Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 August	11 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Redirect to list of brown dwarfs. This is just a redirect, not a merge, due to the expressed concerns about the reliability of the information here. --MelanieN (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of least massive stars

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

There are multiple problems with this list. One, it is completely unreferenced. Not even an indication of where the data came from, and it appears to be mostly original research. Two, the frequency of brown dwarf discoveries nowadays means that this list will quickly become dated, making it unreliable and requiring way too much maintenance. Three, there are no clear inclusion criteria, with many less massive objects being omitted and many more massive ones included, for no apparent reason. Overall, the amount of updating, referencing, and constant upkeep this list needs makes it an disservice to Wikipedia, and in my opinion, it should be deleted. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unmaintainable WP:LISTCRUFT. WP is not an astronomy data repository. shoy (reactions) 13:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – with about 70 billion brown dwarfs in the Milky Way alone, the task of fully populating this list is hopeless. We've already got a list of nearby stars and brown dwarfs. Praemonitus (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This list is a bit misguided, as there are theoretical limits to a star's mass - below 13 Jupiter masses, it won't fuse deuterium, and so won't really be a star. (At least, in my very limited understanding.) One therefore expects that the least massive stars will all weigh about 13 M_J. However I would caution that, as this article has had a lot of work put into it for ten years, someone should make sure that all the information is appropriately represented in lists such as list of brown dwarfs, before just deleting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a redirect to list of brown dwarfs would be reasonable, and allow the edit history to be preserved. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is not properly cited; for all we know the information presented may be hopelessly unreliable. Praemonitus (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of brown dwarfs. This less-destructive option will allow the edit history to be preserved and fact-checked by someone willing to take the time, so that this information may be included in similar lists. Praemonitus's verifiability concerns are serious, but WP:V requires only that sources for everything exist somewhere, not that everything that lacks proper citations be deleted immediately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Tiwana

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

Fails WP:NGOLF and WP:GNG; the subject has only been substantively mentioned in one reliable source. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the citations mentioned in the page come from reliable news sites and mention either about herself or her achievements. Golf is not a famous sport in India, and only a handful of professional golfers are at that level. So too many citations even for notable golfers are not available, not to mention the local language problem because of which Google can't index them (Even most of the Indian english news articles are not indexed by Google). You can use this tool to find out more citations in Indian news about her. Here are some of the local language citations in the news which I found out about her: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Note: I'm the creator of the page. Mr RD (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one thing I forgot to mention in my original statement was that pretty much all of the coverage in reliable sources (and even that is not much) falls under WP:ROUTINE; all but one of the reliable sources was just covering a golf event, and that broader coverage was the reason for mentioning Tiwana. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two sources in article meet WP:RS as of August 11 2015, other sources possible here, she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the issue is not that there is a lack of reliable sources that cover her; the issue is that there is only one source that covers her with actual depth (the The Hindu article). Everything else is just routine coverage of minor sporting events. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this routine coverage? The entire article is about her.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it is routine coverage. And the entire article is not about her; it also talks about Vani Kapoor's performance and birdie on a hole, the performance of a few other golfers, a golfer's hole-in-one, and the leaderboard statistics. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense. The article's headline includes her; the main photo is her. No way is that "routine". And I suppose this article is simply more "routine" too? It is about her, her name is in the title of the article, in one of India's leading broadsheet newspapers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Me going to the grocery store is routine; her competing in professional golf tournaments, and winning, not so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that source is routine as well. She had a one-shot advantage on the next-to-last day of the 2013 Hero Women’s Pro Tour. That's routine coverage of a sports event without any depth about the subject. Her name is in the article title because titles attract more attention for newspapers than if every title for the golf event was "The following are the results from yesterday's golf match". Inks.LWC (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for your comment about going to the grocery store versus coverage of a sporting event, your opinion is simply not based in policy. Read WP:ROUTINE: Per Wikipedia policy, routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Coverage of her competing in golf tournaments is routine. If she had won one of those professional golf tournaments and received coverage about winning, then there would be notability, but she has not actually won any professional tournaments; the most she has done was won a single leg of the Hero Tour in 2012. At no time has she actually won a tour (the best she has ever done was 4th). Sure, she has led individual legs of the tour at times, but she didn't win. And that's the entire point of WP:ROUTINE—people aren't notable just because they had a good sports day that got them brief, trivial coverage. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The idea of the "routine" rule is that news which is planned in advance -- like the dates or venue of an upcoming sports match, a wedding announcement of an upcoming wedding, etc -- these things should not be used as evidence of notability. But competing in high-level golf tournaments, in which major Indian newspapers consider what she does as real sports news, covering her in-depth, how she plays, what her score is -- these things are not routine at all.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NGOLF # 3 (she won the June 2014 tournament of the Hero Women's Professional Golf Tour which is the top national tier of Indian professional golf). Inks.LWC is right that most of the refs is routine coverage, but there are at least two lengthy in-depth reports on her. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth with reason "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Indentured servitude in the Americas" (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

White slave trade to North America

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

PROD rejected, so off to AFD. This is basically the same article that was turned into a redirect a few days ago. I don't see how anything is changed. [7] Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much implied in the nomination. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A10: duplication of the topic of Indentured servitude in the Americas. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A10. Duplicates Indentured servitude in the Americas, specifically the 'North America' section. The article is almost entirely original research with useless references to entire books.- Mr X 21:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Most sources say there was no trade in white slaves to the Americas. There was indentured labour, which encompassed Eng Scots and others as well. Indentured labour and slavery are not the same, regardless of how bad conditions may have been. Calling indentured servitude "slavery" is a way to push a POV and is contrary to most historical opinion. Not encyclopedic. This article is changing an accepted definition to make a point. Content could merge, but I get the impression from the prev. AfD that defenders want to keep the title more than the content.Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete: This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (this article is about a subject which the Indentured servant article does not properly cover. Many were taken forcefully or cheated, and used as slaves. It is not a copy of the previus article, read it. The article has two good sources, one of the from a prominent institution, namely New York University) Olehal09 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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) Mz7 (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cash Box Kings

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

Fails WP:NBAND - attempts to get through AfC by bombarding the draft with a list number of unreliable sources, medias releases, release notes and non-notable reviews failed but the author moved it into mainspace anyway. Please check sources before !voting. Flat Out (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources used are reliable and independent of the subject. Several of them are published and unbiased reviews of the band's music. The band also does have notability, as it is signed to a major record label and has received awards for its music. Please reconsider accepting this article for publication. Tcobrin User:Tcobrin is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT. — Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appear to meet WP:BAND based on the following sources: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Everymorning (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NBAND #1. What's wrong with the sources, Flat Out? Everymorning shows at least two lengthy critiques in printed newspapers. Music magazines and specialised music blogs are ok for bands (record reviews), who else would talk about music? Kraxler (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough reliable sources found in google search. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela de Jesus Cosio

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

She exists, but that is about all the many refs tell us. Nothing reliable or substantial conveying any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's in-depth coverage here, here, here, here, here. And she is among the 10 Modelos latinas más famosas en la industria de la moda (10 most famous Latina models in the fashion industry). Kraxler (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm ♠ 23:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not an expert or fan of fashion although I speak Spanish, these sources seem acceptable enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasir Asani

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 12:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015-16 Pre-season friendly fixtures for Primera División clubs (women)

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

Unnotable list of friendly matches. Contested PROD. AfD was also started in order to get a general opinion about these specific kind of list. More exactly: Is it viable to have such a list in lieu of club season articles (as this is the place where information about friendlies of a club would normally be added)? – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable. I know similar articles has been deleted in the past as the results should be included in teams individual or in tournament articles. The following recent AfD's from my mind and a quick search has all resulted in 'delete':

The more I search, the more 'delete' I find. Qed237 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, as Qed237 points out with precedent. Giant Snowman 17:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – my view on Soccer-holic's earlier question is that I don't believe it's viable to have a place to put results of practice matches if there are no club season articles. It's very rare for this sort of match to get anything more than WP:Routine coverage; and so while the matches make a relevant line-item in a club season page, it doesn't have the notability to stand on its own. Aspirex (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS, particulalry for pre-season friendlies which are essentially meaningless regardless of the level at which they are played. Fenix down (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS and only covers meaningless friendlies SOXROX (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Duster

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

The superficial referenciness of this article comes from such peerless sources as a self-published book on vanity press lulu.com and blogs. There is a namecheck in one reliable sources and a namecheck in a rather less reliable source, and that is it as far as admissible sourcing goes. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 20:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book referenced is not a vanity book. It's an excellent Australian music resource and thoroughly reliable. The section on Blood Duster demonstrates this well. 121.219.61.6 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. Meanwhile, back in the real world, it's a book self-published through vanity press lulu.com. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile back in the REAL real world, Brian Giffen has nothing whatsoever to do with the band. So your point is totally irrelevant to the subject. 121.214.28.199 (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep, released on multiple real labels - David Gerard (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following is some of the articles about them that appear in mainstream Australian newspapers. Not surprisingly, no reviews of Cunt. Surprisingly The Age reviewed Drink!Fight!Fuck! duffbeerforme (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart, Paul (24 November 2002), "Blood's lust for the shock.", Sunday Herald Sun

Brady, James (14 October 2011), "Last Tassie blast for Blood Duster", The Examiner Newspaper

Zwar, Adam (3 June 2001), "Worse than Eminem.", Sunday Herald Sun

Thow, Penny (6 May 2004), "Metal with a sense of humour", Hobart Mercury

Rocca, Jane (7 February 2003), "Entertainment Guide - D.F.F.", The Age

Brady, James (1 November 2012), "'Useless' album continues to sell", The Examiner Newspaper

Feel free to add some then because the article as I found it looked like a bog standard garage band with three fans and a dog. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple notable labels should have been a tipoff - David Gerard (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I Googled '"blood duster" melbourne' and there was enough in the first few pages of results to at least indicate the the subject is likely to be notable. Any issues with current sourcing in the article are reasons from improvement rather than deletion. --Michig (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: They even have a charting single.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They appear to satisify WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was only one band member in dispute and it seems that he has been verified by the reference to the Encyclopeadia of Australian Metal, which lists Jason Fuller as one of the sources for information. This Bio is notable and it should be restored to it's previous version before the band members were removed. I was the person disputing the original names, and now I can see there have been some viable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.96.167.201 (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standish Way

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

Contested PROD. This is a non-notable street. Imzadi 1979 → 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only mentions I've been able to find are in regards to the library being located on the road. The road itself does not seem to have received any independent coverage, therefore failing WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No evidence street meets any notability requirements. Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and precedent of deleting non-notable streets. Sounder Bruce 00:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable road. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable connector street. Dough4872 19:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication this roadway meets notability standards. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as my searches found nothing good at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Leps

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

Non-notable person. The only achievement of this person is that she's a daughter of singer Grigory Leps. Jaqeli 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill model/actress who appeared in a music video, and her father's notoriety is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My multiple searches found nothing good at all with this probably being the best result. Simply for Russian input, I'd like to invite Wikimandia for comment and also Dr. Blofeld and INeverCry who also seem to be part of WikiProject Russia. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only mention of her in her father's article on ru.wiki is wayyyy down in the family section, and doesn't even mention anything about her being an actress. With a well-known singer like Grigory Leps, any notable offspring would have at least a stub on ru.wiki. INeverCry 06:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dee (actress)

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

Fails pornbio and gng. The NYT source doesnt even mention this subject.... Was deprodded without improvement or proper explanation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only award nominations. Any claims of being in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature need acknowledgements by reliable sources. Comes up short on WP:GNG. Only non-trivial coverage appears to come from Adult Video News. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prod rationale - Shouldn't of been deprodded, Obviously fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the logic of my original PROD, which was disruptively removed. Note that being in a purportedly iconic, groundbreaking, or blockbuster release is not sufficient to satisfy PORNBIO 2, which requires "unique contributions" to the genre, such as "starring in" such a release, not merely appearing in it, and that satisfying PORNBIO on this point requires reliable sourcing, not merely editor's opinions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin McIntyre

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

Prod removed by article creator notability is not inherited and being related to someone famous is not a reason for an article. I can't find any sources apart from standard "new baby" announcements in celeb magazines covering this person. I also considered but rejected a redirect as he isn't even covered in his dad's article. Valenciano (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability on his own. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per my original nomination. No notability whatsoever.--Cahk (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7. subject is non-notable and article is pure fluff. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: please. speedily or AfD. 'Places he's been'...really? No individual notability. Fylbecatulous talk 00:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the fastest way possible. Nothing but a promo piece for someone WP:INHERITED.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as my searches found nothing good and although this is amusing and could be redirected to Joey's article, this is best deleted especially for vulnerable BLP issues. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Malik (fictional character)

