driving system, and second, it puts into question the reliability of Tesla's Autopilot technology (the objective of the NHTSA formal investigation). This content is already presented in the Autopilot section of the Model S article. And for purposes of WP:NPOV, the official statement made by Tesla is required. Considering the key facts, the driver's name does not seems to be notable to be mentioned, nor anecdotal content about him (I previously removed some of it). Yes he was a Tesla enthusiast, and for obvious reasons he is mentioned in the all the news about the accident, but remember that per Wiki policies, notability is NOT temporary (WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I think that the only case when there is justification to mention victims in accidents is when this person meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). To illustrate better, i.e. if the CEO of the company died testing its new technology, then I think he/she should be mentioned by name, but only if the company or the new technology are remarkable or significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded (notability!). Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The man himself was not notable to the world at large when he was alive - in 5 years (probably less) he will be totally unknown again. It is the accident that is famous, not the man in it. Stepho talk 04:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is nothing remarkable about this individual in any respect. He was a Navy SEAL, but doesn't pass Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Notability_guide#People. He was the head of his non-notable nine person company, which doesn't put him past Wikipedia:Notability (people). He graduated from University of New Mexico, but that doesn't make him notable under WP:ACADEMICS either. Let's be clear here; the car crashed. That's what is notable. It could have been anyone in that car, in fact the car could have been empty, and the accident would be notable, but not the person in the car that crashed. We don't have an article about the driver of the truck the car crashed into, nor should we. That this individual was involved in a car wreck does not make him notable anymore than the tens thousands of people killed every year in car wrecks around the world. He was simply a passenger. In the driver's seat, but a passenger. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tragic but WP:1E pretty much covers this. Nothing is notable about this person's life....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP1E, coverage should belong in a sentence or two in self-driving car article. Meinnaples (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing for convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:29, 9 July 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. Michig (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Niaz Raiyan

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

The player has made no appearance in a first-class, List A or T20 match and so it is that he is not meeting the notability criteria Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't (yet) meet WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wait until he makes his debut in major cricket. St Anselm (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and others. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, fails WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tinder (app)#History. czar 05:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Mateen

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

Previous deletion reasons have not been dealt with. Not enough WP:RS here to merit an article. Baum des Lichtes (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinder (app). Notability is not inherited from creating a notable app- he was one of many founders. As before, he's most known for a single event, which is covered in Tinder (app) anyway. Plausible search term, so redirect is better IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tinder (app), as previously suggested. The sources given in the article either are about another primary subject and only mention Mateen passingly, are user profiles, or are not reliable sources at all. Fails WP:GNG, but as it indeed is a plausible search term, a redirect would make sense. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 04:18, 19 July 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. Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. Guralnick

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

Highly promotional bio with indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Recently speedied db-G11, and it's only just this side of G11 now. He's a lawyer, and he's written some books: neither automatically confers notability. Sources are all WP:Primary, with no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. OnionRing (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, in addition article reads a bit too promotional for me. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG. Being a lawyer and an author does not automatically make him notable. ubiquity (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the book was as widely important as suggested it would get coverage beyond one minor mention in a state level oil industry publication. So we can not even establish notability for his law book on facking. Establishing that he is notable for writing it, which seems to be the goal of the article would require us to have either widespread quoting from him on fracking in publications, or his work being quoted enough by others to show he is a leading expert on law as it relates to fracking. We do not have these, and until we do we have no reason to think he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are faint whiffs of notability, but the coverage doesn't support a claim. The article as it exists comes off a bit promotional. It might be possible to improve the sourcing to support the claim, but I haven't found anything that would meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt temporarily at best (although locking entirely would be best as it may simply be restarted once the salt ends); my searches and examinations have found nothing actually better and, with there being nothing else actually minimally convincing, delete is best. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 13 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cigar Dave

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

Appears to lack significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Sources are either the subject or radio stations that carry the show promoting it. Probably a good guy, probably good at his job, but not necessarily notable. Doesn't appear to pass WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--DELETE. a lot of self-promotion, no independent sources of note.[[NotHoratio (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)]][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not show enough coverage to pass the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all suggestive of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes

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

Does not verifiably meet WP:NBAND, possible WP:HOAX. Discogs lists one album. The artist's own website has no discography on it. Worldcat lists the same album. In short, I think all the material in the article is made-up. If Havoc worked on Xena, I should be able to find a credit (not that it matters to the band). I should be able to find internationally-known artists from the 1980s. I can't find anything after 1979 in NZ, even. Created by SPA. MSJapan (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sure the group isn't made up. The NZ Nat library holds a copy. There are also copies for sale on some websites. In discogs the contributors to the page are established plus one Discoger who owns a copy has a history going back to 2009. And as far as Havoc having worked on Xena, it's likely that Havoc is his stage name. He probably goes by his given name. After all, New Zealand's Russell Crowe, (Sorry Aussies but Crowe was born in NZ) was known as Russ Le Roq in his days on the NZ music scene and probably give or take a couple of years, was in the same era. Karl Twist (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely nothing notable about this group and fails WP:NBAND (Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep for now. I'm working to improve as well as researching this group. They were notable on the Kiwi / NZ rock scene and possibly the Australian as well. OK, the problem is that people keep putting up articles and don't bother to put in refs. Never mind. I'll do what I can to improve. Karl Twist (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I know the group isn't made up; I'm concerned as to their notability, which requires more than existence. I'm even more concerned because the international major label releases (which would establish notability for certain) appear to be what is made up. I've found plenty of references to the first vinyl release in 1979, so I don't feel that's in question, but it's a single, so it's not going to meet WP:NBAND by itself. Just as an FYI to save time, discogs isn't RS because it's user-generated content, and Havoc's work outside the band doesn't matter to the band, so don't focus on anything about those. MSJapan (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Quite likely the Desire single Desire (Includes the songs "So Divine", "Broken Heart" and 2 others) - WEA HAVOC 1 is an obscure release. I know of recordings that have been released that have no trace on the internet. Not yet anyway! The Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes release, "The way I am", "The letter" / "Rich kid", "Ponsonby" - RTC RTS 71012 is not actually a single. It is actually an extended play. It could be considered a mini-album. Looking at Discogs, yes it relies on user-generated content, but it's still a good and valuable source for info. The validity of info can be gauged by the checking of the profiles and their input over a period of time. There may be other aspects of Gary Havoc which could be, and probably relevant to this article. It wonder if The Mynah Birds would be that notable if Rick James and Neil Young hadn't hit the big time. Karl Twist (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: - Further to my post. The Desire album musicians mentioned exist. Mark Huckstep is one of them.[6] Simon Hanna is another. As you can see, Hanna has played on recordings recorded at Mandrill Recording Studios [7] Karl Twist (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except neither of those entities have articles, and existence is not notability. The problem with adding in material about Gary Havoc himself is that this is not a bio of Gary Havoc, it's a band article, and the band is not going to inherit notability. Put another way, if Jared Leto had started 30 Seconds to Mars and they never went anywhere as an ensemble, the band would not have an article just because Jared Leto was in it. Part of the problem here is that the band doesn't even have discography on its website, and what's in the article now actually fails WP:V, and thus clearly doesn't meet WP:BAND. MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that those entities don't have articles is not the issue here. I just put forward the name of Mark Huckstep and Simon Hanna forward to show that the Desire recording is not .... "appear to be what is made up", because those musicians do exist! Just because they don't have articles on Wikipedia makes no difference. They are just given to back up Graham Reid's article on Elsewhere, dated Jul 30, 2014. You also says, "Part of the problem here is that the band doesn't even have discography on its website". Yes that is part of A problem. But, I think that this is being rectified. The website is a work in progress from what I can see and I have a feeling the person of interest may be lacking in website building skills. Anyway there is an indication there that there will be updates. Incidentally there is a profile of the band in the Auckland Star but it is not available for online viewing. It's in archive status. Not sure how to get the content. Anyway the band's touring schedule which can be gauged from the adverts in various papers show it had toured around a large part of New Zealand's North Island as well as having performed in Australia. Karl Twist (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow further development on the article. Nakon 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 00:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't doubt the authenticity of this band, but they don't seem especially well known in New Zealand. I've been looking for references to beef up the article, but I cannot find anything online that meets with the WP:NBAND requirements. Quite a few articles briefly mention the band's name in passing, but there's nothing substantial written about the band. We really need something like this AudioCulture profile of The Spelling Mistakes. As an alternative to having a stand-alone article on Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes, is there a larger related article that could incorporate this as a section? Something about New Zealand punk history? A record label history? Robyn2000 (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I do believe the article will satisfy most people that it should be stand alone. Time is needed as well as some access to archives that I can't access. Perhaps the coverage today isn't as revealing as some of the more well known NZ artists on Wikipedia but I have seen strong indications that there was good coverage of the group in the late 70s and early 80s. There was a bit about them in the Auckland Star. There were many adds in papers and mags for their playing various venues in NZ. There is more coverage of them in Rip it Up that I can access online as well. Also in some other in Kiwi Rock mag. I also came across a neat little article about them in a paper but sadly I lost my search place. It came up in a search of other similar artists of the time and there it was. I will try and repeat the search which only comes up in image format. They are also included in Discography of New Zealand Popular Music, 1960-1990: Rock, Jazz, Folk, Blues, and Bluegrass list. They also received an IRANZ award for their EP / Mini album. Most of the expansion of the article you see from here to here is due to the work of one person, me! I'm not in NZ and don't have access to libraries and other references that folks in NZ have. As for AudioCulture. It's great and a great place to reference. However, it's only been around 31 May 2013. It's a growing site and I dare say that at some stage Gary Havoc & Co will be on there. As it is now, GH&TH are IMO an important pivotal point in the career of musicians that went on to bigger name bands, and at least one of the musicians from the band may have enough notability to have a page of his own. I'm doing research on this. Sadly I haven't got the time I'd like to have to do more for this article, but I will give it as much attention as my time allows. Karl Twist (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The band definitely existed and is referred to a few times in the seminal "Stranded in Paradise: New Zealand Rock'n'Roll 1955-1988" by John Dix. Some notability in that (according to Dix) their EP was self-financed and successful, the first time that had happened with a New Zealand band, and as such kick-started to boom in self-released records ("Stranded in Paradise", pp. 219, 294). Ex GH&H member Gary Hunt later joined top NZ punk band The Terrorways, as well. The venue, by the way, was Zwines, not Swines. Grutness...wha? 02:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Could this instead be turned into a paragraph in the The Terrorways article, then? I would consider them to be a band with greater cultural significance than Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes. Robyn2000 (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could support that. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 13 July 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 // 01:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail NBAND and SIGCOV. Suspected either COI or COPYVIO (or it could just be poorly written). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please tell me where the COI is???? I have done most of work on this article from here to here. I picked it up from where it was left off and in a shambles as I have with other articles such as See Patrick Pinney discussion. Before I started it was here, and after managed to get it to here nothing to do with the band and it doesn't matter if whoever started did! Most of the work has been done by me. Also, where is the COPYVIO ?????? Karl Twist (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the consensus shows there's still questionability about sourcing and information thus, although the article may seem acceptable, it's best deleted until things can be bolted as confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would be a big mistake to delete to delete this article as this will lessen the chance of helpful information to strengthen the article. This band has an important place in New Zealand history as one of the key bands in the New Zealand late 70s rock scene. Along with The Terrorways, Satellite Spies and other bands on the scene in in NZ at the time, Gary Havoc & The Hurricanes were prominent back then as shown in Rip It Up. This one of the multiple articles that they were featured in, and had a solid amount of coverage. Another thing that needs to be realized is that GH&TH were also an important stepping stone for musicians such as Gary Hunt, and Graeme Scott who had a huge presence and impact on the NZ music scene. When you look at this group in perspective, the importance of then becomes obvious. I knew next to nothing about this group before I came across it in articles for deletion. Something was bugging me about them and I decided to look a little more into it to see if it was worthwhile saving. Not only did I discover it was worthwhile saving as I worked to improve it, I realized that with what limited sources I had to work with that many other influential and important NZ bands are overlooked. Often this is why sourcing info takes time. I now change my Keep for now to a strong keep as I have discovered the importance of this group in the NZ and Auckland City rock scene. You can measure the growth of the article from here before I decided to improve it to here. That's basically just the work of one man to improve it. Just imagine if 5 others found info and added to it. Think what you'd see then!!! Think about it! You would see more and more info. Delete this article and I guarantee you wont! Karl Twist (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've thrown in a lot of garbage, actually. You've coatracked everything you could find with the band's name in it, and a lot of it is expressly not a reliable source. It's fine to work on an article, but you've extrapolated a lot of information from concert notices, and that's not appropriate. You still haven't made a case for anything more than local coverage with all that. Seeing that someone played a club, and writing a blurb about them playing at the club does not establish notability. You seem to be under the impression that this band should have an article because they exist, and that disputing the article is in turn disputing the band's existence. Basically, you have made it very clear that you feel that this band not having an article is Wikipedia saying this band doesn't exist. That's an irrelevant argument; the fundamental point is that existence is not notability, and we still have seen nothing to substantiate anything that would make the group meet the relevant notability guidelines. What you did say is stuff like "they had a local article with a picture of the group." So what? Why is the picture important? Writing an article about the existence of sources on the band is not an article about the band. So what you've expanded is a bunch of useless fluff for the most part. The fact that there's a poster with a concert date doesn't mean anything, but you've pretty much loaded all that in there as well. In short, read the requirements, and then read what you've done, because you've put in a lot of work that's done essentially nothing to address the concerns noted. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above. Now you are saying I'm throwing in garbage. Look, I'm not going to get into a silly argument with you because it appears that this is the direction in where it could head. Show me where the garbage is please? You were the one that originally nominated this for deletion and you said - " I think all the material in the article is made-up" ..., which is totally incorrect as you and I both know! Yes I admit that I have used concert notices from various websites, but this is to show where the band was playing. I do this for the interest of the readers who either have an interest in the band or have an interest in New Zealand rock music history. You said - "You seem to be under the impression that this band should have an article because they exist". ... That's not only a reckless thing to say. It's also grossly incorrect and by saying that you are being misleading. Possibly unintentionally. The reason why I voted to save this article and did work to improve it is because I believe they have a place in NZ rock history and they are notable. If I didn't think so I wouldn't have bothered with this. Actually, I would have given up halfway though what I have done to date! And replying to your - "What you did say is stuff like "they had a local article with a picture of the group." So what? Why is the picture important?" ... Goodness! I'm just mentioning that the article in the Auckland Star, 25 September 1979, Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes"., had a picture. Nothing more! How does mentioning the picture become an issue? I thought Wikipedia was about information. Interested people like information. Anyway, I just wrote that how I read it. Nothing more! IMO you seem to be cherry picking certain edits I made to say that this is all I have done to improve the article. Not so! So far I have seen 2 members here saying that the band was a hoax and also using terms like suspected COI or COPYVIO. All untrue! I said it before and I will say it again. I believe this band to be notable and an important part of NZ Rock music history. I'm sorry, but from the get go you were incorrect and the reasons you have given to have the article deleted don't really make sense because you are using your own view without taking info account other factors. Look, if you were to go through the records at Auckland library as well as the Sydney library, I believe you would be quite enlightened. BTW: Havoc working on Xena will be something to look into. I don't think that Havoc is his real name. This would be his stage name. Why don't you help us improve instead of trying to remove? Karl Twist (talk)

