Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 22: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evangelical atheism}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diabetes Duo: Captain Glucose and Meter Boy (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Diabetes Duo: Captain Glucose and Meter Boy (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anomaly X}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anomaly X}}

Revision as of 08:13, 22 February 2017

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 merge to New atheism. czar 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted because it's poorly sourced, not notable, outdated, and doesn't contribute anything not available in other articles. The originator, mpleahy, is seemingly inactive and hasn't responded to a deletion proposal on their talk page.

Evangelism has two meanings. Primarily, it means preaching the Christian gospel to convert others into Christianity, as evidenced by the article evangelism. Atheism clearly is not this.

Less commonly, evangelism can mean "zealous in advocating something" which is how it is being used here. A more accurate title for this article would be "Zealous atheism".

One can be zealous and "outspoken" about advocating atheism, but one can be zealous and outspoken about advocating many things; evangelical atheism does not merit an article any more than evangelical capitalism or evangelical vegetarianism would.

The article is also poorly sourced. Only two sources actually discuss the term, and one of them does so dismissively. That leaves us with only a dead link to an obscure 23 year old article, where Dan Barker merely uses the word evangelism as a synonym for being a more impassioned advocate. There are no reliable and notable sources for this article because "evangelical atheism" as a specific term is not notable. Ofus (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentThis is pretty much wrong. There are not "only 2 articles that discuss the phrase." Where the hell do you get that idea? The point of the metaphor is not that they are passionate (Nietzsche was a passionate atheist, but he was not an evangelical) but that they exhibit many of the same distasteful characteristics of evangelical Christians, and other evangelical religions, only in a mirrored form. The term has much wider currency than you appear to realize, and is quite analytically useful. Perhaps the article at present isn't good, but that is a reason to improve, not delete. Many sources could easily be found. Supervoter (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Possible neologism. DrStrauss talk 09:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentEverything is a neologism at some time or another; but if you are implying the author of the article invented this phrase, you are assuredly wrong. As below, there is a very clear, useful, and distinctive meaning to this phrase: atheists who rabidly aim to convince the faith to abandon religion, with books like "God is not Good", "The God Delusion", "Breaking the Spell". Distinctively, such atheists often have an embarrassingly unsophisticated crass understanding of the role of religion in intellectual history; the term is thus generally used derisively by more serious, Nietzschean atheists such as John Gray. Here is a good article, explaining the evangelical atheists and their motives, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists
  • Keep I don't think the nominator knows what he's talking about. This is a very commonly used phrase in academic circles, and it has a very specific meaning: atheists who want to "convert" or convince others over to Atheism. Very specifically, it usually refers to the strident brand of atheism that doesn't actually engage in an intellectually serious way with religion generally, and with Christianity in particular. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and so on. There is no good reason not to have a page on this topic, which is notable and has received a great deal of coverage. Supervoter (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is The SUPERVOTER, his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions. Thanks for your understanding. Please see my userpage if you have questions.)[reply]
  • Comment User:Mpleahy is unlikely to respond. Based on his/her edit history, Mpleahy's last edit took place on 20 April, 2008. He/she is inactive for 9 years. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with some reluctance) as a term that has gained considerable currency. Leaving aside self-published and crudely abusive references, we can find essays focussing on "evangelical atheists" in Huffington Post and The Guardian, a mention in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, and among many discussions in published books the term is used in chapter or section headings here and here. So there seems plenty of scope to add to the article and keep it tightly linked to published commentary about "evangelical atheism": Noyster (talk), 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)LadyofShalott 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Merge to New atheism - the term is certainly in wide use, and it describes a notable pattern of behaviour. The sources listed by Noyster are I think decisive here: for instance, Louise Antony's 2007 book uses it as an index term and devotes 5 pages to the topic (and the date of the book shows the term is not a brief neologism: it is used in many more recent books also). There is thus substantial coverage, not just brief mentions. Also persuasive is the fact that the books are of very different types, from encyclopedic or scholarly to popular and even humorous, and address issues from theology to politics and education. That doesn't mean we need a whole new article, however; a merge to the article on New atheism would seem the right answer as it focuses on Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett's variety of atheism already, and covers all of the ground of this article and more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Diabetes Duo: Captain Glucose and Meter Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prodded by User:MatthewHoobin with the rationale "No indication of notability; the references cited here are few and appear unreliable, and a Google search doesn't turn up much better results in terms of verifiable sources."