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

While the actor is notable, there is next to no information on the character himself. The "reception" section is a collection of quotes that largely focus on the actor while barely discussing the character. Even the image shows the actor, but not in his role as Armaan Malik. Redirecting the character article to the show was reverted, so per WP:BLAR I'm bringing it here for discussion. Huon (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 18:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing worth keeping. Just promotion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is entirely about the actor and not about the role itself. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
non notable fictional character typical fan promotional editing related to this actor. delete or merge/redirect to show.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Caitlyn Jenner. While I would have preferred to have seen at least a nod to the relevant notability criterion for events, I do find a rough consensus here for a merge back to Caitlyn Jenner. Detailed discussions of weight, as always, are best addressed in discussions at the article talk page rather than within a deletion process. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of Caitlyn Jenner

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

An article that came out of Caitlyn Jenner and shouldn't have happened. Was created without consensus (see Jenner article talk page for evidence). Some responsible for creating the article now feel the article title needs to be changed because it isn't in line with their understanding of "transition" (read: agenda)Transition article talk page discussion is here. Apparently to some, "transition" in reference to transgender issues, refers to sex reassignment surgery. According to reliable sources, Jenner has no immediate plans for sex reassignment surgery, therefore, the article is inappropriate and should not have been created. Keeping it under that premise violates WP:CRYSTAL. From what I can gather, the new article was created because editors at the original Jenner article wouldn't agree to paring down the section regarding her transition. One of the editors proposing creation of the article stated, "I suggest WP:BOLD: create it and see how it flies.". This seems like an badly thought-out, knee-jerk reaction and a poor reason to create an article (see comment here). I can't advocate strongly enough for DELETE and move content back to the original article. At that time, discussion toward consensus regarding the content dispute will have to be done, even if it takes a while. This article seems to have been created on a whim -- which has now created disruption through more work rather than going forward with discussion at the original article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Caitlyn Jenner. Not for any of the reasons stated by the nominator, which are flawed and factually incorrect (gender transition refers to far more than just SRS), but per WP:SIZESPLIT: an article that has less than 40KB of readable prose does not warrant a split based on its length. Prior to the split, the main Jenner article only had 19KB of readable prose. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic conversation -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to back up and re-read what I wrote, Chase. I never gave any opinion above on what I think "transition" means. I stated what one of the article creation proponents stated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what you've written. You've nominated this article for deletion on the incorrect assumption – be it your own or another editor's – that gender and sex are synonymous. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL which is the basis of your nomination; Jenner has already transitioned, regardless of what she did or didn't do with her male genitalia. And calling this an agenda? I think you're the one who needs to back up, Winkelvi. While I agree that this doesn't need to have a standalone article, this nomination is disruptive at best and transphobic at worst. Chase (talk | contributions) 18:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are way off base. Accusing me of being "transphobic"? How would you like to back that accusation up in light of a complaint filed over a personal attack? And yes, I'm serious. You've crossed a line you shouldn't have. Maybe you do need to retire (as you've indicated at your talk page) so you can take time away from Wikipedia and get your normal perspective and usual WP:AGF back. You've been here long enough to know better than to say something like that out of the blue. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPA: Comment on content, not on the contributor. That's exactly what I've done. I said the nomination was disruptive and at worst transphobic, and my reasons for saying such are valid and have already been explained. Chase (talk | contributions) 19:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing NPA and to not comment on contributors immediately after you've violated each? That's rich. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Caitlyn Jenner; not enough content to warrant a separate article Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Caitlyn Jenner, sans recentism tag: The nominator quoted me above, and I stand by my comments. The advantage of this split, regardless of article length, is that it allows Jenner's post-transition life, the subject of much press coverage, to be expanded here without it becoming disproportionate in size to the rest of her bio in the main article. But either option works for me. Barte (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a separate and notable event in Jenner's life. The recentism tag is preventing it being developed properly on the main page. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The section can develop as much as editors want it to while the recentism tag is there. It's just there to let other editors know that it's disproportionately larger than other sections of the article. It's common for that tag to appear on articles whose subjects have recently been featured in the news. The goal is for it to be fixed at a later time. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a section is tagged as disproportionately large, then editors will be less inclined to expand it further. If there's a long-term goal, as you say, to fix it later, that goal is not stated or implicit. It's certainly not obvious to me. Barte (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The place for the consideration of significant events in the life of people sufficiently notable for a biographical article is, in general, in that biographical article. There's no WP:SIZESPLIT reason to spall this off, and quite a few reasons, some of which have arguable BLP connotations, not to do so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The transition is notable enough to merit its own article. While currently there is no section for public reactions to the transition, there should be such a section, and such a section would not be appropriate in Caitlyn Jenner's bio article. The nominator's argument that until Jenner has sex reassignment surgery the article constitutes WP:CRYSTAL is beyond absurd. The transition has occurred regardless if the surgery took place. How hot is the sun? (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to clarify: My statement above, "Apparently to some, "transition" in reference to transgender issues, refers to sex reassignment surgery" is based on the article talk page discussion wherein it was said that "transition" means surgical sex reassignment surgery. My feeling was that based on that belief, if there is no indication that Jenner is having such surgery in the immediate future, creating of an article regarding such a transition is premature and based on WP:CRYSTAL. So no, it's not absurd since that's pretty much what the article creators were doing by creating an article that's supposed to be about a surgery that hasn't been (according to sources) planned or is even forthcoming (again, according to sources and Jenner's own very recent statements). It has always been my understanding that transgender transition meant just what you say it means, however, those who created and were proponents of the new article say differently. The recent suggestion at the talk page speaks to same; now they want to change the article title to fit what is starting to look like an agenda. Bottom line: the article was poorly planned, not created as a result of consensus, and doesn't do anything different than what the Caitlyn Jenner article already did and still can do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The raison d'etre for the split was over WP:RECENTISM and proportionality. Reasonable people have respectfully disagreed on the best approach to address those concerns. But I wonder whether your argument here is missplaced. The original section head in Caitlyn Jenner was (and still is) entitled "Gender transition". If the two articles were merged, wouldn't you have the same complaint? Barte (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barte. Is everyone's problem about it being called "Gender transition" or it having its' own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me, personally and overwhelmingly, it's about the standalone article. It never should have happened. The discussion at the article talk page made that even more clear when it was obvious the article's proponents can't agree on what "transition" means and then wanting to change the name of the article to fit an agenda. All of that combined prompted me to create this AfD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A 'transition' is not notable enough to merit a stand-alone article, not in this universe at least. It should be in the main article. Elspamo4 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please only discuss if the articles' content warrant its' own page. For discussion on the use of the term "Gender Transition please see Talk:Caitlyn Jenner
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iady391 | Talk to me here 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Millions of people change genders but we don't have an article on the transition so I don't see why on earth we should have one now. –Davey2010^Talk 20:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure whether the number is really in the millions, but that's not relevant. The fact is that only Caitlyn had a 20/20 interview about the transition followed by a reality tv show. The transition is notable. While current content in the article may not be sufficiently long to warrant its own article, there is no doubt that Caitlyn's transition is more notable than the transitions of all the other people on this list combined. How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Well I'm obviously not sure on how many change but I'd imagine worldwide it's rather alot But anyway I disagree I don't believe it is notable as many people who go through this have interviews here & there, Meh we'll agree to disagree I think . –Davey2010^Talk 21:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably is in the millions I agree with the points of how it is easily the most notable transition and should keep its own article. Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most notable? Maybe as of right now, but there have been several other notable "transitions" (see Christine Jorgensen and Renée Richards two very well known examples that long pre-date Jenner's experience). As of yet, however, nothing has been provided in regard to a reliable reference that supports your claim it is the most notable. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide some for references then. Iady391 | Talk to me here 22:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I see no reason to create separate article about this. Merge with main article of person - Caitlyn Jenner. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to single paragraph and merge back to Caitlyn Jenner per WP:SIZESPLIT. —Sladen (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with Caitlyn Jenner without substantial reduction in coverage (though the details of weight should be worked out on the parent article talk page). Also, trout the nominator for not simply starting a merge discussion. VQuakr (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my first trout. I'll take it! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's trout mean? Iady391 | Talk to me here 10:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For our esteemed nominator, it means:

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Barte (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: I added a merge discussion tag on the main page.

Reverted; the nom was broken and we don't want a parallel discussion to the one here. VQuakr (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically per nom. That something generates lots of popular coverage doesn't make it encyclopedically notable, and it's not so inherently notable that it requires a separate article. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the Jenner article. Agree with comment immediately above, except that I think merger is more warranted given the extent of coverage in reliable sources. Arguably the most notable sex change in recent times. Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic conversation

*****I wouldn't object to a merge. Coretheapple, when my transition hits the media, you're in for a surprise. On a general note, I am dismayed when so many editors jump on something that may be important now but in the grand scheme of things means very little: we're way too much the news, and we forget all about history. That's my old person's complaint for the day. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm with you on these "ripped from the headlines" articles, but my AfD for Richard Matt was met with such derision that I hesitate to try again. P.S. In any given Wiki conversation, including this one, I am almost always the oldest person participating. Coretheapple (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That AfD was terrible, and the keeps were by fools. The speedily-closing admin must not have noticed the total lack of valid "keep" rationales. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - My feelings exactly but them's the breaks. This article. at least, has a plausible rationale. Matt is a poster child for BLP1E if there ever was one. Coretheapple (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)|}[reply]

Merge per Chase and my original reasoning for not splitting on the main article's talk page. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 17:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main bio article per the content size. This is seriously a faulty nomination and the reasons given here are atrocious. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main article, Caitlyn Jenner, fairly covers this material already, or at least it used to and still should. The rest should be covered in I am Cait, a docuseries devoted to her transition. Which is currently airing and likely generating much of the media coverage. I'm at a loss as to what other notable aspects wouldn't be in those two articles. Missruption (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Missruption: removing the split article and adding the material back at the parent article sounds like a !vote for a merge, not deletion. VQuakr (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "split" thus removing all the well-crafted material from the main article never should have happened. Call it what you will but this extra article should be deleted. The information restored where it was, and the new less important details sent to the I am Cait article. Missruption (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main bio article. There is no need for a separate article. The subject matter can easily be handled there. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see why this needs to be a separate article — between her main WP:BLP and the article about the television series, there's nothing noteworthy to say about this as a thing in its own right that couldn't be handled just fine in those two articles instead. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Stu Marshall Cup

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

Unsourced and probably not notable. I noticed that it was seven years out of date, and thought about finding sources and updating, but then I realized that this is a military "trophy" awarded for water polo, which doesn't strike me as a particularly notable topic. bd2412 T 17:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable award. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An award in a sport without a high profile among men of RAF, who are by definition not professional sportsmen. I assume that this is not as unsourced as it appears, because the names are likely to have been copied off the cup. Also out of date - no award recorded since 2008. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Searches showed nothing which would denote notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a soft delete with an option to create an article for the village if anyone so desires. Everyone agrees that the current content isn't notable, the village might be. However, that village article has to be written before a title can be kept. Anyone is free to create an article for the village. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elavanthi

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

Simply no signs of improvement with my searches finding not even one good source (mostly mirrors of course) and the interwiki articles are for "social history" instead. This could've been an easy PROD for an IP-started article from October 2005 with basically all original research but I wanted comments for weight and any minimal chance of improvement being found (though extremely unlikely). SwisterTwister talk 06:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is indeed a village of this name in Tamil Nadu. I think the article should be kept, refering to the village, and deleting all the other unsourced (mythical) content. Kraxler (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite for the village. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Dunn Foundation

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

Rather open and shut case regarding improvement and notability, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing good with the best being various links here. The website is basic and has no detailed information and with many issues since June 2007, one of them is orphan so there's no move target. Unless, if appropriate, this is mentioned briefly at Fiona Wood's article but then again she's only a sponsor so that's not much and frankly there's simply no signs of future improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep [13] shows notability, however small. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo advert of a non-notable foundation, trying to raise funds here?, the abovementioned source is a press release by a local government department, which is connected to the foundations purpose, web searches don't yield any other coverage in independent sources Kraxler (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially zero evidence of notability, from this very minimal article.As for the ref, see Kraxler's comment.. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 13:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Balendu Sharma Dadhich

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

The sources cited in the article do not seem to support WP:BASIC notability. The only reliable, independent source that I could find was brief mention in this Economic Times article.[14]. I am unable to find any other sources that establish minimum notability. - Mr X 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, google, newspaper and google books searches turn up pretty much nothing. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability can be established and appears more like a promotional work....Sushilkumarmishra (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Balendu is a Presidential Awardee. President of India Mr. Pranab Mukherjee is to award him with Atma Ram Award (given to people who contribute towards promotion of scientific temperament in India) on 24th September 2015 at a ceremony to be organized at the Rashtrapati Bhawan (Presidential Palace) New Delhi.