The fact remains the following: I said "possible" hoax, and you took it to mean "definite" and have been pissed-off about that ever since. So don't tell me I'm the one misreading. This group does not meet WP:NBAND. The fact is that every item that was originally in the article that would have proven notability has not been able to have been sourced, and has been removed. You've got a band with a local career, and you can't source a major label release, a major tour, or anything else. Instead you have filled out content in the article by using local concert announcements, and those don't meet WP:RS per WP:NMUSIC #1. The fact that Gary worked on Xena by himself is irrelevant to the band. I stand by my original statements, because COPYVIO is COPYVIO whether it's true or not. A COI is COI whether the information is true or not. You are the one in error here, and all your additions are WP:FANCRUFT that don't make a difference to establishing WP:NBAND. MSJapan (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoaah Dude / Dudette !! Steady on there! I'm not p'd off about anything. LOL why are you even going there? Please do not throw around the term WP:FANCRUFT. That's irresponsible. I hope you won't reach any deeper. Look, please take note. To me this is nothing more than a group who's music I don't really care for. Give me Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire, Sly & The Family Stone, and now were talking! That's real music! The Australasian pub rock genre is something that doesn't even excite me. My approach to this article, and the info on the band contained within is purely from an appreciation of noteworthy info angle. Nothing more.! I'm not the one who started this damned article. I am slightly annoyed at User talk:Andru0711, the creator of this article for not putting in more references which has cost me time and effort. But it has been worth it in a way. This is because I have learnt a bit more about the group and the members who are prominent on the Kiwi rock scene. I have also become aware that many notable Kiwi bands have hard to find referencing and we often need to go to books that have been written about these groups. Not only do we then discover (as I have here) the notability of them but also the important historical value!. The group is notable and two of the former members in the band could have articles on their own. BTW: There's more than local concert announcements. Much more! They got good coverage in Rip It Up, and more than what I have been able to access on line. Also we need someone to go and check out the article in the Auckland Star, 25 September 1979, Profile of Auckland new wave band "Gary Havoc and the Hurricanes". I believe the paper had a massive circulation. BTW: Where is the COI and where is the COPYVIO?? Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 02:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kalel (youtuber)

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

Does not appear to be a notable YouTuber. Other than YouTube-centric sites and gossip sites I couldn't find enough significant coverage specifically about her. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable vlogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:02, 10 July 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 08:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adya Prasad Chaturvedi

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

A homoeopath and Hindi writer who translated books from Sanskrit. The article talks mostly about his personal life, and its single reference is a website that makes no mention of him. I've only been able to verify that he is a registered homoeopath (as of 2013) [8]. I don't see any trace of his literary activities. A search for Adya Prasad Chaturvedi returns no results on google news or google books. A normal google search returns five pages of results, which are either wikipedia mirrors or pages about other people with this name. No google results for what I presume is the Hindi spelling आद्य प्रसाद चतुर्वेदी: [9][10][11]. The article claims his penname is Jay Gurudev but I haven't searched for it as it's way too generic. Uanfala (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not sure if this is worth mentioning, but the article was created, reviewed and edited by socks of a single user, who was recently banned for using multiple accounts to circumvent WP:NPP. So it's very likely the article's creator wasn't himself convinced the subject would pass our notability guidelines. Uanfala (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 23:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've also tried a search for his pen name Jai Gurudev but the results are swamped with hits about Jai Gurudev, a different person. Trying a more specific search in Hindi for his name (either real or penname) and either of the names of his two poems given in the article returns 9 results [12], none of which have any relevance at all. Now, it's certainly odd for such an eminent contemporary writer (as the article claims) to have left no online trace whatsoever of his works. Uanfala (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish notability of subject. It's single source is in Hindi and I cannot evaluate its merit. A Google search mostly reveals mirrors or unrelated subjects. Finally, some of the phrasing in this article ("commanded great respect", "famous") sounds more promotional than informative and these phrases are completely unsourced. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Undertaking translations on the side and poetry writing is a popular pastime in India. If Wikipedia added everyone who did it, its pages would double. Engleham (talk) 11:20, 27 July 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. Euryalus (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Salas

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

The article lacks any sustained coverage that would pass the GNG. For example the Washington Post article mentions her name, but that is it. It is about the winner, with nothing than names for the runner ups. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She didn't even actually win the Miss USA Nevada Title, she got it after the winner was disabrred for disorderly behavior, so she didn't even win an adult level title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, presuming that winning at the state level is not considered inherently notable, we have nothing more, it appears. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While the previous holder of the Miss Nevada USA title which the subject inherited might be notable for the win and subsequent "firing" by Donald Trump, which was extensively covered in the media, this subject apparently is not. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing convincing for an independently notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:32, 9 July 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. KaisaL (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Scyphers

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

Scyphers is a non-notable individual. She won a state beauty pageant, but that is not enough alone to make someone notable. While the number and breadth of sources makes this look like it has legs, it doesn't. The probelm is that 4 of the sources are related to her husband being in baseball, mainly during his college baseball career. No one has tried to argue her husband is a notable baseball player, because he isn't. Likewise the fact that they got an extremely local human interest story on them when they had a baby does not make her notable either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TOOSOON. Might achieve more notability later. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON as more achievements/ notable works needed to generate coverage in reliable sources.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as aside from the few events, there's still not substance for a convincing independent article. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Grissom

AfDs for this article:

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

To begin with the previous nomination was part of a huge unruly bundle, that suffered from all huge bio nominations problems, if any of the people are notable than all will have support for keeping them. I think there is also a factor that over time the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia have gotten tighter. Back in 2006 when this article was created Wikipedia considered many candidates for public office who lost notable, since then we have realized that there are not the sources to create substantial meaningful articles on all such candidates. In the same way I think we have come to realize there is no good reason to have articles on all state-level beauty pageant winners. This is especially true when you consider that of the first 34 winners of Miss USA Tennessee we only have articles on two of them. One because she went on to become a notable singer/songwriter, the other because she was later one of the inagural flight attendants for Southwest Airlines and one of only 5 inaguaral ones (from 1971) still working as a flight attendant for the company in 2014, 43 years later. Even at that I have doubts if the coverage and sources on Sandra Force justify having the article, Considering that through the mid-1970s the industry goal with flight attendants was young attractive females in the model of cocktail waitresses while since the image of the flight attendant has been somewhat reworked, that people in their early 60s are on the job who have been there since their early 20s is not surprising, also it would be a much more interesting article if we were told how many original flight attendants Southwest had, because 5 out of 10 would not be as impressive as one of 5 out of 100. I digress, back to Grissom, she has been involved in minor modeling and acting and had a minor role in a reality TV show, but none of that adds up to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I see even lesser lights that are dubious for PORNBIO survive AfD, I do think we should think about giving some credit if there's more than just the pageant. I know that an OTHERSTUFF argument doesn't really cut it, but it does seem that a reality show trumps an adult film... sigh. This isn't a !vote yet, just a discussion. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Montanabw I agree that we need to discuss about the notability of beauty pageant title holders including this one in more detail. I read on one of these AFD's where an editor stated just winning a US state title does not give notability. "Where is that written in stone?" Usually the state winners go on to the national pageant where there is more chance to show notability. Also many subjects have one or more other things going on that also can denote notability. Since there has been an upswing in these beauty pageant winners, I hope we can come to a consensus on what wins confer notability. Any ideas? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 04:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- One possibility is to look at doing a WP:NPAGEANT criteria, as is done for WP:NSPORTS, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL, etc.. Montanabw ^(talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run of the mill beauty contest winner. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete To be honest, my feelings on these articles are well documented. I agree that we need a really strong WP:NPAGEANT criteria, per the suggestion of User:Montanabw. And I am sorry to see that the Fashion deletion category is once again becoming a dumping ground for women who are probably perfectly nice, but who are reduced to presenting themselves as bait for the male gaze. I recall an attempt to establish guidelines for beauty pageant notability a couple of years back, but think it fizzled out. But it IS something that is needed - especially as every year we get a surge of promoters desperate for us to know that about 20 entrants to Miss Arendelle have mastered the art of walking and smiling simultaneously while wearing heels.... (yeah, sometimes we get articles on Mr Narnia, but the VAST majority is female-centred.) Mabalu (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is nowhere near enough to pass GNG. Winning a sub-national beauty pageant is not enough for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Weishuhn

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are no where near enough to pass GNG. Winning a US state beauty pageant is not in and of itself enough to make someone notable. In this case that is literally all we know about Weishuhn. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete presuming that winning a state-level pageant of a major national pageant is not inherently notable. I agree that appears to be all we have here. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG with Montanabw's caveat of "presuming that winning a state-level pageant of a major national pageant is not inherently notable.". I think we need the WP:NPAGEANT policy that others have suggested. Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 00:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE concur with nom. Winning one state level pageant does not establish notability. MB 03:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the moment this is a BLP1E and there is no other claim of notability other than the state pageant winner. It fails GNG and winning a state pageant is not enough to confer notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keena Bonella

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

Bonella won a state beauty pageant which is not enough on its own to establish notability. Her work in discouraging illegal drug use is non-notable. She appears to be a good person but we lack the sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the best there is, a Miss USA 2007, which is not surprising since this has not been largely touched since then, nothing else at all convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom, winning one state pageant does not establish notability. MB 03:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and winning a subnatinal pageant is not a claim to notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ali Pourmiri

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

Not yet notable per WP:NFOOTBALL: community college player who has not yet played in a professional match. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 3 July 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) 21:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:10, 4 July 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) 07:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Hassan Zoha

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

WP:BLP1E. Subject disappeared after a heist, reappeared, and so far, that's it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the original stub article; I now agree, events have shown this to be a case of WP:BLP1E. Delete -- The Anome (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - per good sourcing and per the fact that he covers aspects of WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. Imo, it does not qualify as notable as per WP:BIO. NB a suggestion has been made to merge into the article 2016_Bangladesh_Bank_heist. I don't think merge is worthwhile, but not opposed either.

24.246.23.7 (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable one time story. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Arthistorian1977. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 19:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As far as I am converned, this is a poster case of WP:ONEEVENT, but a large fraction of voters in good standing disagree and cite WP:GNG, so that I am obliged to close this as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of David Douglas