Taking it here as this was previously discussed at AFD. I concur with the PROD rationale. — Train2104 (t • c) 06:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleting this makes no sense as Captain Glucose and Meter Boy and the Diabetes Hero Squad are an internationally and world renowned entity. A simple google search and the citations listed confirm that. Obviously whoever tagged this for deletion has little understanding about the worldwide diabetes community. IMO, deleting this would be wiki's loss as you will be removing a notable and charitable diabetes resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljtwo (talkcontribs) 16:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carljtwo: If you believe that the subject of this article is notable, please provide links to reliable, third-party resources that discuss it beyond a brief mention or inclusion in a list. The notability of the subject needs to be proved through pointing to resources rather than appealing to "wiki's loss", which is a very weak argument. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anomaly X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have no speedy deletion category for non-notable upcoming films, so there is no choice but to propose it for deletion here. This one is clearly WP:TOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zai Sheng Yuan (Formosa TV drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Google search in English only gave me 1 TV-related result which was a Chinese series. Perhaps a search in Thai might turn something up. Otherwise, with no reference, this could be a hoax for all we know. I also wonder if a Thai soap that lasted 2 months is notable enough for an article here. Is there an article about it on th.wiki? lNeverCry 04:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 04:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can Somebody tell me what thai wiki has to do with this? -User talk:Jeffy7Jeffy —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 26 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardita Zúñiga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant if someone is a Miss World contestant. All BLPs need to meet WP:GNG, and this one does not. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not reasonable. And we don't have to presume; I checked, and there aren't any. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Slashme: Why do you say that? Please post a link. I believe WP:GNG means that basically none of these people are notable unless they've done something else. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Survey (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
===Consensus===

Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes.

Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)

Unscintillating (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no position on this article, but keeping or deleting at an individual article on the basis of how a specific guideline is to be interpreted is within the role of AfD. And even if its more than just an interpretation, consensus for making an exception or using IAR is also a valid conclusion at an AfD. We make the rules, which we make by general discussions, and we make the exceptions, which we do in individual decisions. . DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator. A few days ago, the nominator stated that they had checked for sources and declared "there aren't any". Perhaps the nominator will be kind enough to tell us what checks were done, and also the extent to which those checks included non-English and non-Internet sources. In the meantime, I'll simply note that the Wikipedia community has long accepted the presumed existence of sources for persons who have engaged in competition at the highest level of their fields. Thus, we do not demand multiple references for any person who has played baseball at the major-league level, nor for any cricketer who has played at the Test level, nor for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics. In all of these examples (as well as the many others that could also be mentioned), it is sufficient to demonstrate that the person has indeed engaged in structured competition at that highest level. And, that long-accepted standard has been met here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show that this person passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 1 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ProjectLocker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article sources are mostly primary. MB 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Hi, can you please suggest some ways by which I can improve the quality of the article so that it is not deleted from Wikipedia? I have worked a lot on this article and I would really like to see this page remain on Wikipedia.Srivassumit (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As was said above, the provided coverage is almost entirely primary, supporting a feature-list article (which appears to have been created as a coursework task). I am not seeing independent coverage which exceeds passing mentions and indicates encyclopaedic notability. The original contributor has now copied the article to their user page (including categories, which should be deleted) so their work has been preserved and could be taken through the WP:AFC process if reliable 3rd party sources can be identified and added. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 9 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almondo Vick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to meet notability; a quick Google News search indicates no apparent notability. J947 04:17, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beautiful Fierce Females (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individuals are notable, but stable is not. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results. Half the article is about the members' careers after the stable broke up. Nikki311 03:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki311 03:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huda Kattan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear motivated-efforts advertising because, not only has the article itself been tagged as an advertisement despite clear violations enough to suggest the article's deletion alone (this suggests paid advertising) in it alone; as it is, the article was never genuinely improved, and in fact emphasized its advertising worse when it was unimprovable; take the sources for example: 1 (2 is a clearly labeled self-PR interview) to 12 are all clear entertainment blogs, health guide listings, mere announcements or mentions or quite in between, next, the 12th is her own website, 13 to 19 are all again mere announcements and guides, until once again, 20 being an apparent press release, 21 to 24 are all same, until yet again, 25th is her own own advertised website again; continuing, 26 to 39 are all the same as before. We have our non-negotiable policies against such advertising because it's was founded this encyclopedia as it is, but also, the fact there's the clear attempts at keeping it an advertisement, which violates our simplest policies. In fact, simply take this which shows nothing but the same links as before, but this time actually emphasizing the mere consistency in PR from all available. This article overall is experiencing severe overfocus with such PR, such as beginning with an apparent PR-named mention, but then also the fact the 2 heaviest sections are the ones nearing the "Advert" tag, "Career and Awards", which shows there's nothing substantial here. SwisterTwister talk 03:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 05:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is already way too presentist without people using paid advertising to get articles on themselves on it. This is not a vanity paublication, and we need to be diligent to keep it from degenerating into such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2017 (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) J947 00:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Father, I'll Take Care of You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable TV program, probably more suited to Korean wiki. No sources. Nördic Nightfury 10:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E 05:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have made some corrections, added an image, and added some references for the existing information, which may be used to expand the article. This is as popular a Korean drama as others with WP pages, and receiving lots of attention on South Korean media, when first aired and currently, on a weekly basis. It is not unusual to not find many English language media citations for South Korean television shows. This show has popular actors and the WP page is getting regular views of around 300+ daily.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: OK Bonnielou, you have won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWikipedia is a global project, so "probably more suited to Korean wiki" is not a valid deletion rationale. This appears to be a television series broadcasting on a major television network in South Korea (I say "appears to be" because I'm relying primarily on Google Translate). The sources Bonnielou2013 found push this above the WP:GNG bar: [1][2][3]. Additional sources can be found by searching in Korean: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Mz7 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Rutherford

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 redirect to Open Colleges. (non-admin closure) Jbh Talk 04:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cengage Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicate content, see Open Colleges Kasi0000 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not my night for thinking. WP:REDIRECT. Jbh Talk 04:10, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Vyas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO. there is no inherent notability in being an ambassador. even to/from a "major" country. almost all the coverage is not about him as a subject but him making comments on behalf of the Indian government. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no, there is no free pass being an ambassador from India. you are basically saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. consensus has shown this is clearly not the case. have you done an actual search for sources to demonstrate notability? let me guess, no. LibStar (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2017 (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. Recall that WP:NPOL is only a guideline; it has been well-demonstrated in this discussion (and consensus has been reached) that this individual meets the general notability guidelines.) NW (Talk) 14:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ossoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the coverage is either trivial or routine. Fails WP:NPOL. Should really be a redirect, but keeps getting re-added. If this person wins, then the article should be reinstated, but right now he's one of several minor players in a run-off election. Onel5969 TT me 03:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Totally agree Muboshgu, and that's what was attempted. Unfortunately those who don't understand what the notability criteria mean continued to reconstitute the page. So I figured we should bring it here to bring about the result you suggest above. Onel5969 TT me 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Case for Meeting WP:GNG
  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
    • I think ABC News, NY Mag, Independent, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and Daily KOS aught to be considered reliable enough. -- Seneca Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Daily Kos is not a reliable source for our purposes — it's a publication whose content is created by activist bloggers, not by professional journalists. Of the other sources, three of them are just glancing namechecks of Ossoff's existence in an article about a related topic (two are coverage of the race itself, which would be expected to exist because special elections always get coverage, and one is about a film), while the only one that's substantively about Ossoff is in the local media (where, again, deeper coverage of the individual candidates in a local election would be expected to exist.) None of this suggests that he's garnered more than the WP:ROUTINE level of coverage that all candidates in an election at this level of office could always expect to garner. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[4]
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
    • This criteria appears a bit subjective, but at this point it seems reasonable that we have created the "assumption not the guarantee" that Ossoff warrants an separate article. -- Seneca Talk 03:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the election article, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election they haven't won yet — if they haven't already held a notable office, then they have to be shown and sourced as having already cleared our notability standards for another field of endeavour. Coverage of local elections always exists, so such coverage cannot be used to show GNG — if it could, then we would have to keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for anything at all.