2. Many citations are already given in the Wikipedia entry regarding his work and achievements.

3. References are easily available on net regarding his work and status, including-

- http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/us-canada-news/International-Hindi-Conference-appeals-to-India-to-appoint-Hindi-professor-in-UK/articleshow/7752528.cms

- http://www.educationnewsindia.com/2011/03/international-hindi-conference-appeals.html

- http://navbharattimes.indiatimes.com/metro/delhi/other-news/announcing-hindi-sevi-samman/articleshow/47052834.cms

- http://article.wn.com/view-travelagents/WNAT7dd1ba7ddc485b1259a4ffec700389a5/

- http://hindi.webdunia.com/media-khabar/dr-shankar-dayal-singh-janbhasha-samman-114122900065_1.html

- http://www.topicsconnect.com/parveen-malhotra/videos/balendu-sharma-dadhich-pervin-malhotra-discuss-new-media-lok-sabha-tv-part-1-watch-dWwtT3BVT0xibG8.html

- http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-12-27/news/57441310_1_general-vk-singh-hindi-former-army-chief

- http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/making-hindi-global/204970/2

- http://www.mauritiustimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3708:-sarita-boodhoo&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=50

- http://seemapuritimesaward.blogspot.in/

- http://vhindi.in/forums/topic/%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4-%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B7%E0%A4%BE-%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80-%E0%A4%AC%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6/

- http://www.jansattaexpress.net/prize/10636.html

- http://www.defimedia.info/news-sunday/nos-education/item/10865-education-news.html?tmpl=component&print=1

- http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/hindi-academy-awards-given-amid-controversy-boycott/article765996.ece

- http://vishwahindisammelan.gov.in/ninth-world-hindi-conference.htm

- http://www.rsuh.ru/csas/english/news/detail.php?ID=109920

- He is author of technology book in Hindi, namely Takneeki Suljhanen.

- He is a developer of many freeware software in Hindi, including Madhyam. Ref. https://www.google.co.in/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=madhyam%20hindi%20word%20processor

- http://www.educationnewsindia.com/2011/03/international-hindi-conference-appeals.html

- just search in Google using बालेन्दु शर्मा दाधीच and you would get enough material about him, especially in Hindi. See link below- https://www.facebook.com/takneeki.suljhanen/photos_stream

Note: The entry needs to be properly edited but it doesn't deserve deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.139.63 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 August 2015‎ (UTC) — 122.161.139.63 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need to WP:BOMBARD us with trivial mentions. Kraxler (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Wilson (martial artist)

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

Non-notable martial artist. Runs a karate school. Competitions won are minor and/or not at the highest level. Does not meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. The same article is found at Draft:David Wilson where it was declined for essentially the same reasons. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major titles. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, and WP:NSPORTS. The world title medal is unsourced and even if true would have been for the 35-44 age division which is not the highest level. There's also a COI issue with the draft having been written by Dojodave.Mdtemp (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG, refs in the article are WP:ROUTINE sports news, and a short promo piece about his karate school. Kraxler (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG or that he meets WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1. postdlf (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Impractical Jokers UK episodes

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

No need for separate episode article. This can be merged into the main article for the TV series as that article is quite small. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 14:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. This is AFD and no reason has been provided for deletion. To begin a merge discussion see WP:MERGEPROP. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wayne Thomas Batson. If anyone wants to merge I obviously suggest the TP. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Sea Annals

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

I'm not finding references to support this title's notability. Mikeblas (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot source the individual titles or the trilogy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to author. Essentially we have no substantive content here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author as my searches found absolutely nothing good as well. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne Thomas Batson. Unsourced, no info, and speculation about future books. Kraxler (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Swan

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

Contested speedy. None of the sources given are solid or independent enough to establish notability, and can find nothing better. Unremarkable <ss>snake oil merchant self-promoting nudnik. TheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 15:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 22 purported references in the article, zero of them meet our standard for independent, reliable sources. That doesn't get into the BLP grounds for deletion, which are substantial, especially with the state of the references. I am less certain whether or not an article on this subject could be written. This Delaware Online (the online branch of The News Journal) article about Inside Out somewhat inexplicably treats Swan as an expert and spends more time discussing her beliefs about childhood emotion than it does the film. And while this article makes literally only a passing mention of Swan, it implies the existence of a three-part series on Swan and her claims by KIVI-TV. I'm neutral as to whether those two sources constitute sufficient framework for a biographical article. But I'm not neutral about the current content here; it needs to go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to describe one's problems. It's also not a place to WP:PROMOte one's business or views. There's no claim of notability in the article, and even WP:BOMBARDed with questionable refs, it fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - search showed no notability. The nom and above editors have said it all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harbour SkyLink

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

Non-notable. Article is based on promoter's own website and a single newspaper article. There has been no further coverage of this proposal in the mainstream media. Additionally, the user who posted it was later found to be a sock puppet. Mqst north (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think an additional references tag would have been better than nominating it for deletion - it seems to have sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG, it just hasn't been incorporated into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find two articles, ever – an initial one (referenced on the page) from a major daily two months ago and a second from a local opinion site, apparently based on the first. Have you found anything else? My view is that something doesn't become notable simply because it gets a single article one day... particularly since there has been no mention of it since. Mqst north (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the coverage is limited and seems to promote the concept. It's not really an infrastructure project, it has no funding nor government support just an idea of 1 or 2 people that hit the media cycle. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not an official government proposal. Gareth (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No concrete evidence it will proceed, just on a wish list. Turingway (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Searches returned no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 14:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puranik Builders Private Ltd

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

Marginally promotional article about a builder in India, written by the company itself, that shows little notability. Sources are all primary, advertising-like content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP edit reverted, that falsified the original nomination statement - see history. GermanJoe (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Amrit

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

Article was speedy deleted, now been recreated by a possible sockpuppet account of User:Rik amrit Samuel Tarling (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No credible assertions of notability. A local kid involved in local theater, who has written some stuff. Nothing much here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Speedily deleted by User:Shirt58 as G7 - One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W.G. Pierce Middle School

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

Accidentally created an article under this name instead of USS Pecatonica AOG-57, but i made sure to make the right one. this is why we don't forget to wear our glasses Luis Santos24 (Have a good day) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete by RHaworth per A11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwreck dinner

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

No sources. Might be a joke, nothing to show context or notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does sound like something from Scouting, but I've never come across it. Could have been thought up in one group or at a District Camp. Not notable enough for an article. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SmartSE (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make It Cheaper

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

Non notable and promotional. The references are less than they seem. Refs 1,2, 3,4 are press releases. Refs 5, 8. was written by the company. For Ref 6, the list is fastest growing, which means not yet notable. Ref 7 is a mere entry on a legal list , Ref 9 is an appearance of their ceo on a general show, Ref 10 is a general article, not specifically about the company, Ref 11 does not mention the company, or at most simply mentions it if I missed in in the audio, Ref 12 is a promotionl sqib by the ceo of the Australian branch, Ref 13 is trivial, Ref 14 is one of a large group that does not say it is on the LSE.

WP should not be adding to the list of their promotional references. DGG ( talk ) 12:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed with DGG. MIC gets a two-sentence mention in Ref 11 that reads more like native advertising than an actual news piece. Everything I'm finding that isn't primary reads like native advertising or promotion. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With 140 or so staff, I do not think it counts as WP-notable; also ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. There is no significant independent coverage in the references. Google News lists a lot of mentions, but nothing significant: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches found nothing outstandingly good. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 and G11. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aura Event Planners

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

Created multiple times, speedy deletion each time. Article has no real references and the company in question is not notable. Samuel Tarling (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Kuala Lumpur. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KLites

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

Article is unsourced and fails notability. Content is redundant to what is already mentioned in the Kuala Lumpur article. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 10:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 12:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No notability. Already included in the article where it belongs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kuala Lumpur as a plausible search term. The content already exists at the main article so I don't see any harm in a redirect. Interestingly, a search reveals mostly false positives: i.e., hits not about Malaysia or Kuala Lumpur. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. General consensus that this should not be an article. Any useful content can be merged to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom at editorial discretion from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth

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

Load of unsourced trivia. Completely OR. Nobody really ever published an article anywhere about British prime ministers that were "Born after their spouse", for example... And whether a PM was born in the same year as a "British Monarch" is of course also utterly trivial. And so on... WP:LISTCRUFT. Randykitty (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2015 (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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of other articles relating to this topic that can confirm all of the material written in this article. It is more or less a summary of all of the births of each and every person who has been Prime Minister of the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Named Stu (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC) [User:Boy Named Stu]] is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Comment. Please read again, the problem is not whether the info is correct or not, but that it is utterly trivial cruft. --Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It summarizes when and where all of the PMs were born. No other article on Wikipedia covers this topic in as much depth as this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Named Stu (talk • contribs) 11:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like a highly notable list with easy to find sources. Fotaun (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really?? Any source for "British PMs born after their spouse"? Just saying there are "easy to find sources" does not make it so. There will be tons of sources for birth dates of PMs, of course. There may even be some sources for bdates of their spouses. Everything else in this list is OR. Have a look at Category:Lists of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Any really interesting info is in one of those lists (although some of those are pretty crufty, too). --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello, and thanks for the comment. Strictly speaking a lot of that really is a dispute over page content. Some of the issues may be real and of course the entire wikipedia probably needs better sources, but its probably not necessary to engage in deletion discussion. Fotaun (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is more than a discussion on page content, given that the whole page is OR and listcruft. There's no salvaging this mess. So unless somebody can show that this subject is something that has been addressed in reliable sources, this utterly unencyclopedic stuff fails our notability standards. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom already includes all the necessary info (birth names, year of birth). Birthplace and order of birth are pretty irrelevant. Otherwise, we'd be snowed under by List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by height, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by hair color, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of Presidents of the United States with facial hair which has survived several attempts to delete it because the topic is actually quite notable. Editors who don't like such lists should please accept that their personal tastes are not an adequate reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The same editor has also created List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death FYI, for which the same arguments apply. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there's also List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BADIDEA, turning an amalgamation of data sorts into an article. Vrac (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A highly informative and factual look on the births of British PMs. WikiPedia needs articles like this. Definitely not worthy of deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.90.64 (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Like Boy Named Stu and Fotaun, you seem to think that if something is true and you deem it interesting, that that is enough reason for an article to be kept. It is not. There are a lot of things I could write about my cleaning lady, all true and some of it perhaps even interesting, but the crux of the matter is that she is not notable, so she won't get an article. You should read up about deletion policy, because !votes like this one that are not policy based are likely to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom said everything I have to say. shoy (reactions) 13:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How the hell is this article in the delete section? It would've taken this person hours to compile what seems to me to be vitally important information on the births of UK PMs. After all, they are one of the world's most powerful people. It does look fairly similar to the articles on US Presidents, but I don't see any of those articles in the delete section at all. I can't entirely agree either that it's OR. The information on births and birthplaces would've come from sources anyway. To the average person that would even have the slightest interest in British politics, this article makes all of the information in it a hell of a lot easier to access than it would clicking on the articles on every single PM. Definitely for keeps this one.Silver Sovereign (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC) — User:Silver Sovereign (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Yes, it must have taken a lot of effort and I really feel sorry for the article creator. However, I could put a couple of hours into making a biography of my cleaning lady, but the fact that I spent a lot of effort on it is not an argument to keep her bio, because it is not a policy-based argument. Please see above, please read the links to guidelines and policies that I have placed on your talk page. And please everybody, remember that AfD is not a vote, your arguments must be policy-based, otherwise they will be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN because external sources exist which compile such facts about prime ministers. For example, see Facts about the British prime ministers, Amazing & Extraordinary Facts - Prime Ministers;British Prime Ministers and Democracy. There is perhaps scope for merger with other such lists, consolidating them into a sortable table and it seems quite reasonable that we should have a list of PMs with summary biographical data, such as their birth date and place. Also note that there are extensive variations in the lists for other similar offices such as the US presidency. For example, see the Lists of presidents such as List of Presidents of the United States by date of birth. Andrew D. (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the info for which you give sources is already present in List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. The weird things in the current list (i.e., born before their spouse and other such cruft) is of course not in that (featured) list and not sourced by the links you provide. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, information about the date and place of birth of the PMs is in those sources but is not in the rival list. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Some of the data in the first table is useful, but most of nthe article is trivia that should be pruned off. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, along with List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death, as fairly obviously indiscriminate cruft. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above SOXROX (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At a glance I thought this would be an easy deletion on the basis it was a trivia fork. Upon further review, there is certain functionality that I would hope could be saved in a merge. Carrite (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of So Random! sketches