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

NN criminal, notability not asserted, WP:TOOSOON as an event article, WP:BIO1E (because it is still very much a BIO article masquerading as something else, and WP:NOTNEWS at this point as well. The fact that the subject's entire criminal history (which is also the majority of the content of this article) is sourced primarily to one article written after his death does not meet the BIO requirement of establishing notability prior to death. I assume this is why it was created as an EVENT article, and yet all we have is "the event happened." At the very least this is a footnote in the gangland feud article, but as no actual connection has been established, this should not be redirected there based on supposition, and the article needs to be weighed on its merits as a standalone article. MSJapan (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither the deceased, nor the circumstances of his death, are notable. WWGB (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and WWGB. Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable for several reasons: 1. Former member of Provisional IRA (and possibly expelled for involvement with illegal drugs), 2. Conviction for shooting a police officer with indent to kill, 3. Conviction for posession of 8kg of cocaine (sentenced to 10 years with 5 suspended), 4. Surviving a previous assassination attempt in 2015. This means that WP:BIO1E does not apply, as the deceased was notable for more than one event, particularly reasons 1, 2 and 4. Regarding sourcing, I will endeavour to add more WP:RS to support the article in the next few days. The question of links to the feud in question is a line of enquiry, as related by the Irish Times source in the article. Autarch (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very very weak keep - The fact that he is/was a member of the IRA IS notable and mostly because I am siding with the comments of Autarch, but the article needs a REWRITE to SHOW notability. The article as it is written deserves a speedy delete, because all it really says is a good Irish boy went bad, became a criminal, sold drugs, shot a police officer and finally was shot at and finally killed. Tippytim304 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been expanded to cover more of his early 1980s criminal activities, as well as providing WP:RS for links to Kinehan gang. Will add more as I find them. Autarch (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is non-notable, so no idea why his death would warrant an article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He is an infamous Irish criminal, and one that was IRA. Al Capone, Brian Nichols, John Gotti, etc.... are notable for their criminal activity. And I believe if he is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia about Ireland/Irish topics, he is notable here, even if his name isn't worth much to an American. Tippytim304 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. Clearly good sourcing, noted case.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Autarch:: Even with the addition of sources, there is still a problem, because you are now asserting notability for the individual via an an article on an event. This a common conflation - notability for an event is not notability of a person. If the event doesn't meet WP:EVENT, then the event is not notable, and it largely doesn't matter who was involved in it, because WP:NOTINHERITED applies. If instead. you want to indicate that the victim is notable, then we need to address WP:CRIME and WP:BIO, which is a different discussion entirely. At this point, we are concerned with an article that says "a career criminal was possibly shot due to his criminal career," and I don't particularly think that's notable in any country. Moreover, the coverage has to be greater than WP:NOTNEWS - the people you cited as famous criminals are famous because they killed dozens of people and oversaw illegal empires that raked in millions. Shooting a cop and drug possession and almost getting killed once are, honestly, parr for the course. Being PIRA? If there were six folks in it, sure, but there were a lot more than six folks in it, and they don't all get articles for that, again per WP:NOTINHERITED. So just be aware of all that. MSJapan (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @MSJapan: Granted, the article has become a biography rather than an article on the event of his death, which is probably due to the information that has become available as well as the apparent lack of any developments linking it to the Kinehan-Hutch feud. Regarding WP:CRIME, he took part in four raids in 1982, three of which he claimed were carried out on behalf of the PIRA, a claim accepted by the Gardaí, meaning he was acting on IRA orders. Given that the PIRA was a proscribed organisation in the Republic of Ireland, these, as well as attempting to shoot a Garda with intent to kill, go from being average criminal acts to being ones of subversion. (Also, membership in the PIRA was itself a crime in the Republic of Ireland.) His subsequent criminal career in illicit drugs is evidence of continuing criminal activity - combined with WP:BIO, the article is referenced with multiple reliable sources, meeting WP:BASIC and WP:CRIME. Autarch (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Autarch: So what you're telling me is a) the shooting was apparently not related to the event that caused this article in the first place, and b) that the subject is a notable criminal because he claimed to have worked for the IRA and tried to shoot a Garda 35 years ago? Sounds pretty run-of-the-mill as far as a criminal goes, but maybe I'm just cynical and don't find it surprising that an armed criminal tried to kill a police officer. I don't want to use an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but a lot of the articles in Category:Irish criminals (and particularly the "Irish republicans imprisoned on charges of terrorism" subcat) have shown heavy coverage (often upwards of 20 sources) of the events and trials surrounding the individuals, even if they were just on trial for raids. So it seems that there is a fairly high bar in place for notability strictly on IRA grounds, and I'm not sure why we can't find which raids Douglas allegedly participated in.

One of the problems that occurs is that certain people get no coverage until they die. WP:BIO also indicates that we have to show notability prior to death, and thus far, the whole of his "criminal past" has appeared to have come out in post-death material (a case of WP:RECENTISM. I don't really put too much stock in a claim the IRA never substantiated, especially when it was more convenient for the Gardai to believe him. I'm not sure how easy it is to do, because I've had no luck, but you're going to need to find earlier coverage, during his life, aside from an arrest report. MSJapan (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the place where WP:BIO "indicates that we have to show notability prior to death." It is not unusual for an individual to show notability only after his death, Jane Austen and Henry Darger are in that category. In this case, we have a major newspaper bio/profile of Douglas written after his death, (Latest feud victim was long-time member of Provisional IRA, Cusack, Jim. Sunday Independent [Dublin] 03 July 2016: 6. [13]).E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no need to intricately untangle the separate notability of the event and the individual. Taken together there is adequate coverage. It actually makes very good sense to describe together an individual and the circumstances of his death. We do not insist that the coverage of a person must have been written before they died. We very often use obituaries both as an indicator of notability and as a source of biographical information. Thincat (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage was international, at least, British papers as well as Irish ones. But IMO the thing that makes it a keeper is not only the fact that there were 2 attempts to kill this gangster, it is the angle in this headline "IRA and INLA at war on capital's streets: Aligning of the INLA with Kinahans and IRA with the Hutches stokes fears of further violence, writes Jim Cusack" (Sunday Independent [Dublin] 10 July 2016) [14] This lifts it in to the realm of WP:GNG and out of the realm of a routine "gangland feud." It can be usefully linked from a number of articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is correct in pointing out that this is essentially a bio, but then the subject does appear to meet GNG. I don't believe BLP1E applies here, because there is some coverage from before the shooting [15] and some from after the shooting that nonetheless discusses his previous activities in detail [16]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I acknowledge the Keep votes and what they say, but I'm still seeing questionability about the overall solidity here, and how it can be futurely maintained; there's nothing else to suggest any other better information and sources, suggesting this is better deleted. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I appreciate the concerns and constructive criticism as to how the article should be improved, to the central point it looks to me that multiple reliable sources identify Douglas as a dangerous criminal of notoriety, report his shooting as a shocking event, and also find that there are broader implications to the attack in terms of inter-criminal conflicts. This seems, well, part and parcel of what many other related articles talk about. Should the page be revamped, maybe drastically? I could agree with that. I don't feel that deletion is the right move. This is no matter about some random hoodlum off the streets. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except the last point does not appear to be the case; it was speculative at the time, and does not seem to have been borne out. The initial notability here was presumed on that relationship. Barring that, I don't see what makes him notable - he's not the only PIRA member, he's not the only Irish drug dealer, etc., and I suppose what I find to be the biggest problem is that the only person who said he was PIRA was the subject. Now, that may be the norm, but it's a legitimate concern, I think. None of those things presumes GNG, as there aren't articles on every drug dealer or PIRA member. Maybe I'm just not impressed through some Clockwork Orange-style lack of "superviolence" here, but I just don't see how this is anything more than an article on a run-of-the-mill criminal whose notability (because this was written as events unfolded instead of a "lagging indicator" as it should have been) was predicated on something that wasn't proven. MSJapan (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Coverage does not, to me, seem to exceed what can be expected for any run-of-the-mill violent crime story. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E, that's not what we're here for. Can be recreated if coverage persists over a longer period of time. Sandstein 07:16, 24 July 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Špiro Kulišić

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

Kulišić was a head of the Belgrade Etnographic Museum. Wrote much but all his works were un-academic with false citations, forgeries, and fabrications. It cannot be said that he was a notable author in a positive way. The article, as written, is without valid sources, based only on a single reference which does not even mention Kulišić nor his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per lack of sources and not being notable. --Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Vujkovica brdo (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Stroke above !vote, editor is nominator. –– Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 01:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new edit, and lack of any evidence of not being notable, and especially false accusations.--Crovata (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New edit is one-sided and includes just a small number (3) of references. It does not include numerous negative views about Kulisic's writing. Wikipedia demands proofs of notability not proofs of not being notable. Please, provide proofs of notability in a positive academic way and per Wikipedia rules and guidances.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The new article revision is positive, it is not one-sided, it has enough number of references which cover his biography and most important information, and there is hard to find the general criticism of his work. Previous revision had no reference for the accusations on "un-academic" work, by which the nominator "one-sided" premise is invalid. Also, those accusations were supported by the outdated political and cultural ideology of the time. Moreover, as can be seen there existed sources for the article improvement by which, under rule "C.", it was not a candidate for AfD. The proof for notability is provided, obviously the nominator is not familiar with WP:SCHOLAR, by which Š. Kulišić is notable under several conditions.--Crovata (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Crovata Did you read WP:SCHOLAR? Which of the nine criteria is applicable to poor Š. Kulišić? Please, substantiate and elaborate just one of the several claimed.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since a personal opinion of an author's work is not basis for the deletion of an biographic article. The article could use improvement, but the deletion proposal is evidently guided by a single user's personal opinion, which makes it unacceptable. Sideshow Bob 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.@Sideshow Bob No place for talking about my personal opinion here. See the article talk page. In addition, this man Š. Kulišić is not notable for not a single criterion of the WP:SCHOLAR is applicable to his work.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The talk page does not contain valid arguments for deletion, and by the way njegos.org is not a reliable source as it is a heavily biased Serb nationalist website. I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality, but take notice that even complete lunatics such as the pseudo-historian Jovan I. Deretić have their articles here too. Hence, my suggestion is an improvement of the article from a neutral perspective, rather than its deletion. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 09:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sideshow Bob Nonsensic reply. The talk page nowhere addressed Jovan I. Deretić - rather
  Ethnogenesis and Socialist Nation: Polemics on O etnogenezi Crnogoraca in 1980s Yugoslavia by Takuya Nakazawa Paper presented at ICCEES IX World Congress 7th August 2015, Makuhari, Japan
  Dordje Vid Tomasevic Retired professor of Anthropology at the Buffalo University in New York and member of Crown Council Montenegrins and other Serbs
  
  " I am not familiar enough with this author's work to comment on its academic quality" very good! Then what makes you to request keeping this article if you are not able to elaborate and substantiate WP:SCHOLAR criteria of notability?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vujkovica brdo due you understand that the article is invalid candidate for Afd if you're listing (are those reliable?) sources by which the article could be improved? If a scholar is notable for any one of the conditions, and can be substantiated through reliable sources, is notable. He is especially notable by condition 1 (his work made a significant impact in the disciplines), 4 (significant impact on the ethnography and museology institutions), 5 or 6 (he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations like National Museum in Bosnia and Herzegovina). Personal editor opinion is invalid criteria for deletion.--Crovata (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Crovata This user associated his or her empty statements to the WP:SCHOLAR criteria. "his work made a significant impact in the disciplines"? Does this user know English good enough to lead a serious discussion? "he was official in charge of the scientific institutions and associations"!! - really laughable. Personal opinions, incomplete and wrong understanding of the WP:SCHOLAR.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no lack of sources, Kulisic is often quoted in the past 60+ years, and I have added some citations to verify this as a fact. To freely quote two of them, he is well-known and influential. Subject meets WP:NACADEMICS. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 19:21, 1 August 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Hutch

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

NN criminal, WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 22:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject has convictions for: 1. manslaughter, 2. armed robbery (with a sentence of sixteen years, a heavy sentence by Irish standards). He is also a high-security prisoner. Autarch (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But it's complicated. There are 2 Irish criminals named "Derek Hutch" The one in this article is a nephew of "Monk" Hutch. "Monk" Hutch also has a brother named Derek Hutch, a convicted rapist and thief who committed suicide in 2009 at age 44. His funeral was protected by police who anticipated that "hit squads" targeting other members of the family. My proquest archives search on "Derek Hutch" turns up more than enough to support articles on the brother and on the nephew of "Monk" Hutch. The British and, especially, the Irish press have covered both intensively over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Granite

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

Article was created by a blocked sock puppeteer/paid editor, and has not received substantial edits by other users. As the article was created before he/she was caught (but well after the abuse started), it doesn't qualify for CSD. I proposed deletion but it was deprodded on the basis of winning an Emmy Award, as claimed in the article. Of course, if you actually follow the refs, you see that it's not an Emmy Award but a "Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award". Needless to say, that does not confer notability. Fails WP:GNG. If there's a surprising claim to notability, I'd still suggest this be WP:TNTed given the context, and recreated from scratch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is very tough and there's probably a good case for keeping the article as well. The Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award certainly isn't a sign of notability, but the fact he's appeared on USA Today and some other bits do start to create a case. Given the story behind the creation of the article, though, I am inclined to suggest deletion. KaisaL (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete/Keep decisions are based on whether a subject is notable and not on its article history. USA Today considers him to be a notable expert in his field per this and this, for example. WGN also considers him an expert [17]. Other sources provide a biographical sketch.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- USA Today writes about his expertise because he's an employee of USA Today. We need sources independent of the subject. I guess an interview on an AM radio station helps, but working for USA Today does not -- we'd need more articles like the WGN one about him/his work (preferably better than WGN). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing about him to use as a reference. Everything I find is either his own work, or others picking up on the "deals" he broadcasts or writes about. Those are not about him, and there's nothing substantial about them - just where to get the lowest prices on various products. LaMona (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning a local emmy does not make someone notable. Having under 150,000 Youtube followers almost seems like a sign you are not notable, clearly not one you are. We have no even moderately outside sources, and having some of his work published in non-local publications does not change the failure to even appraoch notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 10 July 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Md Tawfiqur Rahman

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

Unnotable person. Googling them brings up little-to-no results. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:BASIC; source searches have provided zero coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a 15-year-old who has been involved in debate, evidently at the high school level, and has promoted himself over facebook. Nothing close to notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lack of discussion renders consensus undeterminable. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 03:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick de Suarez d'Aulan

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

Zero sources found on the web (FWIW the subject is president of the company "SOC COMMERC CHATEAU HEBERTOT", but at 40k€ it is no notability claim), and the book is not independent coverage either. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article is ostensibly about a person, whose only claim to notability is that he is the heir apparent of a French marquess. However most of the content is about people who I assume were his ancestors (though this is not stated) – some of these were probably notable, though there are no wikilinks. Maproom (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would say the article on Jean de Suarez d'Aulan is seriously lacking, and it does appear we have severe lack of articles on the key figures in Iberia in the late 15th and early 16th centirues, although whether a Fernando Suarez de Figueroa was really a key military leader in taking Granada is unclear, it is clear there was a Catholic bishop in Spain by that same name in the years immediately before and after 1600, who may well be notable. Henri de Suarez d'Aulan may also well have been an important enough figure in 18th-century France to merit an article. Alternatively we might create an article called Suarez d'Aulan family. However the subject of this article is clearly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:44, 22 July 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Stejskalova

I don't think that this article should be delete, because it's based on truth.