    And no, whether a person is favoured or projected to win or lose the election does not boost their notability either, as Wikipedia does not deal in the realm of election predictions — candidates who were "favoured" during the campaign have gone on to lose the election (if "favoured" always necessarily translated to winning, then Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the White House right now), and different sources can make different projections of which candidate is "favoured" during the campaign (see the dispute during the 2012 election over whether Nate Silver's read of the polls as favouring Obama was more or less accurate than Dean Chambers's "unskewing" of the polls as favouring Romney), and the question of who's "favoured" to win the election can have different answers at different times in the campaign (Canada's national election in 2015 started out with the NDP favoured to win and Tom Mulcair favoured to become the new prime minister, but at about the midway point Justin Trudeau's Liberals overtook them in the polls and became the new favoured winner.)
    So, in a nutshell, if he wins the election he'll be entitled to an article and it can be recreated quite quickly. But unless you can demonstrate and source that he was already notable enough for an article before being named as a candidate, then the campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to make him notable just for being a candidate per se. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of material currently on the page is very poorly sourced. The part about him studying under Albright needs to go, as the only cite is ALbright's bio. I'd like to see the unsourced text removed, the cites mentioned above added, and then I'd make a call on this. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / redirect. Presently fails WP:NPOL and coverage is routine for a candidate for office. AusLondonder (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect This special election is already attracting national attention and thus satisfies WP:GNG. If Ossoff wins outright or makes it to a run-off, restore the page. toll_booth (talk) 18:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect At this point, the race is notable, not necessarily the candidates. No objection to recreation if the subject wins their election or obtains a level of national coverage that approaches that of Christine O'Donnell. --Enos733 (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete if Ossoff is elected to congress he will be notable. Until that time he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added two more sources, he's getting national coverage from respect news outlets and will be receiving more as we get closer to the election. I would suggest it is expected that someone who has not been elected fails to meet WP:NPOL, but suggest he does meet the base requirement of notability in general. Also, of those saying he is only receiving routine coverage because he's a candidate or that only the race is notable, I would ask if you can name the other candidates in this race.
There's a complete list of them in Georgia's 6th congressional district special election, 2017. So no, he's not the only candidate in the race that anybody can identify on the basis of the race's media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that's not the point. He's the only candidate in this race who is receiving national coverage in major newspapers and news. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, what you said is "name the other candidates in the race at all", not "measure out how much coverage each candidate in the race is or isn't getting". And at any rate, the basic principle on here is that for a not yet elected candidate to be deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article because candidate (as opposed to because he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before being a candidate), the volume of coverage pretty much has to go full-on Christine O'Donnell. It's not enough to show coverage of the race which namechecks the fact that he's a candidate in it but isn't fundamentally about him per se (and mostly doesn't single him out as the only candidate getting his candidacy namechecked, either), and it's not enough that a couple of those articles do single him out for a bit of closer attention than most of the others — it takes evidence that the candidacy itself is making him so much of a household name that people are likely to still be looking for an article about him ten years from now regardless of whether he wins or loses in the end. I live in Canada, for instance, and Christine O'Donnell was getting into our media here — so even up here in beaverland, you can still just say the name "Christine O'Donnell" and Canadians will still know exactly who you're talking about. Ossoff simply hasn't attained that depth of name recognition yet, so as of right now he's still in the "if he wins" class of candidates, and not in the "notable because candidate in and of itself" class yet. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He clearly now meets criteria #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. His national coverage is significant.Casprings (talk) 03:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a person does not clear GNG on namechecks of his existence in coverage of the election campaign, when both coverage of the election campaign and namechecks of the candidates within it are routinely expected to exist. The coverage needs to demonstrate evidence that he's notable for more than just the fact of being a candidate in and of itself, offering a credible reason why people will still be looking for an article about him ten years from now, before it can make him notable enough for inclusion. The coverage of Ossoff has to explode into Christine O'Donnell territory (which it hasn't done) before Ossoff can be deemed notable because candidate; absent that, it's either "was already notable enough for an article before he became a candidate" or "does not become notable enough for an article until he wins the election". And no, it's not an ideological bias, because the same restriction applies to the Republican candidates too. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #2 is not met by campaign coverage, except in the rare event that the campaign coverage explodes into Christine O'Donnell proportions. Every candidate for every political office that exists at all could always claim to clear NPOL #2 on the basis that campaign coverage existed — but we do not accept all candidates as notable until they can be shown to have garnered a lot more than the expected volume of coverage, and/or to have passed the ten-year test for enduring significance beyond the current news cycle. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some policy that says NPOL #2 is not meant for campaign coverage. If so, can you link? Casprings (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLOUTCOMES, specifically the third bullet point for "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature are not viewed as having inherent notability." Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not policy. Says it right at the top. The point I am making is that policy isn't as prescriptive as you are stating. There are some documents meant to help editors, which you linked. But it is false to cite those as deterministic. For this article, given this is the first real test after an odd and historic election, I believe he is WP:N As such, I think it is likely that in 10 years, the public would benefit from articles that provide information concerning him and the national coverage of him (and not just the election), is an important indication of future relavence.Casprings (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Andrew Morrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see how this person passes GNG or PROF. The article is borderline spam, and the publications are--well, look for yourself: Cambridge Scholars, Edwin Mellen, McFarland & Sons (no disrespect intended), all without further evidence that this person has made an impact in his field. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 03:17, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esma Salemé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks independent coverage about her in reliable sources. Spam bombarded with PR sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What about eTalk coverage, Exposed Vocals, HipHopCanada and Honey Jam? Her albums are even on iTunes. You guy can proceed and do whatever you think is right for Wikipedia, but really all the efforts that I poured into this would be gone by then trying to add something into Wikipedia. Khaled Abolaynain (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tulane virus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is in the top 100 entries of Special:ShortPages and is unchanged in the three months this article has existed, save for the maintenance tags. GammaRadiator (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I don't see an argument for deletion here: the article is short, and has remained short, for three months -- so what? Google scholar seems to reveal all a lot of coverage. I'm also curious if all such viruses would fall under WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES? The nominator needs to remember that what we weigh here is notability -- not the current state of an article, except in extreme cases where there is plagiarism, blatant advertising, etc. We have many stubs -- and three months, here, isn't a particularly long time. Did the nominator do his necessary WP:BEFORE work: did he look at Google Scholar to see if this was a notable virus? Because the nomination statement rather gives the impression he didn't. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable coverage in scientific literature. However, not clear that "Tulane virus" is the best title, and although I think WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES should apply to viruses, SPECIESOUTCOMES is premature here. Viruses have an official database ([5]); recognition there would satisfy SPECIESOUTCOMES, but Tulane virus isn't recognized there yet. The taxonomy is still in flux. "Tulane virus" is a proposed new species in a proposed new genus "Recovirus". As far as I can tell, the terms "Rhesus enteric calicivirus" and "Rhesus macaque recovirus" also refer to "Tulane virus", with none of these names yet satisfying SPECIESOUTCOMES (though they could be used as keywords to search for additional sources). Plantdrew (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not an expert, by no means, but there are indications that this virus has some sort of breakthrough and it's part of a virus family that has difficulty being cultivated but this one has been successfully cultivated. I say it passes WP:N and has plenty of WP:RS. There is NO way that I can add to this article... not my cup of tea. I think that we need to reach out and have an expert take a look at expanding the article. - Pmedema (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to SPECIESOUTCOMES, I also found a review, which should solidify any notability concerns for the virus itself as well as give a source to the article. Based on my quick read of the source before bed, Tulane virus is one type of Rhesus enteric calicivirus rather than synonymous terms, so it is possible the page could just be moved to Rhesus enteric calicivirus, have two separate articles, etc without us needing to decide that here alongside the delete question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's hope this is the recurring "nominate a valid species stub for deletion" done with for this week :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It appears I have been too hasty on nominating this article for deletion, in light of the above arguments. Apologies. GammaRadiator (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (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) — Yash talk stalk 16:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sullivan (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to mainly consist of the subject's professional bio and CV/resume. Subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and fails both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Brycehughes (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note that the current version of the article, which seems to have been in place since 2009, appears to be very close paraphrasing from this version of his Jenner & Block profile. The first couple of versions of the entry seemed fine copyright-wise, if we want to keep and stubify. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:NACADEMIC - Dean of the School of Law at Washington and Lee University, Vice President Washington and Lee University, Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago and holder of the Cooney & Conway Chair in Advocacy. Article needs major cleanup though. I'll try to take a stab at that in the next few days and add in line citations. I added a source in lead to verify academic positions. CBS527Talk 13:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added in-line sources and did some clean-up to the article. As User:EricEnfermero stated above, about 90 percent of the article was cut and pasted from his Jenner & Block profile. So I had to pretty much rewrite the article. CBS527Talk 20:52, 8 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apsara (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Could not find sources for passing WP:NFILM. Trying an individual nomination instead to see whether it gives a better result than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisa Kyon Hota Hai?, which was a multi-page nomination. Per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, merely stating that sources exist without proof is not an argument to keep. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- extremely poorly sourced and no real indication of notability. Without more extensive sourcing, this article is not much use and there is no indication that there's anything out there. Reyk YO! 20:19, 15 March 2017 (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. ♠PMC(talk) 21:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Matlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Makes unverifiable claims about the subject's notability and regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.188.244.1 (talkcontribs) 02:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Flight 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real sources or indication of notability Jac16888 Talk 00:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a real source"? Second, what would be need for it to be more notable? Its not enough that they created first diskmagazine for amiga? And lastly why does english Wikipedia have higher requirements for stuff? Its been on german wikipedia for 8 years and its not deleted. Sorry if these might seem stupid questions, but i've never really have edited other than finnish Wikipedia. Liggi953 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The German article has a couple external links, but no citations. Outside of being an OTHERSTUFF argument, it's age is irrelevant. I was able to find some articles mentioning it, but nothing satisfying GNG. I think it's worth noting that Alpha Flight is a long running comic and the AFL abbreviation is shared by something that gets a lot more coverage. That, plus the pre-internet era of its activity, means sources will be difficult to locate. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Underground artists, by the very nature of their genre and scene, are almost impossible to reliably source. Without sources, almost anyone can claim to be famous in some obscure sub-genre and notability guidelines would be meaningless. The other option is simply to remove them as unsourced, as in this case. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 1 March 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Bain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A contested PROD. The subject fails WP:RLN as he hasn't played in a Super League match or a World Cup. It seems unlikely the three sources are enough to pass the GNG Mattlore (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canadian international playing in a professional team, albeit in a semi-pro league this season.Fleets (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Canada has never played in a World Cup, Four Nations, European Cup or a Pacific Cup as required by RLN. I wasn't able to find any more sources so it could pass WP:GNG Mattlore (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Required is an interesting choice of phrase, almost like you want to remove the rugby league article. May I ask if you are a fan of that particular sport, just out of interest?Fleets (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how my personal preferences are relevant to this discussion, but even a quick glance at my editing history or user page will answer that question for you. RLN is a hard threshold that assumes notability if it is met - therefore required is a perfectly fine turn of phrase. As Chad Bain doesn't meet this guideline, the subject has to demonstrate it meets the general notability guidelines in other ways. Your arguments should concentrate on articulating how he does this so that the article doesn't get deleted. Mattlore (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was merely gauging how to engage with you, it was an attempt to see if you were open to an RLN that does support international rugby league and professional rugby league and not the current iteration of the guideline.Fleets (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama:, he doesn't satisfy RLN and it appears dubious that the sources in the article are enough to pass GNG. If you were able to find some more could you please add them to the article. Mattlore (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence he has ever played in an international match for Canada. Mattlore (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a few articles that currently fail RLN but may soon pass have been moved to @Fleets: user space. If this AfD closes as delete and Fleets wants it, I'd like to see this too moved to his userspace, it's actually a good way to save it for moving back when it passes RLN/GNG! – skemcraig 21:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's purported to be an international player, playing in a pro-team, just in the semi-pro league 1. Rugby League and North America do create a few tests of the existing RLN criteria.Fleets (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Dempsey (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A contest prod. The player fails WP:RLN as hasn't played in a Super League match and an international for Canada is not notable enough to meet the guidelines. Mattlore (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Canadian international playing in a professional team, albeit in a semi-pro league this season.Fleets (talk) 09:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually does pass WP:RLN per #1, actually says that players who have played nationally for Argentina, Australia, Canada, England, Fiji, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Romania, Samoa, Scotland, South Africa, Tonga, United States, and Wales are considered notable. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alessandro, I think you have mistakenly quoted the rugby union guidelines as RLN #1 states "1.Have appeared in at least one match at a Rugby League World Cup tournament, Rugby League Four Nations tournament, Pacific Cup or Rugby League European Cup" - Canada has never been in any of these tournaments. Mattlore (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  15:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andri Mateev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT and no evidence of passing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garand Model 1919 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about is a one-of-a-kind prototype. It is mentioned briefly in a couple of sources, but that's not enough to fulfill WP:N. It can be covered in the bio of the maker. It was written by a sock of a banned editor, who is the sole content contributor. Felsic2 (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Tumblr site is a self-published source. The others seem to be passing mentions. Felsic2 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chawin Likitcharoenpong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable person; prod and speedy declined. —S Marshall T/C 17:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. This is hard for me because I don't speak Thai. I must say that the general look and feel of those sites doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they get the kind of careful editorial supervision and scrupulous fact-checking we'd normally look for in the BLP of a teenager. But Thai sources may look different from English ones (and indeed why would they look the same?) What I'm really looking for is your assurance that these are the Thai equivalents of The Times and The Guardian, rather than the Thai equivalents of Hello Magazine and the Daily Mail.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't honestly make that assurance. Though Thai Rath is the country's top-circulating daily (and Kom Chad Luek is similarly positioned), the quality of their reporting isn't that highly regarded, and entertainment journalism in Thailand generally doesn't hold itself to high standards anyway (though they're not quite near Western tabloids' level of trashiness). I couldn't find anything in the Bangkok Post or The Nation, so I understand your position. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:18, 1 March 2017 (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. Opinions are divided about whether the sources are sufficient for inclusion. This does not change if one discounts the few non-policy-based opinions about women, advocacy, etc.  Sandstein  15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olufemi-Kayode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't meet GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you provided DO NOT extensively discuss the subject. Just mentions and a short piece about her work isn't enough to establish notability. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC reads "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article enjoyed significant coverage in reliable and verifiable sources such asI share Hope, The Nation and The Point and mention |here
  2. She is also a fellow of a notable Association: Ashoka Fello

Submitted Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many hits to be found, because she is among other things a professional activist, who takes good care that he work gets published and articles about her get written. We should have a very high index of suspicion in evaluating careers like this " a Nigerian criminal justice psychologist, international speaker, child protection consultant, woman and child right activist, child abuse survivor, advocate for victims of sexual violence" especially when multiple professions are claimed, all coming down to the same thing. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does this even mean? The claim that we should be suspicious of multiple career hats is not a good argument. I can show you plenty of articles about notable people that list multiple jobs in the lede, because that happens. People sometimes have more than one career or interest, especially if they're activists on their off time. In addition, there is also nothing wrong with being a professional activist or about ensuring that you are seen by the press. The press saw her, among many people, and chose to write/quote her. I'm sure she didn't force them to write about her. None of your arguments refute the fact that she is in multiple reliable sources. You are only attempting to discredit the sources themselves. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This article makes a claim of notability, namely that she is a fellow in a society recognized on the English Wikipedia as notable. Furthermore, the references, do establish significant coverage. These perquisites being fulfilled means this article passes WP:GNG. Comparatively, a fellow in the Royal Society would be widely considered notable on Wikipedia and it would be bias to put undue weight on recognizing members of one society with established notability over another with likewise established notability. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The only claim I can see like that is of being an "Ashoka Fellow". The page describing this program [28] is so buzzword-laden that it's hard to know what to make of it, but it is certainly not the type of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association" that WP:PROF#C3 is talking about. It seems to be more of a program for giving grant funding to specific project proposals (something that is certainly not enough by itself for notability) and then giving them a fancy name. There is no violation of UNDUE in recognizing that the Royal Society is a highly selective and prestigious society and this one appears to be a dressed-up foundation and not a society at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: I am currently working on improving the article as we speak to try and bring it up to some standard. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find a dozen or so news stories quoting her, but none with the in-depth coverage about her required of WP:GNG. The Ashoka Fellowship profile could plausibly be taken as one such source, but we need multiple of them. And she definitely does not pass WP:PROF; it's not the right kind of fellowship for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Eppstein: This one is a difficult one for me. I have rescinded my speedy keep in favour of a weak keep after trying to edit the article but not finding enough sources to be able to write a great deal. The trouble is that her profile page on that society she is apart states that she worked in various news and radio organizations. Now the challenge here is that due to the country she is in and their limitations on connectivity and such one is presented the issue of if this was a developed country with greater technical advancement that information would have made its way onto the internet and thus made a better case for significant coverage. I am truly stuck on this one because I am honestly convinced there is enough to cover WP:GNG with leniency placed on the requirement for so much coverage based on my aforementioned logic. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What society? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2017 (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. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortrade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NORG. This has all the hallmarks of a paid promotional article. The only source for the article is the company's own web site. There are inline external links pointing to the company's products and services while the text is promotional in tone with lines line "All Fortrader Trading Platforms include a range of technical indicators to help online traders achieve better results.", Jbh Talk 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 01:54, 22 February 2017 (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. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Real Desperado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki311 01:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki311 01:38, 22 February 2017 (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) Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Milanzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article that was previously deleted in 2010 following AfD. The article is about a footballer that has never played in a fully-pro league, although he did play 20 minutes in a single FIFA-recognized friendly international match (which occurred after the original AfD). The article doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG as the coverage is routine (particularly the coverage of the match against Zimbabwe that *might* give him notability), and some of the negative content is only supported by blog postings. Jogurney (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jogurney (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though normally for players who are well past their prime, and are unlikely to ever appear anywhere that meets WP:NFOOTY again. In the case of a 22-year old though, a minimal amount of play is normally enough to create the article. Could always bring it back for deletion in 2030 or so, if nothing else happens. Nfitz (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just re-checked WP:NFOOTBALL, which clearly states that "Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match" are notable. It also states that "For the purposes of this guideline, played means having appeared in a match either in the starting line-up or coming on as a substitute. Therefore, Milanzi is notable enough to warrant a page. Seeing as he is only 22 and on loan from one of the biggest clubs in Africa, having also been called up to the Malawi National Side in 2015, I think it's logical to keep the page as this player could quite possibly make another senior international appearance. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't dispute Milanzi's appearance in that solitary match (I even added a reference to the article to support it). I do disagree with all of the comments above which suggest NFOOTBALL as a free pass from the general notability guideline. It is a presumption of notability based on our collective experience that articles about senior international footballers are typically able to satisfy the GNG. I don't think that's the case here - although there is some coverage in Malawi and Zimbabwe sources, it is all routine and not significant. I'll gladly withdraw the nomination if it can be shown otherwise. Jogurney (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jogurney: although WP:NFOOTY is sometimes overruled by WP:COMMONSENSE (such as here) I don't believe it applies to this case. Milanzi (the subject in question) has played a fully international match and plays for one of the most well known football clubs on the African contentment. More so he is still relatively young and still playing. WP:COMMONSENSE would suggest that in all likely hood Milanzi will continue to play in some notable games, such as the 2017 CAF Champions League which TP Mazembe will take part in. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand, but I don't see any sign that this player is likely to figure into TP Mazembe's Champions League plans. There are exactly 3 mentions of him on the club's website (2 involve an injury he sustained in 2011 and 1 involves a loan to a local affiliate club in 2012). It's unclear whether he remains under contract - the most recent source mentioning his association with TP Mazembe was an article from October 2016. Jogurney (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. I don't even know why we're having this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY. There's quite a lot of media references to this young Malawian player - however the scope of the articles don't quite meet WP:GNG; though I'm seeing a lot more coverage of him, than I do for many a player who plays in a supposedly fully-professional 2nd tier European league. Article is very well referenced. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:46, 25 February 2017 (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.