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

Somewhat of a fandom carbuncle this one, going below the radar as it's only going to be of interest to fans. Anyway, this list feels highly inappropriate as it's never going to be sourcable or verifiable in a reliable way and is therefore wholly OR. It's also content that a fan wiki would be better off with given how limited the scope of interest is and is hard not to call fancrufty though I don't like saying that. In all, it fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR and it's a bit odd how anon editora way outnumber registered users, doesn't mean anything but I find it curious nonetheless. tutterMouse (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yeah, it's inherently WP:OR and fancruft. This article is hopelessly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Bonus internet points to the nominator for the phrase "fandom carbuncle". Reyk _YO! 10:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is fancruft, and unencyclopaedic. --ceradon (talk • edits) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unverifiable. --TL22 (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Pure fancruft. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talitha Bateman

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. To date, none of her roles have been significant. She is mentioned in a number of online sources but the mentions are not significant and most reference the 3 episodes (out of 76 aired) of Hart of Dixie in which she appeared as a minor recurring character as her most notable work. Indeed, the only two sources in the article that mention her are used to support the claim of her appearances in that series. All 8 of her roles to date have been as minor characters, with two of those uncredited. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the additional sources meet the criteria for notability. According to the Variety article, she has the lead in the 5th Wave, as well as being cast to star opposite Alfre Woodard in another film. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per One15969, I was the one who removed prod tag from article, that time itself I noticed her notability. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove} 13:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per above & per these sources [21][22][23][24] - The sources aren't perfect but notability is there. –Davey2010^Talk 16:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Note: While consensus is clear, I remain mindful of SwisterTwister's comment regarding offline and/or non-English sources. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Khilawan Mishra

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

Does not pass our notability criteria. As an independence activist he was one of many that haven't received any coverage. The subject was also a teacher and a village head, but neither of those is sufficient to pass the SNGs for academics or politicians either. —SpacemanSpiff 08:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Searches on google books, google news, and a general websearch revealed no notability for this particular person. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because there are no obviously good sources and the best I found was this from 1971 so it's imaginable sources are non-English and offline. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL, freedom fighter, village head, but fails WP:GNG. Kraxler (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor & austin

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources outside of [25]. Conifer (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this duo is notable at this point in time. I have no objection to this getting recreated if/when they pass notability guidelines. On a side note, I've blocked the article creator for a promotional username that gives off the impression that multiple people are using the account. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since most references are unreliable. They may have significant coverage but not on reliable sources. Seems a bit promotional. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Current references are either not substantial or not independent. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Searches revealed only a hit to their twitter account, except for Highbeam, which produced a number of hits, but none about this particular act. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Staqu

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

Only one in-depth source, which is questionably reliable given language like "Staqu has a strong and experienced technical and design team to interface the research with the consumer in a seamless manner." Conifer (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could find no additional sources. Per Conifer, the only significant source does not appear sufficiently reliable - but even if it were, per WP:NCORP, A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. BethNaught (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With all respect, I would recommend that any newer participants opining for ~~deletion~~ keeping here review and understand Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographical subjects, and consider asking questions at the Teahouse, at WP:TEAHOUSE, to better understand those criteria before attempting to appeal or recreate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Batchelor

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)

I've gone through a dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing--that is nothing reliable, because the internets are full of hits for this person from some Christian sect or other. Being a minister is not a reason for notability in its own right, and I do not see how this person would pass the GNG. Please see the article history for the full version of this article (including a dozen links to his own publications) and a bit of edit warring between two editors, about doctrine I suppose. Tricky stuff of course. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] The current article is in desperate need of revising in non-bias form with valid resources. After some research, I discovered reliable sources that the article needs. In compliance with WP guidelines there are many resources that meet the requirements. Articles from Australian Press, The Christian Century, The Christian Post, Deseret News, and Spectrum Magazine meet the requirements of WP:RS. I would contend that Spectrum Magazine is less reliable than The Christian Post, The Christian Century, and Deseret News, however, all of these WP:RS meet the guidelines of Wikipedia and have mentioned Doug Batchelor. If an overwhelming amount was necessary, places like Lincoln, California wouldn't have a page, and evangelists listed on the List of television evangelists page, like Kenneth E. Hagin, Juanita Bynum, Percy Crawford, and easily 26 other evangelists wouldn't exist either. More over, there are still well known sources that hold some weight, such as Barns & Noble, National Religious Broadcasters, Discovery Channel, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Lifetime, IMDb, National Geographic, and Trinity Broadcasting Network, all of which have also mentioned Doug Batchelor or have aired his content. Doug Batchelor runs 3 Television shows and a radio show that is heard on 120+ stations. He has made multiple feature length documentaries, he employs 70+ workers with $13M/year in donations and he is part of the fastest growing denomination in the USA ([26]). It seems strange to me that Drmies says, "I've gone through a dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing" while I have found over 56 WP:RS sources for an author that has written over 100 books, while other authors like Herbert E. Douglass can have his books counted toward WP:RS, those opposed to keeping Doug Batchelor's WP page are silent about referencing his books as WP:RS. Remember, Google search won't always show everything. I am concerned that there may be some Anti-Christian sentiment among the more established editors. In keeping with WP guidelines, I will still assume good faith. Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 63 WP:RS that show Doug Batchelor is both notable and worthy to have his own WP page Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This notable article is completely about Doug Batchelor.^[1]
Open letter to Doug Batchelor that is show's he is notable. ^[2]
An island magazine named "Good News" has an article that features Doug 6 times and shows his notability.^[3]
The Austrailian Record mentions Doug Batchelor as an "internationally-renowned evangelist"^[4]
A scanned copy of a magazine from 2006 called "Lamplighter" features a whole page on Doug Batchelor ^[5]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned on New Zealand's LGBT news website called GayNZ.com^[6]
Doug Batchelor is quoted in an article on Christian Post about drinking Alcohol.^[7]
Doug Batchelor is quoted in an article on The Christian Century about the ordination of women.^[8]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in an interview on Deseret News, about the Pope.^[9]
Doug Batchelor is interviewed by Fox 40^[10]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in a news article about long time theologian Herbert E. Douglass^[11]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in 4 articles by independent magazine Adventist Today^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in 3 Spectrum Magazine articles.^[16]^[17]^[18]
Doug Batchelor is quoted, mentioned, and interviewed in uncountable articles on the faith's own published magazine.^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in multiple articles on Advinicate magazine.^[39]^[40]^[41]^[42]^[43]^[44]^[45]^[46]^[47]^[48]^[49]^[50]^[51]^[52]^[53]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in multiple articles from the Adventist Review ^[54]^[55]^[56]^[57]^[58]^[59]^[60]^[61]^[62]^[63]

Here are 42 sources that are worth mentioning Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google's book archive shows 126 books written by Doug Batchelor^[64]
Barns & Noble lists 60 books by Doug Batchelor:^[65]
2015 National Religious Broadcasters Award for Best National TV Commercial:^[66]^[67]
2014 National Religious Broadcasters Award for Best National TV Commercial:^[68]
Doug Batchelor's shows air on the Discovery Channel:^[69]
Doug Batchelor's shows air on Trinity Broadcasting Network:^[70]^[71]^[72]^[73]
Lifetime (TV network)'s schedule on DirectTV's website shows one of Doug Batchelor's shows in their schedule:^[74]^[75]^[76]
Christian media ministry "lightsource.com" has Batchelor on the home page:^[77]
Faith based Television Network Daystar (TV network) airs Doug Batchelor's programs:^[78]
Doug Batchelor is listed in IMDb:^[79]
Doug Batchelor's gets more hits^[80] than other well known people on Wikipedia: Hank_Hanegraaff^[81], Richard_Roberts_(evangelist)^[82], Valerie_Jarrett^[83], and Scott_Adams^[84] (whom is the creator of Dilbert)
Wikipedia lists Doug as a televangelist worth noting^[85]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in IMDb trivia as a the "speaker for the Amazing Facts television and radio ministry".^[86]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in Sun Sentinel article about his father and Philanthropist George Batchelor whom actually gets almost 1/6th of the webpage hits than his Doug Batchelor's on WP.^[87]
Doug Batchelor is interviewed in National Geographic Documentary called "Secret Code of Revelation"^[88]^[89]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in Hank Hanegraff radio show. ^[90]
Australian press release about Doug Batchelor ^[91]
Documentary staring Doug Batchelor mentioned in CFDb ^[92]
Documentary sold by STL called "Revelation: Bride, Beast, and Babylon" stars Doug Batchelor ^[93]
A Guidinglight Encyclopedia Has a complete bio of Doug Batchelor^[94]
Project Gutenberg Has a biography of Doug Batchelor ^[95]
FamPeople.com, which speaks of "Interesting stories about famous people", has a biography of Doug Batchelor^[96]
ABC Australia mentions National Religious Broadcasters and Doug Batchelor^[97]
ABC Australia Film Reviews mentions the film God On My Side which features Doug Batchelor^[98]
National Religious Broadcasters website mentions that Doug Batchelor is on the NRB President’s Council.^[99]
News article on NRB's website quotes Doug Batchelor about the death of Rick Warren's son.^[100]
Jewish News website Shalom Adventure Magazine features an article on Doug Batchelor^[101]
Savanna Pictures is selling a DVD called "Creation Speaks" of which Doug Batchelor is a key speaker.^[102]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned in Ryan Bell's website ^[103]
Doug Batchelor is mentioned as a "celebrity" on TV Guide ^[104]
Doug Batchelor is WBAJ radio's testimonials page for his Bible Answers Live radio show. ^[105]
An article from December 12, 2012 mentions Doug Batchelor ^[106]

Bradburns (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradburns, Please, don't just drop a bunch of useless links in here. No one is going to be impressed by the results of a Google search or some list from Barnes and Noble. Read WP:RS; right now you're not helping the cause. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added formatting and the word "keep". Bradburns, that there are other articles for possibly non-notable people is not our concern here. How many likes he has is also no one's concern. Plato has zero likes (he doesn't even have a Facebook page, though I didn't check MySpace) and is very notable, because people wrote about him in books. The link you offered is not about him, and doesn't even mention him. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, Your right, I'm not helping your cause. However, here is a list of links (as I stated above) that are external proving why Doug's page should be kept. These are valid sources. Yes, one was a book search on google and barns and noble for Doug's books. This is to help people that have gone through "dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing". This does help the cause, because you wanted the links to be "about him, and ... [to] mention him." These valid sources are from NRB, TBN, DirectTV, Lifetime, Daystar, and shows he is well published, well seen, and well searched for. I don't know how much more valid WP would need. There are plenty of other pages for people with less traffic and less popularity on WP.Bradburns (talk) 01:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cause is Wikipedia. No, your links are useless, as anyone with some wiki experience can tell you. You obviously didn't look at RS. But hey, don't take my advice, why would you. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you already said "keep" once. What you've done with the formatting of this list I don't know but I can't fix it. If you really think that a Facebook photo of someone holding up an award is somehow proof of anything, then you might well be lacking the WP:COMPETENCE required to edit here. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would do everyone well to review the advisories of WP. I sense some personal attacks with "anyone with some wiki experience" and "lacking the WP:COMPETENCE required" are not necessary and go against the WP:PA section. This shows your personal agenda against Doug Batchelor and does not add to your cause. A personal message will suffice if you are concerned about my references or my ability to find legitimate sources. Yes, there is a photo of Doug holding an award with other notable figures, this is a secondary reference. There are many, many more references and articles about awards, books, shows, commercials, and networks which are completely inline with the WP:RS. There is also plenty of other resources. Please, hold your peace.Bradburns (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] - Doug Batchelor is definitely a well-known and stand-alone subject and personality, and warrants a separate Wikipedia article, because he is certainly known, sourced, and clearly notable. (There are people who have WP articles about them that are not even nearly as well-known and heard and seen as Batchelor.) As you can see from the edit history in the article, Bradburns and I obviously have not always agreed (because, frankly speaking, of his blatant POV in parts of the article, and turning the article into an infomercial and fluff piece, in non-compliance to WP standards, and also suppression of certain sourced facts, etc, but where I modified and fixed the problem, where initially I put a POV "neutrality disputed" tag on top of the article that I later removed), but, Drmies, I seriously cannot believe that you put the "deletion" tag for this article. There's no good warrant for that really. Your argument about no real third-party sources. But the AmazingFacts website is ok for an article like this. Also there's the issue of "ignore all rules" and "WP:COMMON SENSE"...that it seems you're not taking into account. There's no good justification to delete this article. Regarding the SDAC minister Doug Batchelor. He, by himself, apart from his "Amazing Facts" website and lectures etc, though partly because of it, is certainly a stand-alone subject. That's not really even debatable. He's widely known and seen. The article should definitely stay, but not with POV wording and tone. That's all. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Gabby Merger, and Bradburns, I understand how you feel, but the problem here is one of verifiability: you need reliable sources that prove that your subject is important enough to pass our guidelines. Simply being a preacher isn't enough, and in neither of your comments are sources provided that prove your subject is notable per, for instance, WP:GNG. Thank you, and good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Delete] I tried to source it. He does get quoted a little in the press. But the links following his books on the page lead only to the publisher, and I couldn't find and reviews, let alone profiles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes--and I was very surprised that I wasn't able to find anything; I'm glad I'm not the only one. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] Doug Batchelor has been on many main stream broadcasts including the Discovery Channel, ABC Family, and Lifetime Television. His page on wikipedia has on average around 150 page views a day. Less than some other televangelists but not so few as to make him someone who is not searched. He is number 10 on ranker.com's list of top evangelists (http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-televangelists/alby-thompson). He is easily one of the most recognized members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Many other "public figures" on wikipedia have much smaller page views such as Tomm Coker and Jim Balent. Well known comic book artist Neal Adams has similar stats to Mr. Batchelor. All in all I think it would be irresponsible to remove someone who is viewed this often. joninlincoln (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC) — joninlincoln (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't know what the value of Ranker is. If that information can be reliably sourced (I see no sourcing on that website), it might mean something. But that Ranker's entry is next to a list of "The Sexiest Howard Stern Regulars" (apparently we can vote right now), and that the Batchelor "article" (copied from Wikipedia) has an ad for dating Chinese women, make me doubt the seriousness and reliability of that particular website. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] Whoever is recommending deletion of Doug Batchelor's page must have a personal agenda. Batchelor is as public as a religious figure gets, just type his name into any search engine and there are pages of information. The first three pages of a google search are dedicated to his work. (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=doug+batchelor). Mighty Flower (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Mighty Flower (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If all these brandspankingnew accounts could read up on policies (and formatting, signing, etc), that would be great. As for your Google search, it proves nothing. See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This article reads like advertising copy. I have little idea whether he is notable, but this does not read like an objective encyclopaedic article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] - Drmies, I'm confident you have an agenda to remove Doug Batchelor's page. Joel Osteen and others are preachers, just like Batchelor, they wrote books, just like Batchelor. Why don't you remove Joel Osteen's page, as some of the sources on his page point back to his own ministry's website. How credible is that? The point is, if you open your eyes and read the above links, you can see very easily that Doug Batchelor is an accomplished preacher or evangelist to be politically correct. Here's a few articles where Doug Batchelor is mentioned in the main stream news. Some of the below sources state "Doug Batchelor, a popular television and radio evangelist ..." Apparently the consensus is that he's popular and well known, just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he's not. Doug Batchelor has been on the following broadcasting networks, Lifetime, Discovery, ABC Family, BET, The Church Channel, The Word Network and Trinity Broadcasting Network. Batchelor has been/is on a LOT more networks than a lot of other evangelsits, are you going to remove all of them as well, that would be only fair? Just TBN alone covers 98% of the US and is in 102 million households. They are on more than 10,000 cable systems and are on 72 satelite transponder footprints, covering every country on the planet, except for Antarctica, how's that for publicity? TBN's potential audience is 2.7 BILLION viewers world wide. (Directly from TBN) I don't have time to waste, but taking a few minutes to google Doug Batchelor, yes google, where would Wikipedia be without google, probably not existent. By the way, Batchelor is also on over 200 radio stations, which I would be more than glad to list every single radio station if you really care. ^[107] ^[108] ^[109] ^[110] ^[111] ^[112] ^[113] ^[114] ^[115] ^[116] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moreaboutjesus (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC) — Moreaboutjesus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