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

Fails WP:GNG. References in the article are made up of Youtube links, work profiles, dead links, and promotional blogs. Aust331 (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 1 July 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 // 01:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge and Redirect to Sutal Dolls, which is the group to which the subject belongs. The only other claim to notability that conceivably could be made for the subject was winning that recent Miss Supertalent competition. But, the article doesn't go into much detail about it and there doesn't appear to be enough to support a stand-alone article. I note that the proposed redirect target has also been nominated for deletion. If the target has not been kept, then my recommendation here is for Delete. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC) amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing actually convincing for her own substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per low overall participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soumya Mishra

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

Non notable police officer Uncletomwood (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uncletomwood,She was the first female IPS of Odisha and How can you say that, She's non notable? - Sailesh Patnaik ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 06:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She isn't the first female officer of India but merely a First Female officer of a particular State, does not show any notability as per WP:GNG Uncletomwood (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy states that we should have articles only on "first from a country"? Her works and contributions are well-acknowledged and covered. I think it passed WP:GNG. I'll add my own vote after doing a little more study. --Tito Dutta (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable police officer, Fails GNG. 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Mackensen (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Gerth

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

Here solely for being one of literally thousands of recipients of a military award during WWII, with no other information that would meet WP:BIO, and as a matter of fact, there's nothing given to show what the award ws given for in the first place. WP:SOLDIER indicates that notability is presumed if the person has received the highest award, but in this case, it is functionally the highest, as only Hitler received the actual highest award, and it seems to have been given out much more frequently than one would expect of a nation's highest military award. I think some debate overall needs to be had on whether the Knight's Cross is sufficient in general for an article, but this particular article is way too shoddy. MSJapan (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as significant coverage in RS cannot be found. The article was created in 2008 showing one non-RS citation to a dubious site "frontjkemper", and the intervening years have not produced an improvement. As editor MSJapan notes, there are many more articles of this nature, for example:
Hans Weiss, 2008,
Herman Lang, 2008 and
Georg Schoenberger, 2008, just to cite a few

K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a can of worms I opened up. It looks like this article was created by Jim sweeney @Jim Sweeney: a now semi-retired editor whose first articles were mainly about British units but then created at least 300 articles related to individuals and units of the Waffen-SS. These articles rely very heavily on German language sources and often follow a pattern of stating what is in a German language record of those of received the knights cross (info like their their birthday, place of birth, in which battle they fought when they received the award, what they did after the war and when and where they died). One author who is mentioned frequently was Walther-Peer Fellgiebel and he started a veterans club after the war and I'm not sure that his record keeping is something that editors should use as the basis for articles because he himself wasn't too happy with its accuracy. Some of the 300 or so articles that were created some are valid and notable but many others are far less so and I believe these would have trouble meeting the notability criteria (e.g. Alfred Roge, Léon Gillis (soldier), Friedrich Blond). I have not looked through all 300 articles but I guess that's really the only way to do this. As I said, it seems almost all of these are relying on the same sources (in German) and using the same template and providing the same details. I'm also not sure if, as pointed out by K.e.coffman @K.e.coffman: these meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" criteria.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I would like to add to any discussion of criteria for Nazi era German soldiers that it seems especially strange to have wikipedia pages for people who were members of units who were often involved in war crimes (e.g. Waffen SS members) and only mention that they showed "extreme battlefield bravery" or "successful military leadership" but never that they participated in mass killings or anything else during their time with these notorious units.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different problem - the extent of the content here is entirely based on the extent of the content that was provided. MSJapan (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I reckon a redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (G) is probably the most appropriate course of action with these and similar articles where the award is verified, but significant coverage hasn't been established. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per Megalibrarygirl, the possibility of a WP:TOOSOON means this close is with no prejudice to recreation at a more appropriate time in the future. KaisaL (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Grace Barla

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

NPOV BLP with a single source that doesn't meet standards, notes were given to creator but issues not addressed. Not much found outside of subject's website. JamesG5 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable jouranlist and activitist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Her inclusion on the United Nations page shows that she is doing important work. No prejudice for recreation if there is more news about her in the future. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing at all convincing, I would've still explored A7 speedy. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not convinced that the only argument to keep, particularly coming from a contentious source, is weighty enough to shift the consensus here in any way. KaisaL (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D Roopa IPS

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

Non Notable mid level police officer. President's Police Medal does not qualify WP:Military nor WP:Soldier. Almost all officers get President's Police Medal. Article does not meet notability guidelines and is written in an autobiographical style. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I feel that this page must be given some more time.As per wikipedia policy of deletion, one independent source is necessary and for this article in reference number 37 and 38, an article on her in the most reputed newspaper Times of India has been mentioned. This article in Times of India has covered almost all aspects of D Roopa IPS as mentioned in Wikipedia page. Also, there is a reference in number 6, which is also about her in a short and crisp manner ,however, the reference is in Kannada language. Hence, as two independent sources are very much referenced, this article should not be deleted. Hongkonger56 (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Uncletomwood, I believe that D Roopa IPS is notable because, she is the first kannadiga lady IPS officer. She won prestigious President's Police Medal. She is an inspiration to many youngsters particularly girls. Any information on her would inspire women. Most of the references about her are in vernaculars. She is a popular person on various discussion panels in Kannada TV channels. She has a whopping 6650 followers on her Facebook page called D Roopa Moudgil. Within 40 days of her on twitter, she has a Followers number of whopping 1100. She is notable. Consider it again please.nick 07:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sakthi swaroop. Creator of this article as well as the other commentators are all sock puppets. 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a fan following on Facebook isn't a criteria at all. The Presidential Police Medal is a run of the mill award which is given to 70% police officers ranging from constable to DGP. So it doesn't comply with WP:SOLDIER. The page is a puff page and the subject matter of the article is not notable Uncletomwood (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: @Davey2010:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If @SwisterTwister: @Davey2010: do not have comments, @DGG: can analyze and delete Uncletomwood (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never got the first ping .... brilliant ping system we have!, Anyway non notable soldier - No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 05:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no real notability, and almost entirely promotional . Perhaps G11 is the best approach to articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 07:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur the G11 claim, by far still nothing convincing . SwisterTwister talk 20:31, 16 July 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 evidence was shown in this discussion, that heading a police force in a city of X population meets our criteria for notability. Therefore, this article's subject is found to lack the required notability for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navdeep Singh Virk

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

Non Notable mid level police officer. Merely holding the post of Commissioner of a city in India does not show notability. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commands the police in a city of nearly 900,000 people. In my opinion that shows sufficient notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just heading the Police force for a city (with a tenure of hardly 1-2 years) without doing anything notable makes him notable enough? Uncletomwood (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Just like serving in a national legislature for three days does (see WP:POLITICIAN)! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can;t see how that policy cann be applied here. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm. What's so special about a politician? Yet they get inherent notability just for sitting in a legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that meant. He's anyway transferred out of the post. Uncletomwood (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should be deleted as the person in question is a mid level officer. Gurgaon is not a metro City. Page is promotional and autobiographical with exaggerations. While we do have some biographies of very senior police officers—mainly those with direct responsibility for major metro areas—we've never usually hosted biographies of officials at this level of smaller cities. Plus, the article appears to be heavily padded with things which happened to occur on his watch, rather than things for which he was directly responsible. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable police officer, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as his position is not convincing for actually establishing independence. SwisterTwister talk 19:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Sahay

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable retired police officer Uncletomwood (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to pass WP:GNG, plus his time in office, awards and other work since seem to show he is notable enough for an article. Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's held mainly non notable posts. His awards are also not notable. Mind clarifying? Uncletomwood (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 03:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know - his notability is at best marginal and the article has a terrible problem with COI editors coming in to write about how marvellous he is. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist — Music1201 ^talk 00:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:29, 22 July 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. Euryalus (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gallagher (anthropologist)

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

Fails the GNG – no significant coverage in independent sources. There isn't really a claim to notability made in the article, it just seems to be the case of an anthropologist doing his job. Note: this was originally a PROD, but the article's creator objected. Based on that objection, it would be preferable if the AfD is not closed until the article's creator has had their say. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing that looks like a claim of notability here is co-authorship of a book Noonkanbah, whose land, whose law, but I didn't find the multiple independent reviews needed for WP:AUTHOR and in any case by itself that would still be a case of WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nominator noted, no real claim to notability here - it's just a kind of abbreviated resume without anything to hang on as to why it should be in an encyclopedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable academic. At least, no claim to notability on the page, and my searches couldn't source notability, although he is real; sources for his work exist [18], just nothing that I saw supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still nothing at all for any actual convincing independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 9 July 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) 16:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Turley

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. - Mr X 11:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a fine illustrator, but the refs are about the books he illustrates and/or the book authors, and not about him.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable illustrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no coverage in reliable secondary sources. In the fullness of time, the subject might become notable. But not now. David in DC (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the NYTimes source barely mentions him, there's simply nothing else actually convincing. SwisterTwister talk 18:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This AFD debate has received very high levels of participation, including some very detailed and well researched arguments. I cannot, however, established a clear consensus to delete nor to keep. Given the substantial input that there has already been, and given a previous AFD debate that went to a keep in 2015 (albeit one with very minimal participation and nowhere near this level of analysis), I am not convinced that relisting at this time would yield any more of an actionable outcome. As such, I am closing this as a no consensus. (Finally, I note that the issue of paid editing is not in and of itself an issue for AFD, and this taking place on any article does make it any more or less eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. As such, I have discounted these concerns.) KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. FOUR selectors (religion, gender, nationality and occupation) to establish her qualification as a "first person" is not notability at all. for (;;) (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I pointed out in the first AfD on this subject, she already passes GNG. She is significantly covered by several major news sources. That's all that has to happen in order to pass GNG. This 2nd AfD feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Megalibrarygirl, I didn't see the previous nomination 'til after I'd posted, so not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I did reconsider once I saw it, but the maths of 500+ religions * 2 genders * 200+ nationalities suggests that there would be over 200000 notable airline pilots. That's not notability. for (;;) (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For (;;), it is notable if she's been covered by several reliable sources, making her pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unquestioned coverage in third party sources, more than adequate indicia of notability, significant ground-breaking role. Snow keep, this is a WP:POINTy nom and should not have been made. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, if there's any "POINT" it's that the contributions of sockpuppets merit reconsideration in the full context of the author's behaviour. The article may escape G5 by virtue of timing, but that doesn't mean it should get a free pass. Happy editing, for (;;) (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor can have their account blocked for bad behavior, but the article should stand on its own merits. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be an undisclosed paid editing case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has merits, sourcing. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:BLP1E, fails WP:V (see below for disputed claims of being the "first") and undisclosed paid editing. I deliberated over this for a while but I do not see a claim of notability nor that this is something "groundbreaking".

I can understand if the subject was the first woman commercial pilot in India, but she is not (there were 600 of them before her in India). It should be noted that compared to other countries, India already has a higher proportion of female pilots at 11.6% In contrast, the US has less then 6% female pilots and the global average is 3%. Just because she is a Muslim doesn't give her a claim of notability. Had she done something more, like establishing a foundation or scholarship or fought for some rights, I might have considered. This is essentially BLP1E territory. If you take away the fact that she is Muslim, the person just wouldn't have a claim of significance. I do not see any other claims of significance either.
Disputed claim. I'm not sure if she is actually the first. There is another claim which states "Capt. Syeda Salva Fatima, the only Muslim woman in India to hold the commercial pilot’s licence" (See also [19]). There are other news sites which state Saarah Hameed Ahmed is the only Muslim women pilot from Karnataka, a state in India.
I have to agree with User:For (;;)'s statement that FOUR selectors (religion, gender, nationality and occupation) to establish her qualification as a "first person" is not notability at all. Had it been "race/ethnicity" instead of religion, I may have been more sympathetic as race is something a person cannot choose. But religion is an ideology and person's choice; so I don't see why a person should be notable simply because of their affiliation with a religion. Even in cases of religion, I may have been sympathetic if there was some evidence of institutional discrimination against people of a certain religion from taking up a particular occupation or if it was a persecuted religious minority. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
This is an undisclosed paid editing article and I am not sympathetic to it, particularly when notability is shaky.