His argument is not so much that Batchelor is not notable. He certainly is, and Drmies will concede that. His point is that there presumably are not "reliable sources" or third-party references for Doug Batchelor to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. It's debatable. But there's also the point of "ignore all rules" as WP technically does not have "rules", just general policies, recommendations, standards, and things that should be taken in context. Drmies (in my opinion) is being over-scrupulous much, a bit, and ignoring the general drift, and also that the "Amazing Facts" website is a "reliable source" and is fine for an article like this. (And other sources were in the article...not just the Amazingfacts one...in this article that he basically chopped up and removed whole sub-sections, that were not necessary to remove.) Overall, though he may have a sliver of a point in a way, the article should remain. This Seventh Day Adventist minister and evangelist (though I personally of course do NOT agree with him in everything) is too big to not have a WP page for. Even if there is a little lack of third-party sources. No WP article is perfect...nor can be. Everything has to be taken into consideration, not just one. Regards.............. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] I am a long time user of Wikipedia, but a first time editor because it came to my attention that this page was to be deleted. I researched the details of what qualifies a page to be deleted and found that the criteria is lacking, namely the one that calls for "common sense". The nominator for deletion seems to be biased, and I hope that however the consensus is judged, his/her personal agenda is taken into consideration. First, the reason given for deletion was after he/she had "gone through a dozen pages of Google hits" without finding the evidence of notability even though the guidelines WP:GOOGLEHITS state that "since an article can be verified as notable entirely by offline sources such as books and newspapers, a lack of search results there is not proof in itself that an article should be kept or deleted." It also says that Google shouldn't be entirely dismissed, but it is "the quality of the search engine results [that] matters more than the raw number." Even so, the same editor made the comment: "No one is going to be impressed by the results of a Google search". Now, I am persuaded, that this page is well within the guidelines of Wikipedia. The reasons have been stated pretty well by other "keepers", which are not to be taken lightly. One of the greatest evidences I see of the need to KEEP this page is Doug Batchelor's inclusion in the List of television evangelists. Of the dozens of names in this list, his is one of the most recognized today. Everyone deserves to know who this man of influence is, even if some disagree with is theology. I think it is odd that much of the material that demonstrates Doug Batchelor's noteworthyness has been deleted from the article. Editors, please take note of what has been removed. WyattAllenSDA (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — WyattAllenSDA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since we clearly have a large amount of new accounts and accounts related to the article creation voting here, I am relisting the nomination in hope to attract more regular Wikipedia users.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the assertions made above, I cannot find coverage to show that Batchelor would meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. He's received some coverage via Spectrum magazine, but this isn't enough to show notabiltiy via Wikipedia's guidelines. The thing about offline sources is that there has to be a reasonable belief that offline sources exist, meaning that we need to see some sort of evidence that Batchelor received coverage. This policy isn't meant to be used to say "nobody can find sources but notability isn't reliant on online sources so this should be kept", but rather to refer to instances where there is a record of someone receiving coverage in news outlets where those articles have not been transferred to the Internet. In other words, you still need to prove that there is coverage by at least providing enough information to where an editor can track down the newspaper/RS and verify its content. I can find nothing here to show that Batchelor has ever been the focus of offline coverage, at least none that would be substantial enough to warrant inclusion. As far as his TV series goes, having a TV series does not automatically guarantee notability. It can make it more likely, but it is not a guarantee and there are multiple television series and hosts that fail notability guidelines. I've seen hundreds of programs and hosts have articles deleted, some of whom were on extremely major television channels during prime time viewing hours. It all boils down to coverage in independent and reliable sources. Now when it comes to Google hits, the point of that guideline is that it's meant to prevent people from quoting a number of hits and using that to define notability (or the lack thereof) without actually going through the hits. In other words, Drmies did exactly what the policy requires: that he go through the hits to see if there is anything that Wikipedia would consider to be usable. The thing about religious figures is that it's usually extremely difficult for them to gain coverage in places Wikipedia would consider to be reliable, partially because the amount of places that will report on them that are considered to be RS are pretty few and far between - and they can only report on a limited amount of people/topics, which means that they have to pick and choose who/what they report on. The more mainstream sources usually don't report on religious figures until they're very mainstream and while that's unfortunate, Wikipedia still requires coverage in RS and it's not up to Wikipedia to make exceptions for someone because they're not reported on as much as you might think that they deserve to be reported on. I'm sorry, but I cannot see where he passes notability guidelines. I'd say redirect to the ministry, but I don't particularly see where that really passes notability guidelines either and besides, that'd leave a redirect that has little to no explanation as to why it redirects there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this was not so cut and dry for me as it was for Tokyogirl79 and Drmies. A google news search does return some hits, but none meet the "substantial coverage" requirement. The sparcity of those hits also does not speak well to his notability by Wikipedia standards. I won't go into this too much as Tokyogirl79 and Drmies have covered the detail admirably. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something that should be kept in mind by all the "delete" voters, and especially in a context and article like this:

The stance of ignoring all rules is itself a rule, constituting a paradox.

A famous quote of Ralph Waldo Emerson is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."^[117]

In 2001, Stephen King made "ignore all rules" the second rule of reading in his autobiographical On Writing.^[118]

At Wikipedia

"Ignore All Rules" is a "favorite" rule of the English-language open content encyclopedia, Wikipedia.^[119] Its formulation is generally (emphasis in original), "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."^[120] Wikipedia has a tradition of treating rules skeptically, except for this rule.^[119] The philosophy or mantra was championed by Larry Sanger^[121] (a co-founder of Wikipedia, active 2001–2002), who made it the first of a set of site guidelines^[122] (but later rejected it);^[121] it continues to be disseminated by Jimmy Wales (the still active co-founder of Wikipedia).^[120] Gabby Merger (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly a COI editor, and insulting long-term non-partisan users does not help your cause.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Seventh Day Advenist. So... Excuse me? First, how exactly did I "insult" any user on here by simply referring and reminding about the "ignore no rules" matter? Number two, how are you not "insulting" me by calling me "clearly a COI editor"?? (A Conflict Of Interest editor). You're so out of line and inaccurate (and pot-kettle-black) in your comment, it's like not funny. Let me set you straight. You're completely WRONG about my being a "COI editor" because (guess what, blanter), I'm NOT a Seventh Day Adventist!!! Not only that, I disagree with Seventh Day Adventists on SCORES of things. I don't like Batchelor. I disagree with him on many points, though I agree with him on some things. I think that he's basically full of himself, a wind-bag, and doctrinally (in many important ways) in error. So, you wanna take that back? You're confusing me with the other "keep" editors on here who are clearly Seventh Day Adventists. But let me re-iterate. I am not, never was, and never will be a Seventh Day Adventist and "Sabbatarian". Nor will I agree with SDA theology and eschatology or many points in their soteriology. I hope I made it quite clear that your assumption was way off base and plain wrong. I'm not an SDA. Not now, not ever. And again, my simply bringing up the policy of "ignore all rules" in certain contexts is far from "insulting" anyone...like you did with me. You violated WP:Civility and also "assume good faith". So please be careful. You owe me an apology, but some how, given how you commented and assumed arrogantly, I doubt I'll get it. Regards....... Gabby Merger (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you did not like being called a COI editor and reminding that you summarily insulted the delete voters, but this is just a sheer fact. Sorry for that.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you just how exactly I "insulted" anybody, simply because I put in the "ignore all rules" thing...and also I asked just how I am a "COI editor", when I already explained to you that I'm not even an SDA, nor do I agree with them. Maybe you're wrongly thinking that the paste that I did of the "ignore all rules" where it says "little minds" was my own words or something. They weren't. It was directly from the "ignore all rules" article. I can't help that. But I did not intentionally "insult" anyone, as you're imagining. But you assumed bad faith immediately and carelessly, for some reason. As I suspected (and I'm usually right about things) that you would not take back your accusation and false remarks, nor truly apologize, as, frankly speaking, I see that you're hasty and arrogant in assuming BAD faith, and not apologizing for your assumption, with NO basis. Just because I voted "keep" does NOT mean I'm a "COI editor". What "conflict of interest" do I supposedly have exactly, according to you? Because I edit some religious or theological articles sometimes? How so exactly? You have yet to explain (because you really have no answer obviously) just how exactly I'm a "conflict of interest" editor, when I'm not even a Seventh Day Adventist, and I made it clear that I don't even like Doug Batchelor. You're guilty of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. And as I said, be careful. Because you're showing yourself to be actually guilty of the nonsense you accused me of (with no sound or solid basis). You insulted ME...and assumed bad faith for no good reason. My simply reminding about "ignore all rules" is not necessarily "insulting" anyone here, nor does it show that I'm a "COI" anything. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take me to ANI and stop this bullshitting.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're wrongly thinking that the paste that I did of the "ignore all rules" where it says "little minds" was my own words or something. They weren't. It was directly from the "ignore all rules" article. I can't help that. But I did not intentionally "insult" anyone, as you're imagining. But you assumed bad faith immediately and carelessly, for some reason. And now you're cursing for some reason, and being even more uncivil. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you repeatedly how exactly have I "insulted" anyone here. I never called anyone what you called me. I never assumed bad faith necessarily. All I did was vote "keep" and gave reasons as to why, that Batchelor is notable enough, and that drmies, though having a point, was a bit over-scrupulous on this matter, ignoring other things. Other "keep" voters were WAY more "insulting" than I was...if that's the case. And I put in the "ignore all rules" thing. You wrote (then deleted) that you don't care what I am, but you accused me of insulting people, and that I'm claiming I'm the one being insulted. You called me a "clear COI editor" and that's not "insulting"?? Just because I edited the article that must mean I'm a "Conflict Of Interest" editor? Simply because I contributed to the article? You have some weird definitions and assumptions, obviously. I was editing the article and so what? If there are "COI editors" on this page, it's not really me. Not by a long shot, by comparison. Gabby Merger (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please, I kindly request that we cordially continue to assume good faith, please? I would like to humbly request that everyone remove their comments that are off topic or directed at specific members, please? Let's make sure the WP admins know how much we care about Wikipedia and how much we value it as a resource, especially about topics we find important. This is not a war, it's not an argument, there are no winners or losers, just readers that are interested in topics, like Doug Batchelor, because they like (or dislike) him. Let's rally together to help WP make a better encyclopedia. I'm still holding my [keep] decision, and I've added more WP:RS that were previously undiscovered by all [delete] voters. I'd like to avoid any arguments, especially about tricky religious things on Batchelor's page. Bradburns (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present, none of the ten references cited in the article contribute to notability, being an extremely small quote by the subject in a Washington Post article, a couple of obituaries, a youtube link, a dead link, and links showing his books exist(?). The references cited in this afd may look impressive but also do not show notability (i admit i have only glanced at them and have not carefully read them all (i tired:)) but (maybe foolishly) assume that the editors who are recommending keep them would have included notable ones in the article) Also, the argument given that other evangilists aren't so popular, hence are not as notable, please include them on afd if you truly believe so. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I've found about 30, I don't think that is necessary. Bradburns (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bradburns notable references or non-notable evangelists? If refs, please add them to the article, so the article can be improved; if evangelists please list them here so other editors may put them up for afd (as appropriate) to improve wikipedia.Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was speking of non-notable evangelists but, I would also contend that there are many notable sources that don't contain trivial mentions of him. I just modified my sources, check the first three. Bradburns (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of the 56 WP:RS links is a dead link? Bradburns (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability has not been established. The pastor is idolised and adored by his followers, but ignored by the mainstream media. The article has 10 refs, the first one in the Washington Post is a press release (carries the note "Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Religion News Service LLC.") and mentions Batchelor only in passing (one sentence, D. B. said...), he two NYT souces are obits of his parents and the other 7 refs are connected to the subject, or by the subject. The 122 refs cited here on the AfD pages are an array of unreliable sources, statements by people connected to the subject, trivial mentions, and ref-junk like links to Wikipedia articles and guideline pages. A clear case of WP:Bombardment and WP:BLUDGEON. Better get rid of it. Kraxler (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would be a ghost town if it required references from the top 10 major news outlets, although this Doug Batchelor has it. What I am amazed at is why he is being removed and not 30 other evangelists that are less notable than he. Let's refrain from patronizing anyone by referring to Bombardment or BLUDGEON, everyone is just doing their job here. Let us all assume good faith. Bradburns (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any other evangelist is irrelevant here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'm afraid you didn't read BLUDGEON, so I'll quote from it: "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at Articles for Deletion [etc.] Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote". They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view. It is most common with someone who feels they have a stake in the outcome, or feels they own the particular article or subject matter. While they may have some very valid points, they get lost due to the dominant behavior and others are less likely to consider their viewpoints because of their behavior." [my bolding]. Read the other sections of the page also, and think about it. Kraxler (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this, but thanks for reiterating, I appreciate the conversation, but not the berating. Go ahead. You may have the last word. Bradburns (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kraxler. Not to be accused of "bludgeoning", as I doubt you'll change your vote. But we can't use the cop-out of "otherstuff" as being totally "irrelevant", because there's the point of "sky blue" and this guy Batchelor (though I don't personally like him either) is definitely notable and big enough to warrant a WP page if other lesser-known ministers and evangelists have articles that NO ONE (for some reason) puts a "delete" tag for. It's a matter of consistency and fairness. Period. Also...what you miss...is that there's the issue of "ignore all rules" and "WP:COMMON SENSE"...that it seems you're not taking into account. There's really no good justification to delete this article. Not in context. Regarding the SDA minister Doug Batchelor. He, by himself, apart from his "Amazing Facts" website and lectures etc, though partly because of it, is certainly a stand-alone subject. That's not really even debatable. He's widely known and seen. And the site "AmazingFacts" is overall fine for an article like this. The article should definitely stay, but not with POV wording and tone. That's all. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate for deletion all those evangelists who are less notable than Batchelor. It would be a service to Wikipedia, it would increase the consistency, and would be an act of supreme fairness to Batchelor. Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] Let's begin with a subject already mentioned, “Ignore all Rules” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignore_all_rules and put it into practice immediately and in so doing, I will refuse to login to the Wikipedia User/Editor Account, bypassing edit/user history or prestige associated therewith, and simply leave an IP Address [though I suppose I could ignore that too], which will presently and only be borrowed for this present edit/discussion. Let's take a look at the primary/original reason that this persons' [Douglas E Batchelor, to be designated D.E.B from here on out] wikipage was nominated for deletion.

Seeing as there was an original claim(s) made for deletion, I will focus upon that primarily, and largely, and then continue onto other areas.

User/Editor [to be shortened from here on as “U/E”] Drmies originally put forth the following claim as the reason for deletion, stating, “I've gone through a dozen pages of Google hits, and can find nothing--that is nothing reliable ...” This original claim relied upon “Google hits”, in which there was the admission that over “a dozen pages”, in which there “are full of hits for this person”.

Obviously, from a simple Google search and the “hits” thereof, we may all plainly see the many [over 12] pages associated with this person, D.E.B. in merely the English language portion of Google, without having considered other languages, etc.

Yet, later, this same U/E, Drmies, in rebuttal to U/E Mighty Flower in regards “Google”, stated, “... As for your Google search, it proves nothing. See WP:GOOGLEHITS.” I would agree with Drmies, that the “Google” search in and of itself “proves nothing”, which would also include the original claim for deletion by Drmies, and the moreso, since it was not the “Google Hits” themselves that prompted the deletion request, but Drmies personal lack of being able to find anything deemed “reliable” in whatever amount of time spent in looking.

Even with that stated, it also doesn't mean it discounts everything Google has to offer either, and we would be remiss in not utilizing such a tool properly, and taking into account what it brings to the surface of the net. In retrospect, the search Drmies did could not have been a very long or detailed search, for myself, in contrast [therefore not based on lack of evidence, but contrary, with evidence], from the first day notice that this person D.E.B. was up for deletion, taking an interest, took some considerable time in researching and do not come to the conclusion Drmies, or others parroting the orignal claim, has/have. Drmies original assertion was not based in actual fact, but in their opinion.

It seems to me that others, like WyattAllenSDA, assuming SDA stands for Seventh-day Adventist, had a point in their argumentation on the Google Hits, wherein they stated, “It also says that Google shouldn't be entirely dismissed ...”, and with that I would also agree, which is why it took me somewhat longer to contribute a response. Drmies cannot have his argument both ways and still have an original reason for deletion able to stand.

U/E BradBurns, has at least put forth real effort to try to correct any problems which might have originally contributed to the pages deletion as seen by the original person who submitted for deletion. It would have been better for Drmies to simply have brought the discussion to that talk page, and lay the complaint there and see if anyone took it seriously, or attempt to fix the article, before summarily relegating it to the articles for deletion. It is better to see if there may be a fix, correction or diligent effort in research, rather than to lose any precious knowledge which may be of value presently, or in future. Research takes time, and generally yields greater understanding.

I cannot see how U/E Drmies actually attempted this seeing as the assertions made lack any verifiable documentation, rather than self-made claims which are no argument at all.

Another argument for deletion, brought forward by Drmies, originally was stated as, “... Please see the article history for the full version of this article (including a dozen links to his own publications) ...”, but this is not actually any argument for deletion, seeing as the article is about a presently living person, [D.E.B.] namely a Biography of Living Persons - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source which states that:

“Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. ..”,

and thus sources like “The Richest Caveman”, clearly a Biography, is not only permissable, allowable and desired, but actually firsthand knowledge from the subject themselves, assuming Good Faith in their own biography to detail their own history. The other sources even second that [semi-Auto]Biography, such as the one from Pacific Press, which is not D.E.B.'s own publishing company which happens to be Mountain Ministry. Presently, there is no violation in/of any of those.

As far as the argument or statement that, “Being a minister is not a reason for notability in its own right...”, I do not actually see anywhere where that was made the argument to begin with, or for keeping the page originally or presently. The statement is non-sequitur, and moot, being as no one presently claimed that the person, D.E.B., being a minister was the reason for the page to exist to begin with or for keeping it.

Drmies had originally noted that there were primarily “two editors”. Perhaps that was the problem, and not that the article needed to be deleted, but simply showcased to a larger unbiased collective, before anyone simply sent to the articles for deletion pile. That this was not done, to me, shows bad form and immoderate haste.

That it was said by Drmies, “...I was very surprised that I wasn't able to find anything ...”, when others so easily have, even if not all are agreed to the inherent or possible value of those sources, again leads me to conclude that Drmies took less than the appropriate or considerate time to research and was too quick to recommend for deletion.

It is faulty arguments like, “I don't know what the value of Ranker is. ...” that lead me to conclude that there needs to be another primary reason given for this articles deletion, and then it to be discussed if any are actually brought forward. Why is the argument based upon what any one U/E doesn't know about any given source? Look, its there. It didn't take long either to find. What “ad's” are associated with any given source is irrelevant, as they are not the source itself. Some “ad's” are bundle generated, or prepackaged, and or are related to ones own search engine profiles or cookies [which would say more about what ad's they see, rather than others in what they see, while some may see ad's for food, sex, or games, others see ads for farm equipment, gardens and out-dooring, all depending upon the users own searching/habits/preferences of internet use].

I would have to agree with U/E Gabby Merger, when stating, “... Drmies, I seriously cannot believe that you put the "deletion" tag for this article. There's no good warrant for that really. ... ” and furthermore I agree with, “Doug Batchelor is definitely a well-known and stand-alone subject and personality, and warrants a separate Wikipedia article, because he is certainly known, sourced, and clearly notable.” as this has been shown, mostly by U/E BradBurns, and one or two others [even if seemingly biased as others claimed, which was/is unproven, merely asserted without evidence]. That the person is a “minister” is not detrimental, but simply one more fact to add to the articles data. That some do not agree with the “theology” of the “minister” is also not detrimental either, but also adds to the data.

Therefore, upon closer consideration and examination of the original arguments for deletion, I did not find one worthy according to WP standards, even with all the so-called “rules” being bandied and clouted about [even on what some perceived as new]. There was some harassment there it seemed, since their positive arguments were not addressed, merely the various U/E's length of time as U/E's or some apparent ignorance of the supposed WP “rules” [see my original paragraph], “You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even the worst mistakes are easy to correct: … You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating. … Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below). … The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles).”; &c.

Therefore the statement, by Drmies, “If all these brandspankingnew accounts could read up on policies (and formatting, signing, etc), that would be great.” not only attempts to point out a U/E's time aboard, but even seems to break a rule, as they seemed to think the U/E's were “brandspankingnew” and thus did not have to “read the rules” before entering into the fray. However, even if they did not “read the rules”, the one rule “Ignore all rules” seems to apply anyway for all involved.

While U/E Kraxler cited against U/E BradBurns WP:BLUDGEON, though I think unfounded, [see below], I cannot help but notice, that U/E Kraxler did not cite the same for U/E Drmies, who seemed to reply at almost every opportunity when the arguments were not in their favor. In fact, as can be witnessed by all present, Drmies is listed as writing a minimum of 8 times [present count], most of which are responsive, in either simply agreeing with the [Deletes] and always arguing against [Keeps] at every opportunity. To me that is a clear case of WP:BLUDGEON on Drmies part, which reads, “Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own.” As For WP:BombBardment, I also see no case of this with the sources that U/E BradBurns, or others have listed. There may indeed be one or two which are similarly related, or even the same topic, but this is to be expected, especially for notable persons, and not out of character for internet sources. Even with 2-3 being similar, there are obviously many more which are coming from a wide range of persons, organizations, and locations, all well within the norm for Wikiepdia.

Now to consider U/E BradBurns, and see if their part is WP:BLUDGEON. From reading carefully U/E BradBurns comments/arguments, they are carefully considering the other persons responses and attempting [in Good Faith] to show that if there are any valid reasons to consider in altering the article, that there is another and far better way, besides deletion, namely updating the research with any necessary corrections to be in good standing as an Wiki article.