Overall, this is a delete for me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I read this article to say she is the first muslim woman pilot, which, in mostly-Hindu India seems like a big deal as there is both a gender and and an ethnic barrier. But anyway, what proof do we have that this is a paid editing article? Let's not throw out these accusations without proof. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to that. There is no evidence of an institutional "religious barrier" and "gender" barrier. 600 other woman plots were already serving before her. And while India is a Hindu majority, there is no evidence that it denies Muslims from becoming commercial pilots. Should there be evidence, I might change my mind. But till now I have not found any. I would also be cautious at looking at the Islamophobic angle - it is incorrect to assume that just because the West suffers from it, the whole of the world suffers as well. The situation is much more nuanced. As an example, over here in Singapore, Muslims are 15% of the population, but we live together in harmony and Muslim women are not barred from any occupation. Our neighbouring countries are Malaysia and Indonesia which are significant Muslim majorities, so we don't really see our local Muslims as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" as some people in the West think all Muslims are. Which is why, unless it can be shown that the subject suffered from some kind of institutional barrier, I am not very sympathetic to this single claim.
This is without doubt a paid editing work. You can have a look at the contributions of the author to verify. In addition, the article itself gives away that it is a paid editing work; certain details present in the article are not there in any citations I could find. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the editor blocked? If so, please link to block log. If the article has citation issues, that's different, but I see no reason not to try and improve the article. And seriously, discrimination against women exists EVERYWHERE, and a person has to have to have their head in the sand to think that any dominant culture does not discriminate against a minority culture. Singapore is not India. If a person thinks that institutional barriers are all that exist to prove discrimination, anywhere in the world, that is nonsense. Extremely oppressive governments can have a superficial "equality" policy while simultaneously never managing to hire anyone from a lower-prestige group. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block log. for (;;) (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per above arguments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The article subject passes WP:GNG because of all the sources mentioned above. Whoever created the article, whether a disclosed paid editor or not, does not keep the subject from being notable or from passing GNG. I agree with the Drover's Wife. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and I'll note that something being the product of paid editing does not in and of itself make an article worthy of deletion. Keilana (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – based on the arguments of Lemongirl942 findings and for (;;) for the four reasons of religion, gender, nationality and occupation. It's easily a BLP1E. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 00:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. This has nothing to do with paid editing. This level of cross-categorization does not establish notability. What's next, the first transgender Mormon plumber in Choa Chu Kang? SST flyer 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reason given in previous AfD. The sources (karnatakamuslim.com, australianmuslimtimes.com, islamicvoice.com, iinanews.org, mvslim.com) which seemingly make her appear pass GNG are not "independent" because they promote a specific religion and their coverage of the subject for being associated with this religion should not be considered as independent. The currentaffairsonline.in is not even WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please add "professional pilot" as the fifth selector. A certain Hijab Imtiaz Ali is noted to be the first Indian Muslim woman pilot dating to 1936. Women's studies in India: contours of change, Volume 2001, page 53 Of course, that was undivided India then and she was flying privately and not in commercial airlines; which probably were none in India then. The so called first+indian+muslim+woman+pilot propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources I listed above should be gauged well in light of this information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah Dharmadhyaksha, thanks for digging that up! I just found more references [20],[21] that Hijab Imtiaz Ali was actually notable and that she may have been the first woman pilot (irrespective of religion) in South Asia. I'm probably going to write an article about her. I'm glad the claims were examined. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Sarla Thakral who also flew mail flights and missed getting her commercial license because of World War II. —SpacemanSpiff 10:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First Muslim woman maybe, see User talk:TripWire#Translation. Rabia Futehally is another prominent example. The Masked Man of Mega Might (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the translation. So Hijab Imtiaz Ali was the first Muslim woman pilot in the Indian subcontinent and Rabia Futehally was also another one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably needs an edit to say that it newspapers have claimed her to be the first, but that other persons were the actual first. The articles on her provide the notability required - and frankly, if this was a case where a Christian newspaper was making a religious based claim about someone, this wouldn't be here. However, it has resulted in further information being brought to light that will be able to balance the article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miyagawa, this WOULD be here because it was created by a sockpuppeteer who had created several unrelated puff pieces for people of dubious notability. If you want to ignore WP:AGF and accuse me of religious bigotry please take it straight to WP:ANI. for (;;) (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I accuse you of nothing. I have no idea who you are, and have never interacted with you before. Nor were you the person whose comments I was referring to. That being said, I wasn't attempt to claim anyone was a religious bigot here either, just possibly some subconscious bias. I take umbrage at the suggestion that an Australian Muslim news source is not worthy as a reliable source because it is either a) Australian or b) Muslim (there would be obviously other valid reasons for a source to be unreliable, but that wasn't what was said). I was trying to state that if something had been published in the The Christian Post about an American Christian then we wouldn't question the authority of the source. Much like if something was published in any other specialist newspaper (whether religious or otherwise) that deals with a defined topic. For example, a Japanese magazine on plumbing would still be a reliable source when talking about Japanese plumbing. Concerns about the magazine promoting plumbing generally as employment, perhaps to the detriment of other forms of employment, would be irrelevant if we were discussing an AFD on Japanese toilet manufacturing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miyagawa, the problem here is that the only claim to notability has been debunked here. What do you have to say to that? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim to notability is no longer that she is the first. Now the notability is based in that the sources claimed she was the first, with the information that she wasn't presented as a counterpoint within the article. I worked on the Delaval Astley article a while ago, who you probably haven't heard of but he has been held up by several reliable sources as being the only person in the history of the Olympic Games to have won medals for two different countries. Complete rubbish as it turns out, and was a mistake due to a misunderstanding of how something was written in a report by the British Curling Association - he never even played at the Olympics. But he too remains notable for the claim that he won two medals, not because he won two medals. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Miyagawa:. The problem here is that NO reliable source ever said she was the "first Muslim (even commercial) pilot from India" - only certain unreliable sources said so. Hence, there is no claim of notability here. This article fails WP:V and much of the content is being supported by unreliable sources. The Australian Muslim source that you are talking about - I tried opening the website and Google chrome says the site has malware. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The australianmuslimtimes.com has been removed as stated above by Lemongirl1942. If Miyagawa thinks other mentioned sources are WP:RS, they will have to prove that individually. These sources are hardly being used on EnWiki as of now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for being notable enough to have own article. There are multiple in-depth coverage about her in mainstream media such as [22], [23], [24] etc and her struggle against odds have also been documented[25]. If we can have article on Prem Mathur, Nivedita Bhasin etc. then we can definitely have this article. Jiahimedluke (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no enduring and persistent claim of notability and this is a BLP1E. She is NOT the first Muslim-woman-pilot in India. The claim got debunked. Just being the "only known Muslim among the 600-odd women pilots employed in the Indian aviation sector" at present is no claim of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced with Dharmadhyaksha's claim of so called first+indian+muslim+woman+pilot propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources unless he can establish this with reliable sources. I don't think the claim of first Muslim-woman-pilot in India got debunked because according to that source, Hijab Imtiaz Ali was first female muslim pilot during 1936 when India was not an independent nation and Pakistan and Bangladesh were not formed. Hijab Imtiaz Ali wasn't even a commercial pilot. Jiahimedluke (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I spy WP:OTHERSTUFF... (Not to mention some other stuff being mentioned through out the AFD) Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 07:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claims and descriptors

First Indian woman pilot in pre-independence India - Sarla Thakral
First Indian Muslim woman pilot in pre-independence India - Hijab Imtiaz Ali
First Indian woman commercial pilot in post-independence India (employed in the aviation sector) - Prem Mathur
First Indian woman commercial pilot in post-independence India to command a plane (employed in the aviation sector)- Durba Banerjee
First Indian (Muslim) woman pilot in post-independence Indiato receive private pilot license - Rabia Futehally [26],[27]
First Indian Muslim woman pilot in post-independence India to receive commercial pilot license - Syeda Salva Fatima
(Possible) First Indian Muslim woman pilot in post-independence India to receive commercial pilot licence and also be employed in the aviation sector - Saarah Hameed Ahmed

Sorry, but this is stretching the notability a bit too far for something which is a BLP1E. In addition, NO reliable source confirms that the subject was "first Indian muslim woman pilot employed in the aviation industry". I would like to see if someone can show me such a reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the first Indian film was made in pre-Independent India, we do not hail any film as first+indian+post-independence+film. We don't do such for first dam, first electricity plant, first female doctor, first female teacher, first railway line, etc. Such crappy senseless added adjectives of first post-independence are need for people who lack notability but still need publicity and internet coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not fail WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is WP:BLP1E not GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E is not applicable here, that is the standard for people famous for a single incident (and that "rule" is inconsistently applied, else why does Lawnchair Larry still exist?). Montanabw ^(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lawnchair Larry exists because sources have demonstrated a lasting significance. This is also the same reason why Sarla Thakral exists but Derek Ramsey (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian) (2nd nomination)) doesn't exist. Saarah Hameed Ahmed is BLP1E and the single claim to perhaps lasting notability got debunked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not make the argument any better than Lemongirl942 did above. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's still enough questionability about the depth and overall substance for this article, it's best deleted because, while the claim is convincing enough, the questionability still stays noticed. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:SwisterTwister, you fail to notice that WP:N presents a presumption of notability, not the other way around. Lack of notability is what needs to be established, and even though the "first Muslim woman pilot in India" has been debunked, we still need to look at general GNG... she has independent, third-party coverage that meets GNG. She doesn't have to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Montanabw ^(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Independent? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of firsts in India. We cannot have articles for non-notable and trivial issues like this. In June, I marked page Veerath Bharathi for CSD who was "Bengaluru's first woman cab driver". What next, India's first ~~female~~ Bengali female plumber or India's first Hindu female break-dancer???? Where does this end. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Various sources, and those were far better and notable newspaper sources than the pro-muslim agenda sources I listed above, were mentioning a certain Raj Narayan Dube as notable. Post Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Narayan Dube, the article was proved to be a hoax and deleted for his notability was questioned and no actual reliable sources of his era were found to establish his notability. In similar case here, we should not allow a Wikipedia space for someone with whom some newspapers have been generous enough to not fact check but simple sprang to grab interviews based on her sole notability which has been refuted. Such hoaxes should not be promoted even though many sources provide GNG passage of the topic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of above, but keep some content as per all of above. Replace with an article along the lines of History of Indian female aviation with all of the firsts listed by Lemongirl942 under claims and descriptors with a few paragraphs each. I think such would be an interesting encyclopedic article, easily with sufficient multiple RSS per paragraph. (Repeating myself again:) but if people put as much effort into arguing for and against and article into the article itself it might be well on the way to being a GA. There is a lot of good research above if someone would just pull it altogether into a fact consistent article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like the idea of a list or history article, a better title that avoids "female" in favor of "women" would by History of women's aviation in India. Also avoids the confusion of Native American "Indians" with Asian "Indians." I also agree that the bandwidth spent here should go to improving articles; sadly, when one is confronting a herd of deletion advocates, the priority has to be to stop the bleeding with a few rough stitches before prettifying the article. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea but I'm very firm on deleting this article. Considering the fact that Wikipedia is a widely used source and WP:V is essential, I shudder to think the number of readers who have read and got the wrong info from this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Berman (Strategist & Author)

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

Blatantly promotional biography. Lacks the references and sources to meet the notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Kelly ^hi! 07:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been edited to meet notability requirements of WP:AUTHOR. Joshmplant (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither meets WP:AUTHOR nor WP:BASIC. --Edcolins (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Edited version cite with enough depth to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps explain why you think that he meets WP:AUTHOR? There are four criteria, and in my opinion, none of them is met here. For example, he does not seem to be "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Although he appears to be a member of the Intellectual Property Hall of Fame Academy, he is not an inductee into the so-called IP Hall of Fame as far as I can see. --Edcolins (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He meets critera 1 because he and his books have been cited many times in important publications. Many attorneys and other people within the IP field quote him, use his books as references, and write reviews praising his books. He meets criteria 2 through his career and the actual content of his books, which explain how and why companies should leverage their IP assets. He meets 3 because he has five well-regarded books on IP. Point 4 can only be shown through the people who have reviewed his books and the publications that quote and review his books. But at the very least, he meets the WP:BASIC requirements, if it is an absolute requirement that Authors meet every point on WP:AUTHOR. I have added citations where Berman has been quoted, where he has written, and where his books have been quoted and reviewed. He is a known figure in the IP world and has contributed a significant body of work to the field. I did not include multipal articles or reviews from the same publications, but I can. HIs website is full of links. Also, WIPO Magazine doesn't publish anyone, they do require that the authors of its articles have some level of respectability and notability. I truly to believe I have listed many qualifying sources. Joshmplant (talk)

I am afraid you haven't convinced me. In my opinion, he does not meet any of the four WP:AUTHOR criteria. As to WP:BASIC, he does not seem to "have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Anyway, I leave it to others to weigh in, one way or another. --Edcolins (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two more books that cite Berman as an expert and added a US News and World Report article that quotes him as an industry expert. He doesn't have seminal theories like Einstein, but he is well regarded in the IP field. I have proven that he is cited as an expert in many high-level and reliable publications and books. I hope the other editors will ready my citations and agree that Berman's page is at least means WP:BASIC and is worthy of not being deleted. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and for adding further references. The three references you added[28] do not appear to discuss the subject (i.e., Mr Berman) in detail. I would say that they constitute -or at least are very close to be- "mentions in passing". --Edcolins (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot control what GoogleBooks scans, I only had access to the reference pages of the books, or one page where he was quoted. It is hard to determine the length of the mention in this context. The fact he is in these books, quotes in Forbes, WIPO, has 5 books in circulation should be enough to be granted the right to keep the page, even under WP:BASIC only. I have seen pages with far less information and far fewer citations and way fewer sources. Joshmplant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with both Edcolins and the nominator - it's promotional material and and as an author, he doesn't at all meet WP:AUTHOR. He's mentioned in passing in a few articles, but not the focus of any. Not close, in my opinion. Rockypedia (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional is not my intention, but I have added as many sources as I can, even removing some because they were marked as excessive. He is quoted as an expert in the field in top-level publications and has 5 published books from a top publishing house (John Wiley & Sons), I am not sure what else I can do. Any guidance is greatly appriciated. Joshmplant (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:02, 8 July 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. This is a very difficult discussion to close, which is no doubt attested to by it being left almost a week since its reviewing date. However, after looking at all of the arguments in this debate I believe there is a consensus - just - to delete at this time. A number of commenters have pointed to sources that they have argued are press coverage sufficient to establish notability, but there is marginally more consensus here that these are not sufficiently to establish notability nor reliable in many cases. My decision to close this on a slender consensus is also tempered by a number of arguments, including one keep, that point to the potential that she may rise to national prominence in the future. My close is not tempered by suggestions that her working for a supermarket make her less notable. Ultimately, my deletion decision is under the banner of a WP:TOOSOON, and if she does receive additional coverage from here or clearly meets the inclusion criteria at a later time, the creation of an article about her should not be prejudiced. I hope this explains my decision, although I appreciate on contentious debates that it is impossible to please everyone. I am, however, happy that I am acting on a consensus to delete at this time. KaisaL (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner)

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

This person is not notable. This is a mere campaigner out of thousands. The subject works in a supermarket; they have never been elected to office. Zigzig20s (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is one of many involved in the Brex debate. Nothing suggests she is notable enough to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The press coverage alone testifies to her notability.--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a look at this press coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be notorious at the moment with a lot of press, per Ipigott, I think there is adequate indicia of notability... the supermarket bit may actually be what makes her notable... Montanabw ^(talk) 05:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a look at this press coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:49, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think editors are confusing Harsimrat Kaur (campaigner) with Harsimrat Kaur Badal. The latter has lots of press, the former (who is the subject of this AfD) doesn't have significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has indicated that they think she is the other Kaur as far as I can see and there is a hat note in the article to prevent just that confusion. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about coverage while searching for sources. The subject doesn't seem to have enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Telegraph is interviewing here as a leading spokesperson in the Brexit campaign HERE and that is not the only extant piece counting towards fulfillment of GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite I could not find a single source which says she is the "leading spokesperson" in the Brexit campaign. The Telegraph source you mentioned seems to be one in a series of interviews [29], [30], [31] of non-notable people. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I agree with Lemongirl942 on this point; in fact, I was leaning toward 'keep' when I immediately found that interview on my own, but then I couldn't find any other significant coverage, so I went with 'delete'. LAroboGuy (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It doesn't matter that she is not an elected politician, she easily meets the GNG. We need more articles about Asian women who work in supermarkets in my view! In fact, if the nominator had bothered to read the sources they would have found that she has a high level job analysing data for her employers using her master's degree in mathematics. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As BLPIE and also the claim that the subject is a "prominent campaigner for Brexit" is not true. She seems to have been interviewed in the context of Brexit alongside others, but nothing proves she is any more important than the others.