I do not see U/E BradBurns merely poo-pooing others positions, but actually addressing them with as much evidence as they have been able to collect in research, in trying to be constructive and helpful, of which others have not been as zealous. Perhaps some have been overzealous in citing sources [on this page, which is not the main page], but that is subjective, especially when taking into consideration that originally there were very few sources to consider, and now there are an abundance, even if all are not equally weighted. Yet, even what some take to be overabundance is subjective yet further still seeing as even those many sources, may only be a tip of the iceberg on the greater part of the net itself, especially in regards to a person which is world-traveled, and whose pedigree came from the well-to-do or wealthy and noted, such as George Batchelor [Aviation Tycoon, etc] and Ruth [Film Critic, etc]. Better to have more than not enough and lose, what potentially could be a good, great or even noteworthy article or person of interest.

Further positive arguments are based upon the admissions of the [Deletes]. For instance, U/E E.M. Gregory stated, “... He does get quoted a little in the press. ...”, and thus we have admission to a fact that U/E BradBurns and others have noticed and stated a little more accurately.

It is interesting that U/E Peterkingiron, stated, “... this does not read like an objective encyclopaedic article.” and that may well be the case, and yet U/E Peterkingiron I noticed did not immediately cite for [Delete], but rather [Comment] which was, to my mind, unbiased. For even if the statement is factually true, though I do not say one way or another, it would not give enough reasons for deletion, but rather for correction, or updating, etc. Again, it is better to attempt to fix, rather then simply relegate to certain oblivion or unnecessary redirect.

Upon the point of redirect, of which was earlier suggested by U/E Tokyogirl79, I would think is also unfounded, since Amazing Facts Ministries, Inc. was begun with out D.E.B. and can possibly exist without D.E.B., while the person themselves are notable in their own right apart from the said Inc. as shown by the several sources already listed in the numbered section. I would think for no other reason than that D.E.B. is specifically noted and notable as “The Richest Caveman” that he would be included and identified and would be another great American personality to have in the encyclopedia, as others in American history.

Others seem to be obfuscating the intent of the reason for deletion by incorrectly identifying U/E Gabby Merger as “COI”, such as when U/E Ymblanter stated, “You are clearly a COI editor, ...” without any documented evidence whatsoever and stating it as fact when no such fact was produced to substantiate the claim made, and then later adding insult to injury, with uncouth language, and refusing to identify the specific “COI” with evidence.

Then let's come to U/E Coolabahapple, which stated, “... a Washington Post article, a couple of obituaries ...”, which seems to downplay what is given in them. For instance, those Obit.'s are not meaningless when taken into consideration of who they are about, and what is stated about the persons in them. An Obit. might mean little to the general audience if say any ol' relative died, but if that relative was famous or of the wealthy class, or had been in the 'limelight' or contributed in some way greatly to society, it would definitely carry far more weight. Those Obit.'s are actually important in what they give.

As for “a dead link”, I am curious as to which one this is. Could you please specifically identify it for us all please? It would be better to fix and consider, than to merely disregard because it may [or may not] be broken.

The admission from U/E Coolabahapple is indeed noteworthy to the actual strength of argument for deletion here, namely it seems recurring throughout in simialr or like related language, on the deletion side that, “... (i admit i have only glanced at them and have not carefully read them all ...”

Let us truly ask, are we here to actually see if there should be deletion, or have we already made up our minds simply reading the responses here, rather than the sources provided, themselves. I personally have been reading the sources as provided, and then the comments and responding acordingly.

Therefore, I can agree with U/E Coolabahapple, when stated, “... If refs, please add them to the article, so the article can be improved; if evangelists please list them here so other editors may put them up for afd (as appropriate) to improve wikipedia.” and this is a far better approach than outright deletion [Yes, I “keep” saying that, its that old rule of “repetition”.]

Furthermore, another point by U/E Kraxler, as stated, “... The pastor is idolised and adored by his followers, but ignored by the mainstream media. ...” and yet this is shown, by the links provided, to be incorrect or at minimum a gross overstatement. The person D.E.B. is not “ignored by the mainstream media” and several links testify to that, which indicate several interviews by reputable news agencies [ex. Fox News, I assume people know of this in the USA], and in several documentaries, like National Geographic, and even one in Australia, etc. That any given person is not in the news [etc] daily, is not to be ignored, nor relegated to insignificance, but to be taken seriously when they are seen therein, especially when it is not a one time fluke, but in serious efforts at study [like a documentary].

Other users, did have some valuable input, such as U/E Moreaboutjesus stating, “Apparently the consensus is that he's popular and well known, just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he's not.” and that is what Wikipedia is about, a consensus, and not biases. Since the internet, printed page, radio, etc, come to a general consensus that D.E.B. is indeed “popular” or “celebrity” why any further discussion in a room of perhaps 10 persons, when there is obviously a far greater consensus already reached from a vast range of persons, in age groups, sex, nationality, affinity, etc? It seems even those who despise Seventh-day Adventists, know who this man is, and speak of him [or Amazing Facts, Inc. or SDA], even if in a negative light/context.

U/E Mighty Flower stated, “... Batchelor is as public as a religious figure gets ...”, and though I may not come to the exact same conclusion, I do come near it, as I do recognize through the links, that D.E.B. is indeed a very public person as opposed to the private ministers whom I have never heard of that live down the street and preach only in their various backyard neighbourhoods and would not recommend for a Wikipedia article.

U/E Joninlincoln stated, “... He is easily one of the most recognized members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. ...” and to this I would have to agree without question. Any research about the present Seventh-day Adventist movement, and one will undoubtedly come across this man's name and work. If any doubt this, research it yourself as I have. It is not as if I would recommend any SDA Minister at any and all times for a Wikipedia article. For instance, once may search for some particular names in the SDA movement, like Jeremiah Davis, Dwayne Lemon and/or Randy Skeete, which are all part of what SDA call “present-truth” movement, and yet as far as I know there is not a Wiki page for them yet.

While other arguments for “keep” may not be as strong, such as comparisons to other evangelists or other article pages, they are not of themselves without merit either, and should not be summarily dismissed without true consideration of the ones proffered as contrasting.

Therefore, in conclusion, the article does need clean up, alteration and updating, especially with all of the new links provided [I do want to thank U/E BradBurns and others who have helpfully contributed a great deal of information on this person D.E.B.], but I cannot see how it ever warranted deletion, even if all of the presently surfaced information was not known. That information may not be readily available, or that same information may not be found by those looking so speedily, is no reason for deletion, but rather due time is needed for collaboration and effort to study, research and dig. Imagine if persons digging in supposed archeological sites were so quick to simply give up at the first scratch of the earth when they turned over the first rock and found nothing, or turned back for lack of complete and detailed routes to the places sought for. Or if they found a persons name and immediately discarded them as unimportant, for they assumed little record existed of their notoriety, when if they would simply look and dig further, they might find abundance of someone vastly important to history. The riches of information which may be found takes actual effort, time and investment.

I would like to thank all for taking the time to read, and no offense personally to any [I only want to consider the evidence/arguments]. Therefore, I say [Keep], but with necessary and future editing needed.

Signed,

U/E of Wiki, older than some, newer than others.

I simply want the evidence/argument considered thoroughly on all sides. I am not a U/E already posted here, nor will be posting again, though I will continue to read. What is said is said, and what ultimately happens to the article, whether to be deleted, or kept and fixed/updated, will be accepted, no if's, and's or but's from me.

PS. I left the response as is without attempting to correct/double check for any and all typographical, spelling, formatting etc issues. It simply wasn't the present concern, especially for a page which is no page to begin with.

This IP, is now being abandoned, and it has no parachute.

66.60.178.226 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC) — 66.60.178.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:TLDR. Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply/Comment to 66.60.178.226(?) - "Then let's come to U/E Coolabahapple, which stated, “... a Washington Post article, a couple of obituaries ...”, which seems to downplay what is given in them." - This is what is stated in the WP article -"Despite the advances by some women, critics say the Bible remains clear on women in leadership, and the church should, too.

“I feel like the Bible hasn’t changed while our culture has, and so if I’m going to be a Bible Christian, then the traditional understanding that there’s a distinction between men and women is still unchanged,” said Pastor Doug Batchelor, who leads a church in Sacramento, Calif., and is a member of the worldwide church’s Theology of Ordination Study Committee.

Duke Divinity School scholar Mark Chaves sees a link between women’s ordination and broader embracing of modernity."

This is a trivial mention of Doug Batchelor

"For instance, those Obit.'s are not meaningless when taken into consideration of who they are about, and what is stated about the persons in them. An Obit. might mean little to the general audience if say any ol' relative died, but if that relative was famous or of the wealthy class, or had been in the 'limelight' or contributed in some way greatly to society, it would definitely carry far more weight. Those Obit.'s are actually important in what they give." - these obits are trivial as they do not discuss Doug Batchelor in any detail

"As for “a dead link”, I am curious as to which one this is. Could you please specifically identify it for us all please? It would be better to fix and consider, than to merely disregard because it may [or may not] be broken." - the dead link is Amazing Facts Inc (yes the 'keepers' should ensure all reference links actually work)

'The admission from U/E Coolabahapple is indeed noteworthy to the actual strength of argument for deletion here, namely it seems recurring throughout in simialr or like related language, on the deletion side that, “... (i admit i have only glanced at them and have not carefully read them all ...”" - sorry but i do not have the 4 or 5 hours plus spare time to go through the 120 citations listed in this afd, as i stated before, on the surface they don't look as if they contribute to notability, if any of them do i would think that editors who want this article kept would add them. ps. my invite to list the 30 or so non-notable evangilists are still open, if not here then they can be listed on my talk page and i will have a look at them. Coolabahapple (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PLENTY Wikipedia should be about everything and not an exclusive club for young white male atheist. The article contains WP:PLENTY of information on the subject and if it is deleted, the info will end up back with in the Seventh-Day Adventist article. WP:BHTT I'm also seeing oodles of WP:SUPPORT and WP:INVOLVE for this article. And, finally I believe Bradburns above makes good use of the argument WP:RS through the mentioning of other authors such as Herbert E. Douglass. MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Holy TL;DR linkspambomb, Batman!!! I hit The Google and didn't see anything that counts as a source towards GNG fulfillment among the first 200 or so hits on the exact name. There is definitely a substantial web footprint for this individual and I'm not 100% sold that there aren't 3 or 4 solid interviews or biographies out there, but the defenders of this article have made a mess of it by including a huge wave of garbage links. Would y'all care to try again with three or four good ones? Carrite (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK#1 (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Government (Mormonism)

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

This article is here for years, but still luck any significant quality and content to be an independent one. Propose to merge with Mormonism Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:BEFORE. Wrong forum to propose a merge. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus ~~redirect to Mass murder~~. Merges should be discussed on the talkpage not here, ~~I've redirected it back to Mass murder as that's always been the redirect (until today!).~~ (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA - changed to procedural close since there is not a single !vote for a redirect. VQuakr (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass shooting

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

This article is sitting here for years, being unreviewed stub till now. I actually propose to merge it with mass murder, making it paragraph there. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. If a merge is your preferred course of action then AfD is the wrong forum. See WP:BEFORE and WP:MERGEPROP. Incidentally; this has not been sitting as an unreviewed stub for years; it was a redirect to Mass murder until yesterday. VQuakr (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of blogs

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

This stand-alone list does not satisfy WP:CSC and I think Category:Blogs is satisfactory to prevent this from being indiscriminate. In this case, this is a list of blogs that satisfy the criteria of being notable on their own (there is no secondary source material we are basing this off, i.e. there is no secondary source that could solve the puzzle of whether something belongs here, other than whether or not it's a blog). If the blog listed here wasn't notable, it shouldn't have a separate page and thus shouldn't be listed here. If a blog is notable, it's in the category and this list is just the category in alphabetical order (or chronological or whatever order people come up with) without any further discriminating criteria. Otherwise this is really a list of "more notable than just notable blogs" as determined by WP:OR. Category:Blogs is over a 100 blogs in its main category (and hundreds more in subcategories such as Category:American blogs) for reference (all of which are presumed notable since an article about them exists here). The language, category and authors are also all unsourced which is not a reason for deletion but sourcing that will be just a re-hash of the details on each article's page and without that unsourced material, it's just a list that could be a category. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. All the entries on the list are notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN. See The world's 50 most powerful blogs, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep, useful annotated list. Siuenti (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G5, with extra salt. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otilia Bruma

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

Has references, but notability rests only on YouTube views Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, recreation of a previously deleted article without any notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (A7) by Anthony Bradbury –Davey2010^Talk 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rapindie

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Google news search returns zero. A websearch does not appear to show any sources to denote notability either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. Web content is one of the eligible subjects for it, and it contains no explanation of significance whatsoever. Gparyani (talk) 04:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as this is obviously CSD material, Can't find any evidence of notability either. –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Men's Buddhist Association (Burma)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A google news search provided no hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Missed the sources on Google Books. Since those have been added, this definitely passes GNG. Will Speedy Keep. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. This organization was a significant one in Burma 100 years ago or so. There is absolutely no reason to expect its mention in a google news search. It is mentioned in the Cambridge University Press published History of Modern Burma.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not temporary. A single mention in a single source hardly denotes notability. If there are other sources, please add them, but with a single source that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added multiple other sources. However a simple google search gave me most of these. Generally a nominator should seek to find sources before nominating an article for deletion. This is especially true of articles that have just been created.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic, multiple sources have been added by John Pack Lambert. JimRenge (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FutureView Financial Services Limited