Telegraph interview Seems OK until I look at the bottom and find "Readers who want to be interviewed by Charlie Brooks can email him at charliepebrooks@gmail.com". This is one in a series of similar interviews like [32], [33], [34].
express.co.uk Quoted along side others.
PanjabTimes Not a reliable source, seems to be self published weekly newspaper
BBC Trivial mention, not even a sentence
Asian Voice Trivial mention, not even a sentence
Press and journal Trivial mention.

I'm sorry, but for someone claiming to be a "leading campaigner" there needs to exist better reliable secondary sources. Right now it doesn't even pass GNG. To be honest, the claim of significance that she is a "leading campaigner of Brexit" is not credible. I would be happy if someone can clarify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article said "prominent" not "leading" which is a slightly lower level but I have removed that in order that the discussion doesn't get bogged down over her exact level of prominence. The claim is that she meets the GNG which does not depend on status, only coverage.

To reply to your points:

So what if readers can suggest themselves or others as subjects? The Telegraph don't have to agree and it is in depth in a national newspaper.
Agree on that one.
Foreign language sources indicate breadth of coverage of the subject. Not sure what you mean by "self published". Aren't all newspapers self published? Who else publishes them if not themselves?
The BBC source is an announcement, not a journalistic article. The point is they chose her to be on a panel to represent the Brexit campaign in one of the largest televised debates during the campaign.
Again it is the context that you are missing. She was one of a few women appointed to a group run by a government minister. The source merely confirms this.
This source confirms the previous one. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of that shows she is notable, neither does it fulfil GNG. Whether she is notable at the local level in UK, I don't know and seriously cannot tell from the scarce information available. I'm pinging Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Joseph2302 who are from UK and can better analyse it. I may change my vote depending on their response. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the existing contributors aren't from the UK? Please be careful not to break the rules about canvassing. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what their response will be, but I'm pinging them because they seem to be attending the London Wikipedia meetup. At present, the subject fails GNG easily. We need reliable secondary sources to pass GNG. And this unfortunately doesn't. The telegraph is a primary interview and doesn't elaborate on who the subject is. The local weekly newspaper does a better deal, but still doesn't seem to have a claim of significance. All it says is Harsimrat Kaur 23 years old is a mathematician backing the Vote Leave campaign for the upcoming EU referendum on June 23rd 2016. Speaking at the Cambridge University debate Harsimrat Kaur made her voice heard on issues like immigration and the economy. So the subject took part in a debate. How is that notable? The groups you are talking about, I have no idea how important they are and what role they play. It is possible that they are important in grassroots activities. But I can't verify that. Hence, I'm pinging others who can verify. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I did some digging and added some cited information to the article. She appears to be a grassroots organiser in the Conservative Party who is fairly often referred to as a representative of Sikh Conservatives. Perhaps her debut on the BBC debate and the Telegraph interview are the beginnings of her move up to national prominence? MurielMary (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, MurielMary in which case, I would suggest that WP:TOOSOON applies, which, whilst only an essay, is a valuable tool to ensure only subjects of long-term established notability are included in the project. Which this individual also fails. There is no indication of any long-term, or lasting notability; nor does it appear that the current coverage is particularly in deth. Note that the Brexit coverge enabled almost anyone and everyone to be a pundit or commentator if they wished: this individual, whether mathematician or shelf-stacker, seems to have been slightly more high-profile than others at the time- but not since; thus failing WP:PERSISTENCE. Overall, suggest a classic example of WP:BLP1E. On a side note, I would like to thank User:Lemongirl942 for the ping, drawing my attention to this discussion. I would also like to take this opportunity to advise User:Philafrenzy to be more mindful when making suggestions as to WP:CANVASSING. That is a very specific matter, and one which is not illustrated by LG942's actions. Cheers. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who have not been involved with the article and to which the AFD had not otherwise come to their attention is a classic case of canvassing if you read the policy, running the risk of distorting the consensus. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The request was neutral (could not be more so, being merely a ping) and that is the fundament. Since both myself and Joseph2302 are 'informed, but uninvolved, editors,' policy is clearly adhered to. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging interested users has always been OK if we don't know how they will vote (and I prefer to ping in front of others, rather than leave a personal talk page message). I have hardly if ever interacted with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Joseph2302 on UK related AfDs to know how they would react to this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you both re-read the policy. It is precisely because those contacted were not involved that it could be seen as canvassing. The users contacted have not edited the article and were not mentioned in the AFD discussion. It is more appropriate, as the policy suggests, to place brief generic notices at Wiki projects relevant to the topic and similar venues. Directly contacting the uninvolved is not recommended as it may give the impression of canvassing. An observer may ask why those users and not others? And we still haven't had an explanation of why those users are somehow more able to assess the article than those who have already voted. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know the coverage has been done previously, but my view is:

[35] is a local newspaper
[36] is from a British tabloid, which is questionably reliable. Not a great source since before and after elections, newspapers frequently just pick out & interview random people on the streets, so being in an interview doesn't imply notability
[37] is about someone else, with her name mentioned once
[38] is a primary source
[39] shows they had a minor role in the Conservative Party, and is also a primary source
[40] appears also to be primary source
[41] again from Conservative Party, so not independent
[42] press release
[43] & [44] interesting, but notability is not inherited, and only passing mentions of her
[45] interview with a good newspaper, but I'm concerned by the email address at the bottom- seems like anyone could theoretically be interviewed by them

In conclusion, it's probably too soon as she has a bit of Brexit coverage only. If she gets more coverage, then it can be recreated. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As an aside, I'm not sure why people from the UK are being considered "better" at judging the sources. They all seem reasonably clear to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kindly read the sources and refer to the subject accurately. She doesn't "work in a supermarket"; she isn't a "shelf-stacker" - she works in the head office of the supermarket chain in marketing. MurielMary (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MurielMary: Thank you for the corroboration. _Muffled ^Pocketed 22:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article still at best only suggests this person is best known for their political activities, still nothing convincing of independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Comments:
- Less notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avi Shafran but I thought that one should have stayed.
- (Repeating myself again but:) Note that if this person was playing cricket, see WP:NCRICKET, they would have romped it in for N, which allows inclusion for one major appearance even if that appearance was a complete failure.
- Aoziwe (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the extra sources added, passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which extra sources are these? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not seeing the notability and I agree with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's analysis. There's coverage, yes, but it's not in-depth and it's all in the context of Brexit. There's apparently nothing else to write about this person. Also, I think the canvassing issue is borderline, at best, but it's reasonable for Philafrenzy to suggest that what happened here isn't best practice. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl942 and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Sources right now (in article and here) don't indicate that subject is notable. If level of sourcing increases, this can always be recreated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Patar knight that this could always be recreated if the subject meets long-term and lasting notability requirements. I don't see how the subject meets those now. There is one in-depth interview with her, but even that interview focuses entirely on Brexit and her connection to campaigning for it, not the subject herself. LAroboGuy (talk) 17:59, 12 July 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) 15:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Savarapu Vijaya Kumar

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

Middle-ranking government official and writer with no indication of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. He's written some books on Indian government regulations of no apparent notability per WP:NBOOK, and the claims of multiple government awards are both unreferenced and of unknown notability. I can find no significant coverage of him online in WP:Reliable sources, just author credits for his written works. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. OnionRing (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WPBIO, No RS Uncletomwood (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 6 July 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) 02:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist — Music1201 ^talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 17:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR .None of his books are notable and fail WP:NBOOK.Non notable Government official.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. clear consensus after relsiting DGG ( talk ) 09:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lora Flattum

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

Non-notable pageant winner of Miss Virginia. Outside of winning the event, I cannot find any other information that would make her meet WP:GNG RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral. I've just beefed up the article to describe her accomplishments in elder care law and science research. She prob wouldn't meet GNG on any one of these things alone but I think the sum qualifies. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my vote as I see Lemongirl's point about inadequacy of sources for notability, and I haven't found more sources to add. I'm going to leave my opinion as neutral though, as candidly I don't especially see what's gained in deleting: I think there are enough sources for a verifiable article and in aggregate, especially with founding the UVA clinic on elder law, I continue to think there's reason to think this person is worthy of notice, but, I'm willing to defer to community consensus on how we assess the notability question. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 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 // 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep As per Innisfree987 and the added sources this article subject meets WP:GNG and should be retained. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 22:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC) banned sockHappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sorry, but I do not see how GNG is met. GNG requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. I searched myself and also looked at the sources added to the article.

[46] Not an independent source, it is a routine profile on a website of the foundation she works at.
[47] Not an independent source. This is a journal, containing a research paper authored by here. This is not a secondary source.
[48], [49],[50],[51] Local sources (limited to 2 newspapers) which cover the subject in context of the beauty pageant.

Sub-national beauty pageant winners are not considered automatically notable. Local sources are not used for proving GNG. I do not see any evidence that the subject passes GNG and in addition, over here it seems like a case of WP:BLP1E. I would be glad if someone can actually show me verifiable evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing actually suggestive of the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 12 July 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) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rekkles

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

I do not believe that "e-athletes" are notable unless they pass the GNG. Being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot, which tells "untold stories unfolding online" (in other words, they tell what wasn't notable enough to be picked up by real reliable sources), does not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 01:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already included a newspaper article all about him, in Aftonbladet, and extended mentions in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal. I found further news coverage and fully identified everything so it's now easier to evaluate the coverage, which does meet GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yngvadottir, the "extended mention" in USA Today is about ten sentences. Expressen gives him three sentences. The Wall Street Journal article is the only that can be said to say something a bit substantial about him. Being interviewed in Aftonbladet surely is something, but whether it is extensive coverage--it is if your standards are pretty low and and oriented toward trendworthy topics. So, sorry, but while I appreciate the effort, I am not convinced. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: I'm going to ask you to look again. I count 5 major-media articles about Rekkles in the article right now. (I found and added 2 more after posting here, and when I started typing this, the only edit after mine was to the categories.) Admittedly Aftonbladet 2014-10-24 cites Reddit as its source, and is partly about somebody else, but it's headlined about Rekkles and was written to report what he's doing. Admittedly also, the Expressen article is short (and that's a tabloid), but it's all about Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2015-08-24 is mostly interview, but again, it was written to update us on Rekkles. Aftonbladet 2016-06-19, which as you noted was in Xender Lourdes' search results, is not substantially an interview, and I'll be adding it to the article if someone else doesn't—I suspect Google didn't show it to me because it's so new. To offset the gradual impression that he's just a favorite with Aftonbladet's writers, there's also Nyheter24 2014-01-24 (brief article all about Rekkles and self-made video)—and Sveriges Radio 2012-11-27 is an article about him with a 9-minute interview recording embedded. That's a lot of coverage in several important outlets, and I think the date range—from late in 2012 to halfway through 2016—also speaks to genuine notability. I can't read the German source to see how much of it is about Rekkles because I'm not going to disable AdBlock. And I don't know how reliable a source The Score eSports.com is, but that again is an article about his team where the hook for the article is Rekkles. Add to those the fact he's among those mentioned prominently in the USA Today and WSJ articles, and I am seeing a constant stream of coverage in independent reliable sources, a lot of which is extended coverage and the breadth of the rest of which is non-trivial. So regardless of my opinion of his line of work or of news outlets' strategies to get clicks (I note with respect that Aftonbladet tends to post English translations as an alternative to the Swedish), I do believe he meets our general notability standard as written. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
S.Keep Drmies.... b4... Lourdes 18:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Xender Lourdes, you can "BEFORE" me all you want, but all you are presenting is a Google search, and WP:GOOGLEHITS. But, if you like, in order: [forg1ven-was-losing-rekkles-niels someone mentions him on an ESPN page] (link screwed up because of square brackets in URL title), he has a Twitter feed, he is mentioned on a blog in a three-sentence long press release, he gets a five-paragraph interview in a Swedish paper, the first reliable and independent source in your list, [http://www.gamingesports.com/actualidad-esports/league-of-legends/rekkles-sobre-yellowstar-estamos-mas-juntos-que-nunca/ here's four sentences from a gaming blog, God knows who reprinted these four sentences but it doesn't look like a newspaper/site, and here's another blog. I can go on, but WP:RS please. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called a "blog", but Blog of Legends is owned by Time Inc., the same holdings company for Time Magazine.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for the reply you've placed. May I apologise if my one line keep statement above came out a tad negatively? I did not intend that. I respect your experience, views and discretion considerably. I linked to the google hits (a first for me too in all my Afd discussions till date) to simply perhaps nudge you (wrongly done to an experienced editor, now that I think of it) to the fact that the google search would have thrown up absolutely reliable sources (two mentioned by Yngvadottir above and another a WSJ foreign language edition) and significant interviews like this and this. Add the WSJ stuff and you have to give credit to the coverage. If we are not going to consider these as significant coverages, then I fear we are setting standards too high and being judgemental about each and every topic in nsports. My apologies once more for the earlier one line statement. This is a strong keep as per me. Thanks. Lourdes 01:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xender, no problem, thank you for your note. I continue to disagree, however, with you, and I do not wish to lower our notability standards. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even if this article is kept, there will need to be a serious evaluation of all esports articles, as there are hundreds that require urgent attention, as they're collectively not up to par with Wikipedia's standards. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DarthBotto: I have just raised your concern at the village pump, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability guidelines and policy for eSports. KaisaL (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure when the WSJ and USA Today became "being mentioned a few times in The Daily Dot," and the characterization may be a bit disingenuous. TimothyJosephWood 01:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then Draft instead because, while these articles have been starting noticeably numerously, there's still questionability for several, and it's best to be careful with these. I suggest this one be removed for now as there's still not convincingly enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 11:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources provided and linked to above indicate that he is one of the best League players for his position and that that he passes WP:BASIC and probably WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous reliable sources as pointed out above, and also appeared as in a WP:PRINT source.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrokh Zamani

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

Non-notable activist. The circumstances may me notable, but I question the individual's notability. Article reads like a political statement. reddogsix (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - If the current article reads like a political statement, the answer is cleanup, not deletion. The only question is notability. The subject is the focus of numerous reliable bylined secondary sources, which is our typical criteria, but I could see a potential argument for WP:BIO1E, hence my "weak" keep !vote. That said, the event attracted the attention of amnesty international, as well as other big name sources, which I think is sufficient to merit conclusion, so I do maintain keep. Fieari (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:24, 12 July 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. Ged UK 11:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Shahidi

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

Lots on his company, not so much on him. Only discussion in detail is from what appears to be a trade publication, and not suitable to show notability. INHERIT applies. John from Idegon (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/realbizwithrj-episode-48-back-usa-32816095 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumkidz (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is nothing in the above video that shows notability for the subject of the article in question. It could, possibly, contribute to notability for the company or the product, but is totally uninformative (not to mention lacking independence) on Mr.Shahidi. John from Idegon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 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) 02:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mithal Jiskani

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

Delete. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR and neither does he pass WP:PROF. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable author and academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is there nothing convincing for the applicable notability, Scholar and WorldCat found nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 00:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:AUTHOR. Definitely shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. — Music1201 ^talk 21:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Two relists without discussion, I don't think relisting again has any benefits. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 01:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Proenca

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

failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 11 July 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Heller

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

~~Little-known individual. Little-to-no chance of expansion Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn, article appears to have been improved substantially since nom. Nordic Dragon 06:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A chairman of a transportation company certainly can get over our inclusion rules for businesspeople if he can be properly sourced over WP:GNG — but he is not automatically entitled to keep an article just because he exists, if all you can add for referencing is a single news article in which he's quoted as a provider of soundbite but which isn't substantively about him. I'm willing to revisit this if the article can be expanded with significantly more sourcing and substance than is present here, but in this state it's a Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I see that the article has been significantly expanded, so I did a review of the new sources provided — and while the volume of the new citations looks impressive on the surface, the substance and quality of them is still pretty lacking. I'm still seeing almost entirely primary sources (the self-published financial reports of companies and/or organizations that he's directly involved with), unreliable ones (Canadian Railway Observations), and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't substantively about him. Source #9 and source #16 look like they might be better than the rest, as he seems to get directly named in the headline — but two decent sources aren't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by themselves if they're the only decent sources in the article, and since they're both text-only links I can't even verify whether they're actually better sources than the namechecks and primaries are. So, unfortunately, the new work hasn't changed my mind. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I've added a few more sentences + cites, and collected a load more from searching to work through. He appears to have been involved in other businesses too, beyond EWS/Canadian National; and currently appears to remain as chairman of the UK Coal Employee Benefits Trust. I'll have another look tomorrow and see what else can be added usefully. —Sladen (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nordic Dragon - Unfortunately withdrawing means nothing as there's 2 delete !votes present, You can only withdraw if there's keeps, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 10:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead and then Draft if needed as I examined the article but am still questionable about solidity here, and thus is best deleted and perhaps restored if ever needed later until there's something else substantially convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^[SSTflyer] 14:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Movsum Agha

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

Delete. No references cited and unable to find anything in google search. Claim of notability is very vague and might fail GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now referenced from an Azerbaijani news website that says that the President and First Lady of Azerbaijan are regular visitors to this guy's shrine [52], and a guide book to Azerbaijian that lists the shrine as a place to visit [53]. Given this, it passes WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:27, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did I read that correctly that a person is notable because First Lady & President of a country visit his shrine regularly?? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The person who was so notable that his resting place is an important enough shrine that the President of the country makes regular trips? Sounds like notability to me. There's a fair amount of coverage of this person from travel guides to Azerbaijan ([54], [55], [56], [57]) and from sources in Azerbaijiani which go more in-depth [58], [59]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the "regular visitors" claim is still not convincing, there's frankly nothing else aside from that to suggest a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Relisting this debate has not yielded a clear consensus, and I am not satisfied that will emerge at this time. Please note that I have disregarded any canvassed !votes in coming to this conclusion and also acknowledged the relatively limited interest of one other editor. KaisaL (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Tim Bosma

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

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

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

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

Firstly, there are glaring grammatical irregularities, subjective irrelevancies and outright inaccuracies in this item. 1. This article's title places focus on the single victim of a murder but the text centers on the perpetrator of the crime. While the victim was no doubt deeply loved and sorely missed by family, friends and by his religious community, pursuant to WP:B101E notability does not rest with a single victim of an single isolated event, nor had this victim acquired notability as a significant achiever in the fields of government, academe, the sciences or the arts. I have seen no evidence that this crime "captivated public attention in Canada for several years" nor was it particularly "notable in other countries" more so than the murder of any other innocent. (according to Stats Canada, Canada had 512 homicides reported in 2013, of which this was but one incident no more and no less tragic and senseless than any other. 2. Arguably, the central player in this murder, with respect to notability, may center not on the victim but on one of the two perpetrators of the crime. Dellen Millard, the son of a family long associated with aviation in Canada was the youngest person in Canada ever to fly a helicopter and a fixed wing aircraft, at the age of fourteen. He and a friend were convicted of the murder of Timothy Bosma in June, 2016. 3. Millard was not convicted of murdering a man "specifically for his Dodge 3500 truck then incinerated the body." Apart from grammar issues with the statement, the subjects at trial were convicted of first degree murder. Full stop. To the extent that their case itself was remarkable, court was convened without benefit of the more usual pre-trial; the two accused stood trial together, both charged together with first degree murder; and both accused stood trial for a crime that had (a) no clear motive (b) no murder weapon and (c) no identifiable body. However, a properly constituted jury found the accused to be guilty of first degree murder, as charged. The make and model of an involved vehicle and reference to disposal of the victim's remains were not part of the verdict. Frankie Z (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the most notable murder in Canada for the past 3 years or so. This is a notable world murder. Lots of sources. Cappy prose is not a reason for deletion. In fact, I pledge to fix this article after the AfD is a keep but I am not crazy and will not be abused by trying to fix an article and have it destroyed and deleted right away.

People who hate the article and want it deleted should modify the rules so that there are no murder articles or porn star articles in Wikipedia.

As for the original reason, deny the AFD for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. Poor prose does not qualify for deletion. Tim Bosnia (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC) — Tim Bosnia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This subject was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bosma. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. Thanks for the link that is MORE than 3 years old. This really hits home the point that three years later, it's still so notable. Also note that this article is not a bio as that AFD but about the murder event. Tim Bosnia (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and previous AfD on the same article subject here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and per previous AfD. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the AFD upon which previous 2 iVotes depend took place a mere month after this murder, and are therefore of little relevance to this AFD, given that in the interim there have been: a trial; a conviction, and accusations that the perps were involved in other murders, one of which is now scheduled for trial in 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

above two votes must be friends, edits the same articles, votes in the same AfD within minutes, citing the same reason that a three year old AfD justifies Delete even though there has been exponentially more coverage in the past three years showing longevity and notability. Wikipedia is not a vote. Tim Bosnia (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For me it is a mystery how the first AfD could end with a delete decision. This article is per right now WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People need to differ between article size and quality, and notability. BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ, it's just a one-event, crime-with-local-coverage item. It's just a dog-bites-man story and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for this sort of thing. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate reasons why we need to put the brakes on the instant creation of an article about every individual murder that happens — including, but not limited to, the fact that WP:PERP requires us to pay utmost attention to the WP:BLP sensitivities of naming and discussing an accused murderer who has not yet been proven guilty in a court of law. Now that the conviction has occurred, this is a very different situation than that one was — but it's not our role to make WP:CRYSTAL predictions about a case that's still before the courts, so deletion was the correct response to the situation as it stood in 2013. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "For me it is a mystery how the first AfD could end with a delete decision.", no mystery there, deleted because WP:NOTNEWS Coolabahapple (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I already noted, there were legitimate WP:PERP reasons why the article had to be deleted in 2013 — however, now that Millard and Smich have actually been convicted, PERP no longer applies and this now needs to be judged on its own merits rather than being speedied as a recreation of the 2013 version. That said, as things stand right now this fails on the merits: it's an inadequately sourced two-sentence stub, which fails to demonstrate any enduring notability besides "thing that happened". It might be possible to write a good article which was sourced and substanced well enough to demonstrate notability properly — but this article, in this form, ain't it. The test that distinguishes murders that qualify for Wikipedia articles from murders that don't qualify for Wikipedia articles is not the mere existence of coverage, as all murders always get media coverage but we are WP:NOTNEWS — rather, it's whether you can demonstrate a substantive reason why people will still need to read an article about it ten years from now. (Matthew Shepard, for example, is still talked about and analyzed almost twenty years after his death — while thousands of other murders that have happened over the years are not.) But nothing here demonstrates that this passes that hurdle. And I'm also concerned about the creator's username so closely resembling the murder victim's name — implying a vested interest of some kind. So this has to be deleted in this form, although without prejudice against a good, substantive and properly sourced article about it being created in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know Bosma or anyone connected with the family or murder. This article cannot be deleted and permitted to be rewritten better because as soon as it is rewritten, people will say it was deleted before and must be deleted again. I just saw that argument yesterday. Plus the criteria for deletion is not that an article is too short or needs more length. Tim Bosnia (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the criteria for deletion do allow an article to be deleted if it's not even making a credible claim of enduring notability in the first place. "Topic is a person who exists, the end", for instance, is not a keepable article just because our deletion rules don't expressly include the length of the article as a criterion in and of its own — an article does have to be long enough and sourced well enough to at least contain a basic indication of notability. And trust me, I've been a contributor to Wikipedia for well over a decade now — and brand new users who register under usernames that are very nearly identical to the name of topic they've suddenly decided to write about are not "disinterested" parties who only just heard about the topic in question for the first time two days ago. That's simply not a thing that has ever happened on here. You don't have to have known him, or anyone connected to the incident, personally to have some kind of non-neutral agenda about it. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is more than one murder and disappearance case, so this should not only be kept but expanded to other cases connected to the convicts. "Smich and Millard still face charges of first-degree murder in connection with the case of 23-year-old Toronto resident Laura Babcock, who disappeared in 2012. That case is scheduled to go to trial in 2017. Separately, Millard is charged with first-degree murder in relation to the death of his father, Wayne Millard. That matter remains before the courts." There have been a number of recent cases of people being murdered on test drives for no apparent motive other than vehicle theft or the thrill of killing. There is no need to delete this article just because it is no longer recent news, it will be of use years from now for people who want to record and compare similar cases. Huffington Post has been covering this story for multiple years since 2013,and trials are scheduled for next year. No need to delete his useful article on a continuing crime case of the murders of no less than 3 people and 2 convicted suspects. Crimes like these are at least as significant as domestic terrorism cases. Bachcell (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so maybe Millard needs to have a seperate article, this does not mean that this article should be kept. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: This is an excellent case of an Internet homicide which has its own article. The truck was for sale online. Bachcell (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if this is the case, a sentence or two can be added to the section Notable Internet homicides of Internet homicide only, not all listed there have a seperate article. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can editors please let this afd run its course as its only got a couple of days to go (unless an admin decides to extend it:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
major event over the last few years but maybe not in the USA. However, this is not USA Wikipedia. Keep . Wawaxi (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Wawaxi (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but this is a high-profile murder that has garnered major media coverage across Canada for now over 3 years. Nothing "routine" about it. Passes WP:GNG by dint of in-depth, ongoing, national coverage in major Canadian media [60].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every murder that has ever happened at all would always get a Wikipedia article if "media coverage exists" were the sole standard that it had to meet. What's necessary to lift it above the bar that divides a notable murder from a non-notable one is evidence that it's special in some substantive way that would get it past WP:10YT, not just evidence that the media covered it in the exact same way that the media cover all murders. And those Google search results aren't indicating that this garnered coverage across Canada, either — I'm not finding any evidence, in fact, that this ever garnered any significant coverage outside of the Golden Horseshoe (even the CBC links I've checked, frex, are all from CBC Toronto or CBC Hamilton rather than the national news division.) Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines produce variable results, of course, but your statement does not match what I saw. So, I double-checked by running a search on the Montreal Gazette, [61]. More to the point, Hamilton is not Toronto. CBC, Globe and Mail, National Post are national media, and I seem to recall hearing CBC coverage broadcast far from the Golden Horseshoe. Moreover, coverage in the Toronto papers and CBC has been far from routine; it has been intensive and has continued for years. I just checked the Ottawa Citizen lost of coverage [62]. Ditto for the Vancouver Sun , [[63]. To be sure, most - though not all - of the coverage outside Hamilton has been sourced to the national media based in Toronto, but that's why The Canadian Press exists; so that the Halifax The Chronicle Herald can run stories about a notorious murder in Hamilton. As here: [64]. In sum: not local, not routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the template at the top of this AFD indicates, this is not a vote and canvassing if anything will only harm the chances of a consensus being formed. That said, even accounting for this, I am happy to give this debate another week so that additional contributors without a vested interest in the topic can make their thoughts known in the hope of a clearer consensus developing. KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets Steve's Arbitrary Point Threshhold for Notable Events