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

Non-notable from what I see and the listed sources aren't convincing with my searches finding nothing good here (says it's "one of the leading investment companies in Nigeria" but that's not going to save it) and here being the best results I found. I would suggest moving to elsewhere and it seems it is owned by Tradjek but there's no article for that. I could've easily PRODed this but I wanted comments. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly a firm going about its business, but aside from some December 2013 coverage relating to a dispute ([27]), and brief mention in an article on a recent court case ([28] - which indicates Tradjek is its subsidiary rather than vice versa) I am not seeing anything substantial. Unless someone can identify in-depth coverage specifically about the firm, this fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No good sources have written about this organization. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of the article meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The company is one of Nigeria’s leading investment companies. On February 2014, the subject of the article was ranked 3rd among the top 10 stock-broking firms in Nigeria by the Nigerian Stock Exchange per this source. Nominator, had you looked closely, you would have easily found Thisday News, Business day, all Africa News, Thisday News, Business day, The Tides News, Thisday News, Bella Naija, This one, The Punch News, Vanguard News, Latest Nigerian News, African examiner, Daar Group, The Nigeria Business to mention few. Nonetheless, I included the sources in the article. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 11:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete3rd largest isn ot the same as largest The refs are most of them mere notices: 1 of a list of 262 in BusinessDat; ceo witness in a fraud case against an exec of another bank in this day live, extremely peripheral involvement in another the Tide , promotional interview with the ceo in Bela Naja, etc. etc. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and DGG and AllyD's comments. I cannot find anything in searches which rises to the level of substantial independent coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://smalltownnews.com/article.php?aid=84131&pub=The%20Foothills%20Sun-Gazette

[2] ttp://spectrummagazine.org/article/jared-wright/2014/11/16/nicholas-miller-writes-open-letter-doug-batchelor-ordination

[3] ttp://www-atsim-org.adventistconnect.org/uploaded_assets/468920-Good_News_Vol_34_No_4_Spring_2014_web.pdf?thumbnail=original&1431991820

[4] ttp://record.net.au/uploaded_assets/226071-rec46_09_11_28.pdf?thumbnail=original&1431991128

[5] ttp://www.bibleprobe.com/Adventist-Lamplighter.pdf

[6] ttp://www.gaynz.com/articles/publish/31/article_16210.php

[7] ttp://www.christianpost.com/news/to-drink-or-not-to-drink-pastor-says-acceptance-of-alcohol-in-church-is-like-committing-suicide-although-jesus-made-wine-132856/

[8] ttp://www.christiancentury.org/article/2013-12/some-seventh-day-adventists-forge-ahead-women-clergy

[9] ttp://national.deseretnews.com/article/3001/Pope-says-youll-see-your-pet-in-heaven-sparking-worldwide-expression-of-Aww.html

[10] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_m8aPH9vDA

[11] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2014-12-18/remembrance-douglass-87-was-leading-adventist-theologian-author/

[12] ttp://atoday.org/amazing-facts-or-amazing-paranoia.html

[13] ttp://atoday.org/amazing-facts-or-amazing-paranoia.html

[14] ttps://atoday.org/who-is-authorized-to-lead-a-communion-service-becomes-church-manual-debate.html

[15] ttp://atoday.org/vote-on-ordination-majority-says-no-to-women-as-adventist-ministers.html

[16] ttp://spectrummagazine.org/article/alexander-carpenter/2010/04/12/southeastern-california-conference-executive-committee-respon

[17] ttp://spectrummagazine.org/article/2015/07/24/why-adventisms-next-big-disagreement-may-be-over-biblical-literalism

[18] ttp://spectrummagazine.org/node/2253

[19] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-commentaries/commentary/go/0/research-shows-that-relationships-are-the-best-form-of-evangelism/

[20] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/1999-03-01/satellite-outreach-continues-with-net-new-york-99/

[21] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2004-02-16/north-america-adventist-broadcasters-reach-out-to-religious-stations/

[22] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2006-02-21/also-in-the-news-26/

[23] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2000-03-06/global-mission-launches-new-concept-in-evangelism/

[24] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-03-05/adventist-world-headquarters-hosts-international-satellite-net-2005-broadcasts/

[25] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/1999-10-25/church-satellite-outreach-live-from-new-york/

[26] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2004-05-03/news-in-brief-6/

[27] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2007-04-23/also-in-the-news-6/

[28] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2010-10-01/adventist-supporting-ministry-to-host-teen-question-series/

[29] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2002-12-02/cameroon-church-hosts-first-satellite-series/

[30] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2011-08-08/annual-asi-convention-sees-2-million-donated-for-mission/

[31] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2006-07-17/also-in-the-news-50/

[32] ttp://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2001-11-26/west-african-leaders-focus-on-mission-initiatives/

[33] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-03-07/ukraine-finley-launches-evangelism-meetings-in-kiev-seminars-beamed-across-continent-overseas/

[34] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-02-24/world-church-finley-to-hold-ukraine-satellite-event-will-chair-internet-evangelism-panel/

[35] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/1999-12-27/adventist-news-networks-year-in-review/

[36] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-07-05/west-central-africa-colorful-report-celebrates-growth-in-region/

[37] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-12-21/year-in-review-adventists-celebrate-growth-share-world-concerns-in-2005/

[38] ttp://news.adventist.org/en/all-news/news/go/2005-03-21/ukraine-thousands-continue-to-attend-kiev-evangelism-meetings-daily/

[39] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2014/8/17/asi-highlights

[40] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2014/7/21/tony-palmer-killed-in-motorcycle-accident

[41] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2014/2/28/popes-video-fulfills-prophecy

[42] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2014/8/12/3abns-ordination-survey-bubble-or-bombshell

[43] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2620

[44] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2015/7/7/perceived-pro-wo-wording-recommended-for-church-manual-debate-ensues

[45] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2014/6/6/surprise-third-way-option-emerges-at-final-tosc-meeting

[46] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2015/7/9/motion-failed-a-report-on-july-8-wo-proceedings

[47] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2015/6/14/why-womens-ordination-matters

[48] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/1078

[49] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2014/6/25/they-are-for-war-ordination-and-unnecessary-conflict

[50] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/1886

[51] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2584

[52] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/2424

[53] ttp://advindicate.com/articles/1804

[54] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/gcs2015-fifth-business-meeting

[55] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Bsixth-business-meeting

[56] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/%E2%80%8Btwelfth-business-meeting

[57] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/ten-days/2015-01-08-day-two-of-prayer-jan.-8

[58] ttp://archives.adventistreview.org/article/402/archives/issue-2006-1507/adventist-news

[59] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/herbert-e.-douglass,-leading-theologian-and-author,-dead-at-87

[60] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/gc-president-shares-jesus-with-manila%E2%80%99s-rich-and-powerful

[61] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/a-california-hispanic-ministry-reaches-behind-bar

[62] ttp://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/decisions,-commitment,-and-a-broader-vision

[63] ttp://atoday.org/amazing-facts-or-amazing-paranoia.html

[64] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=doug+batchelor&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Doug+Batchelor%22

[65] ttp://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/%22Doug%20Batchelor%22?Ns=P_Sales_Rank&Ntk=P_key_Contributor_List&Ntx=mode%20matchall

[66] ttp://nrb.org/news_room/press_center/amazing-facts-ministries-receives-2015-nrb-award-for-best-nation/

[67] ttps://www.facebook.com/dougbatchelor/photos/a.433566580060656.1073741830.431672620250052/808451429238834/

[68] ttp://nrb.org/news_room/press_center/media-awards/amazing-facts-bible-prophecy-amazing-facts-ministries-wins-2014/

[69] ttp://www.amazingfacts.org/news-and-features/from-pastor-doug/letter/id/11131/t/amazing-facts-on-the-discovery-channel

[70] ttp://www.tbn.org/watch-us/our-programs/amazing-facts

[71] ttp://www.itbn.org/index/program/lib/programs/sublib/Amazing+Facts

[72] ttp://itbn.org/index/detail/ec/N2NjVyczptpU6JR2uVowpfmBE_vADVir

[73] ttp://www.tbnnetworks.com/index.php?reDirect=http://www.tbnnetworks.com/church/net_pressarticle.php?ID=130

[74] ttps://www.directv.com/networks/lifetime

[75] ttp://www.tvweeklynow.com/on-television-today-tonight/Updated-Program-Listings/lifetime-updated-program-schedule-for-jul-26-aug-1.htm

[76] ttp://www.tvweeklynow.com/on-television-today-tonight/Updated-Program-Listings/lifetime-updated-program-schedule-for-aug-2-8.htm

[77] ttp://lightsource.com/

[78] ttp://www.daystar.com/shows/amazing-facts-doug-batchelor/

[79] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm3761961/

[80] ttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Doug_Batchelor

[81] ttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Hank_Hanegraaff

[82] ttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Richard_Roberts_(evangelist)

[83] ttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Valerie_Jarrett

[84] ttp://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Scott_Adams

[85] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_evangelists

[86] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm0060754/

[87] ttp://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2002-07-31/news/0207300478_1_mr-batchelor-cystic-fibrosis-center-children-s-health

[88] ttp://natgeotv.com/za/bible_uncovered/videos/secret-code-of-revelations

[89] ttp://channel.nationalgeographic.com/videos/secrets-of-revelation1/

[90] ttp://www.equip.org/broadcast/qa-ravi-zacharias-the-nephilim-and-demon-possession/

[91] ttp://www.seekingmedia.com.au/news.php?newsid=3054

[92] ttp://www.christianfilmdatabase.com/review/cosmic-conflict-ii-the-battle-for-truth/

[93] ttps://www.stl-distribution.com/details/?id=9781580195812

[94] ttp://www.guidinglight.com/encyclopedia/D/Doug_Batchelor.htm

[95] ttp://self.gutenberg.org/articles/doug_batchelor

[96] ttp://www.fampeople.com/cat-doug-batchelor

[97] ttp://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1926667.htm

[98] ttp://www.abc.net.au/triplej/review/film/s1774261.htm

[99] ttp://nrb.org/membership/presidents_council/

[100] ttp://nrb.org/news_room/articles/nrb-family-lifts-pastor-rick-warren-in-prayer/

[101] ttp://www.shalomadventure.com/stories/prose/1981-doug-bachelor

[102] ttp://www.savannahpictures.com/creation-speaks/

[103] ttp://www.ryanjbell.net/shock_and_awe/

[104] ttp://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/doug-batchelor/355814

[105] ttp://www.wbaj.net/testimonials.shtml

[106] ttp://www.formypeople.org/En/64_final_events_and_the_first_supper.shtml

[107] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/some-seventh-day-adventists-forge-ahead-on-women-clergy/2013/12/04/c7e442b0-5d28-11e3-8d24-31c016b976b2_story.html

[108] ttp://national.deseretnews.com/article/3001/pope-says-youll-see-your-pet-in-heaven-sparking-worldwide-expression-of-aww.html

[109] ttp://www.thewashingtondailynews.com/2014/06/23/five-time-winner-pecheles-takes-pride-in-customer-service/

[110] ttp://www.mygoodnewstv.com/feature-millennium

[111] ttp://www.sealingtime.com/resources/featured-speakers/doug-batchelor/

[112] ttp://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/amazing-facts-with-doug-batchelor/422221/

[113] ttp://www.lifetalk.net/article/13/program-descriptions

[114] ttp://wordoftruthradio.com/audio/view.php?speaker=2

[115] ttp://www.itbn.org/index/person/lib/people/sublib/Doug+Batchelor/page/3

[116] ttp://www.soundchristian.com/prophecy/who/

[117] "6279. Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1803-1882. John Bartlett, comp. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th ed". Bartleby.com. Retrieved 2014-05-25.

[118] Reid, Graham (2001-11-18). "Stephen King: On Writing". New Zealand Herald. Retrieved 2008-06-04.

[nyx-119] Cohen, Noam (2007-08-05). "Defending Wikipedia's Impolite Side". the New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-04.

[iar-120] "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules". Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. 2012-04-13. Retrieved 2012-04-17.

[cw-121] Heather Havenstein (2007-04-02). "Wikipedia founder rejects his 'ignore all rules' mantra in new online project: Larry Sanger launches Citizendium". ComputerWorld. Retrieved 2008-06-04.

[ny-122] Schiff, Stacy (2006-07-31). "Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer experience?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2008-06-05.

[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]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

[90]

[91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

[98]

[99]

[100]