Let's check Steve's Oversimplification of Wikipedia's Seven Factors of Event Notability™:

Criterion	Value
impact	4
depth	10
duration	10
geographic scope	3
diversity	10
reliability	10
uniquity	3
Total	50

The Steve 08:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is terrible, but the subject matter meets WP:GNG. If the consesnus is the delete, we should consider moving it to draftspace or userspace. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. This is WP:NOTNEWS. Sure, there is some media coverage, but there is almost always going to be routine media coverage of murders. I don't see evidence that there is media coverage above and beyond routine. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the 2nd most high profile murder in Canada in the past decade. Magnotta is the first, this is the second, and Tim McLean is probably the third. Leading contenders also include the serial killer Pickton. Fiona Gump (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I was asked to offer an unbiased opinion and I am not familiar with this murder because it must be obscure and not suitable for an article.Murder is so bad (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — Murder is so bad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Murder is so bad (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete instead for now and Draft later if needed, although I'm not certain how this will actually be anything else improvable later, the current information suggests nothing convincing though. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a forum post asking for people to evaluate then support a delete vote. I haven't heard of this so it must be insignificant and, therefore, a delete. OK 246320 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC) — OK 246320 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: An editor has expressed a concern that OK 246320 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

@OK 246320: It's likely you haven't heard of many of the subjects that the over 5 million articles on Wikipedia cover, should we delete all such articles? That is a poor reason for your opinion. 331dot (talk) 19:03, 12 July 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. J04n(talk page) 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Jong-nam

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

Sophieunji (talk · contribs) has requested here that this page be deleted, claiming that it is inaccurate. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, a lawyer who never held positions high enough to be notable as an official, nor generated any news coverage about himself for any reason (single interview with is not sufficient). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging from a Naver News search [65], he only ever got significant coverage [66][67] for a single event; the other 12 hits are trivial mentions or different people entirely 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing convincing of any actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Babafemi Raji

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

No evidence of any significant notability. One amongst many for Nigerian broadcasting awards and the rest of the refs tell us he has been married 6 years and has one child. Nothing substantial that conveys any notability. The lack of in-line refs make this more difficult top judge but a review of all the external refs produced nothing of great merit. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, and no indication from the article that this meets WP:BIO. OnionRing (talk) 17:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Najia Ashar

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

I still confirm my recent PROD here (there's simply still nothing actually convincing for any applicable notability apart from some journalism work, and I'm sure PRODer Jbhunley also concurs. Also notifying past taggers Boleyn and Meatsgains. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The only news article I could find detailing her was a blog. Meatsgains (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Emily Cadei's Ozy.com article about her, included in the "external links" list, is substantial coverage, and makes a case for her actual significance in Pakistani media. [68] Many of the other items on the external links list are dead links, and may or may not have relevance to her notability, but given Wikipedia's general concern to avoid systemic geographic and cultural bias I am reluctant to conclude that someone with these credentials should be readily deleted from the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the Ozy.com article seems substantial I see that Ozy.com prides itself on covering topics well in advance of the mainstream media. Mousing over the "Rising Stars" box in the article pops up text suggesting you may not have heard of her. The publish before anyone else approach of Ozy.com gives the article less notability weight IMO. Gab4gab (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing how any of the criteria under WP:NJOURNALIST are met here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've looked extensively, and not seen anything which amounts to WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Narayan

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

I can't find any article clarifying the existence of this person. Fails WP:N. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can find some references to his name when searching google for "Goan Observer", including what appears to be an article about Rajan, but said article is on a website riddled with malware (according to google) and I won't click the link to check it... which suggests lack of notability. That said, the subject is about an Indian newspaper, and regardless of the fact that it is an English language newspaper, it may be possible that there are sources establishing notability that are harder for us to find using our typical language methods. I won't place a !vote at this time, as although I would currently lean towards deletion, I believe that fighting systemic bias on Wikipedia is an important and noble goal. If someone could determine the notability status of the Goan Observer, and determine the importance of O Heraldo, then criteria 3 of WP:JOURNALIST may allow this article's inclusion. Withholding my !vote to give other wikipedians the chance to determine this, keeping systemic bias in mind. Fieari (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I examined it and found nothing minimally actually convincing of any independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless this as all shown that there's still no actual convincing signs of his own article, regardless of any apparent systematic bias; there's no inherited notability from any of his occupations. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Lewis (transport manager)

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because this person is named on a tram, this does not establish notability. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability requirements as part of a set of articles; and in any case the naming and his death were covered by the press. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 20 June 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) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 07:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments here would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is of solely local interest, as far as I can tell, and we require broader interest for entry into WP. A minor local official, a "local celebrity." Not notable in the WP sense. LaMona (talk) 00:17, 8 July 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) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Cochrane

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable mainly as the first member of the New York City police force to come out as gay. Granted, he seems to have done it early enough -- one of the two sources is dated 1981 -- that there's a small element of surprise to this, but being the first openly gay person in an otherwise non-notable role is not in and of itself grounds for an encyclopedia article, if the fact of his sexuality is literally all that can actually be said about him. Besides that article from 1981, the only other source here is about a group of gay cops requesting that a city street be named for him after his death -- but there's no indication whatsoever that the request was successful. If he could be sourced over WP:GNG for this then things might be different, but the volume of sourcing on display here doesn't demonstrate that he's earned a place in an international encyclopedia. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to an article in the June 15, 2016 Daily News, he's getting "Charles Cochrane Way" named after him in Greenwich Village tomorrow (Friday, June 17). The article is unclear about exactly where this will be, and whether it is only a corner or some part of a street. [69] The Gay Officers Action League website identifies the renamed location as "the intersection of Washington Place and the Avenue of the Americas" [70]: this intersection is also the location of the Church of St. Joseph in Greenwich Village. We should watch for coverage over the next few days to see if this ceremony yields additional material in reliable sources about Sgt. Cochrane. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable police officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as, aside from the apparent events, there's still nothing actually convincing for an independent article. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend this be relisted. I am trying to find sources for this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some more claims of significance. It seems he established an organisation called GOAL. See this Congressional record --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted as an attempt to find sources is ongoing. @Lemongirl942: Please report back on your further findings. KaisaL (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Once we are getting New York city streets named after a subject, reported in the mainstream press (see THIS), GNG is fulfilled. Carrite (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's another source counting to GNG, unfortunately blocked by a paywall by Newspapers.com: "Policeman Emerges from Threat to Limelight," Arizona Republic [Phoenix], Jan. 10, 1982, pg. 49 — extensive article about Cochrane, with photograph. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an article, similarly paywalled by Newspapers.com, from the Poughkeepsie Journal, Oct. 10, 1984, pg. 23. Not quite sure the article title of that one, but coverage of Cochrane is substantial and mention is made of a story about him in the New York Post. Carrite (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go, one we can actually see: Sharon Rosenthal, "New York Policeman Came Out of the Closet, Into the Spotlight," New York Daily News. Reprinted in the Lakeland Ledger, Jan. 3, 1982, pg. 6A. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the clear evidence of a GNG pass above, pinging Johnpacklambert, SwisterTwister, Lemongirl942 for their further input. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note also another New York Daily News Article which is showing in fully readable form as a graphic attached to the New York Daily News article mentioned above. List this as: Mary Ann Giordano, "I Am Proud of Being Gay: Cop; Asks Passage of Rights Bill," New York Daily News, Nov. 21, 1981, pg. ???. Carrite (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have greatly expanded this stub article, I'll ping the nominator, Bearcat, and another commenter that I missed, Arxiloxos, for their reconsideration as well. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been significantly improved by Carrite. GNG is clearly met. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Carrite demonstrated notability, WP:HEY applies. Also, a look at Google Books suggests there is a lot more potential sources, even if offline link. Vague and copypasted pile-on delete votes by the usual suspects should be ignored. Cavarrone 07:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am usually not in favour of articles of people post 1960s where the only claim of significance is the subject's gender/orientation/religion. However, over here I find 2 claims which ensures that this is not a BLP1E

The coverage has enough depth.[71], [72], [73], [74], [75].
The coverage is not a one time event and there seems to be repeated coverage once in several years. There is some impact of the subject's work. This passes GNG
The subject is recognized for being the co-founder of GOAL and his contributions have been deemed to be notable by the congress as it elected to name a street after him.

This is a clear keep. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Khan

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

A non-commissioned officer awarded country's third highest wartime gallantry award. Fails WP:SOLDIER and also no adequate sources. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing else apart from that one award, nothing else to suggest the needed substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is one of four very similar articles at AFD, and all of them have had broadly the same level of minimal input so far. Additional contributors to the debate over the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; concur. The Vir Chakra is the third highest, and receiving it does not place this person past WP:SOLDIER. No other claims to fame in the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vonthibettu Prabhakara Hegde

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

Awarded India's third highest gallantry award only once. Fails WP:SOLDIER. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing to suggest the needed substantial improvements, nothing else to suggest his own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is one of four very similar articles at AFD, and all of them have had broadly the same level of minimal input so far. Additional contributors to the debate over the next seven days would be welcome. KaisaL (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it does not seem that the requirement for significant coverage is met. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 9 July 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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmeria

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this community. Sitush (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 15:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find a single source confining its existence. Meatsgains (talk) 00:26, 1 July 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. Nakon 19:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Minihane

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

non notable. The on-air arguments are trivial, and do not give notability DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article it is not notable. NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 01:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 July 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyatham Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Chant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Chant

[1] ttp://www.whois.com/whois/rishabhshanbhag.com

[2] ttp://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/19/actisearch/

[3] ttp://dailyiphoneblog.com/2012/11/20/cydia-tweak-review-actisearch/

[4] ttp://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/11/actisearch-jailbreak-tweak-search-numerous-sources-using-an-activator-action

[5] ttps://twitter.com/AppAdvice

[6] ttp://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/11/actisearch-allows-you-to-search-cydia-facebook-twitter-using-activator-actions.html

[7] ttp://www.ijailbreak.com/cydia/actisearch-cydia-tweak-ios/

[8] ttp://www.iphonecaptain.com/actisearch-cydia-tweak0-99-search-different-sites-using-activator/

[9] ttp://www.bestcydiatweaks.com/actisearch.html

[10] ttp://www.ispazio.net/375762/actisearch-aggiungiamo-scorciatoie-per-le-ricerche-su-internet-e-sui-social-network-cydia-video

[11] ttp://www.applespot.nl/30310/snel-zoeken-in-youtube-cydia-facebook-ebay-en-meer-met-actisearch-jailbreak/

[12] ttp://infoidevice.fr/actisearch-ajouter-des-raccourcis-vers-des-recherches-sur-internet-et-les-reseaux-sociaux/

[13] ttp://www.appleteam.gr/actisearch-μια-νέα-εφαρμογή-για-την-εύκολη-και-ά/

[14] ttp://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/11/11/nonewapp/

[15] ttp://appadvice.com/appnn/2012/11/nonewapp-jailbreak-tweak-removes-the-new-app-banner

[16] ttp://modmyi.com/content/9210-hide-ios-6s-new-app-banner-nonewapp.html

[17] ttp://www.iphoneitalia.com/434299/nonewapp-un-tweak-per-rimuovere-letichetta-nuovo-dalle-applicazioni-scaricate-da-app-store-cydia

[18] ttp://www.applophile.fr/supprimer-le-badge-nouveau-des-applications-avec-le-tweak-nonewapp/

[19] ttp://jaxov.com/2012/08/idebstore-jailbreak-app-store/

[20] ttp://www.redmondpie.com/idebstore-for-ios-aims-to-provide-yet-another-fast-and-efficient-web-based-cydia-alternative/

[21] ttp://macgenesis.net/idebstore-cydia-alternative/

[22] ttp://veryrite.com/2012/07/18/idebstore/

[23] ttp://thehowmade.com/idebstore-a-new-and-faster-cydia-alternative-in-making

[24] ttp://www.tesux.com/2012/08/05/idebstore-alternative-for-cydia-accessible-from-desktop-and-ios/

[25] ttp://www.iphoneitalia.com/409627/idebstore-per-ios-una-nuova-alternativa-a-cydia

[26] ttp://www.valuewalk.com/2012/08/idebstore-competition-for-cydia-accessible-from-desktop-and-ios/

[27] ttp://www.iculture.nl/nieuws/idebstore-wil-snel-alternatief-voor-cydia-worden/

[28] ttp://www.ibtimes.com/ios-611-untethered-jailbreak-exists-uses-redsn0w-evasi0n-do-trick-beta-1-tutorial-1073780

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]