Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 21: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:30, 21 March 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. no SALT yet ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Gunn

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was contested on the grounds that he played in a pre-season friendly tournament, which is insufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. The article still fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no change in the notability issues that resulted in deletion during the first AfD. Player does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, would recommend against salting though as it seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON if anything else. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer.Fails WP:NFOOTBALL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:53, 28 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) 22:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southside Wrestling Entertainment

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the above article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage by third party sources --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:55, 28 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. consensus confirms our usual practice

 DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Sheppard (politician)

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

The "About James Sheppard" link returned an error message when I tried it on March 20, 2017. However, it appears to be a publication of the subject's campaign, which would make it not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. More sources are needed to establish notabiltiy. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. I can find unbiased news sources that back up this information, and will delete the "About James Sheppard" link promptly when more reliable sources are added. User:WuTang94 (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found another reference and added to article (Rochester Business Journal) Cllgbksr (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria. "Politicians and Judges" (2) "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". 4 reliable sourced articles, independent of each other covering subject. Cllgbksr (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject was the focus of an in-depth article describing his career when he retired as Chief of Police in 2013. In his role as chief, and in his current position as a county legislator, he is frequently quoted in the local Rochester press. He has not, from what I could find, been the subject in any national press (although he was featured in a column in the Albany Times Union). --Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a figure of purely local notability, it takes quite a lot more than just four pieces of purely local media coverage to get them over WP:NPOL #2 — every single local police chief who exists at all, anywhere in the entire United States, could always show four pieces of purely local coverage. What it would take in this instance is coverage which shows him as more notable than the norm for his role, such as coverage extending significantly beyond the purely local and/or the number of available references being closer to 50 than to five. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rochester, New York is the 3rd largest city in NY. It's not Mayberry RFD.Cllgbksr (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the city doesn't provide a free notability boost to a police chief at all. An article about a police chief always lives or dies on whether he's been shown to clear WP:GNG on the quality and volume of the sourcing, regardless of whether he's the police chief of the biggest city on the planet or the smallest village. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article is about a Mayoral candidate. Cllgbksr (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject was just a candidate for mayor, many editors, including myself, would apply WP:ROUTINE toward all of the coverage generated during the mayoral campaign. Candidates for public office are not presumed notable, and the position of chief of police or county legislator have also not been afforded the presumption of notability (Note: the election contest might be (e.g. Ohio gubernatorial election, 2014)). The question in this case is whether a) the coverage of subject (prior to running for office) is sufficient to meet WP:GNG or b) whether the subject was a primary topic in national or international news coverage. I comment because this is a close case. There are much more than four pieces of local coverage of the subject, and one regional piece (that I have found). At least one of the local pieces is an in-depth feature of his career as chief of police. (As an aside, a majority of the article should be about the subject's extensive career, not his current campaign). --Enos733 (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a mayoral candidate doesn't assist notability either. People in politics get Wikipedia articles by winning election and thereby holding office, not by merely being a candidate in an election they haven't won. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the subject is well known across Upstate New York, but I'm not sure how notable he is. FWIW, the incumbent is a friend of a friend of mine; we attended the same law school. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage of local figures has to be a lot more indepth to show notability than we have here. I distrust articles that use meaningless phrases like "a polarizing figure". If people cannot bring out reliable sourced discussion of what made the person polarizing, than we lack the indepth coverage needed to form a workable article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found more in-depth articles detailing Sheppard's career as police chief to explain why he is a "polarizing figure". Check out the new section on his police career career. User:WuTang94 (talk) 20:51, 26 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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City rivalry in Finland

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

Cities have rivalries, of course. However, this article seems to be all WP:OR and is completely unsourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an WP:ESSAY and fails WP:GNG. I think this might even be a WP:HOAX. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a hoax, but it is an essay with original research. Fails GNG. Ceosad (talk) 19:20, 21 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort Broncos

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

No evidence of notability. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the record, they do exist, but are clearly not notable. ansh 666 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like the team was renamed as is now defunct, based on [1] and the fact they do not appear on the league's page here [2]. The single source I found discussing the team is not enough to prove notability. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding the depth of coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type needed under WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:16, 24 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. What the IP writes makes little sense in terms of policy, and there is no other input, so this is essentially uncontested. This can be treated by an admin as a soft deletion (WP:SOFTDELETE) because of the lack of discussion. However, please don't ask me to undelete this. Sandstein 13:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (Comedy TV Series)

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a television series which airs only on a single local IPTV website in a single city. There's no evidence being shown of the wider distribution needed to clear WP:NMEDIA, and no indication of reliable source coverage to get it past WP:GNG -- the only reference being cited here is the sales page of a DVD on Amazon. There's simply nothing here to deem it notable enough for an article. Bearcat (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I would like an explanation as to why the page has disappeared whilst it quite clearly states that there is a discussion as to whether this page will be deleted, It also states that I can still edit the page (and by edit I mean add further references(that I have not had time to add since I work and illness has required my attention of late...)) by the way, are you privy to the distribution details of the company that show the series? If so I would love to see evidence of that, from what I hear the show has been watched by and has tweets that mention the show as far away as Korea. Little bit out of the way considering the IPTV station as you say is local to Essex... Furthermore links with two actors who have pages on Wikipedia as well would to me suggest it is of interest to people who follow those pages. (ps. sorry if I seem a little ott with my rant here but I suffer from depression and not having a good time of late and this doesn't help particulary since I spent so much time setting the article up only to have you tear it down on a whim against it seems the rules stating that it was under discussion and I would still be able to edit it? Would love an explanation as to why I can't access the page anymore. (Ps. also why is there a page for Essex tv if its a local IPTV station? surely that contravenes the rules that you are mentioning earlier on in this talk?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.201.43 (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I was able to edit the article I misunderstood how to get to it but the links to the page from relevant other articles have been removed that's what initially annoyed me about not being able to edit it. I will add more references to the show. I am still wondering why there is scrutiny over my article being about a show on a local iptv network though and yet an article exists for the channel itself, that seems to contradict itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.138.201.43 (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 21 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) 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pippen

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

self-published, no independent coverage Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 27 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. We can't relist this discussion forever. There's real disagreement about whether WP:ENT is met, and the article is no longer completely unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Fairlie

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

BLP unsourced since 2008 (almost 9 years ago). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies. Her significant roles, such as in Little Bear, can easily be found by just searching. A couple of seconds alone verified her role as Little Bear. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourcing is required to verify all of that. No sourcing = no verification of notability. The article is currently unsourced – if it's still unsourced in a week, it should probably be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how AfD works. SL93 (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And...really? - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Thompson. SL93 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's exactly how AfD works – notability is demonstrated by sourcing. That's the only real way to demonstrate whether an individual is notable or not. And "really?" what?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but the keep voters don't need to add those sources to the article. It's not required. The really refers to your comment in that AfD, which is also currently unsourced. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        "Keep" voters that don't add sources aren't worth much IMO, especially if they quote no sources here either. If you believe an article is worth keeping, you find the sourcing and add it to the article. That's what I do. Meanwhile, the Raymond Thompson discussion belongs at that AfD, not this one... In any case, you've apparently got one source for this one, and it's no more than a passing mention. This one needs much more to merit a "Keep" vote. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not. I can show more references to prove the roles if it makes you happy. I don't think hypocritical opinions (as in the above mentioned other AfD) are worth much either. SL93 (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have also been participating in AfDs for years, including for many entertainers. I do know that verifying multiple significant roles is enough to keep an article. SL93 (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not – what verifies that roles are "notable" is independent sourcing. WP:NACTOR does not trump WP:BASIC, it's meant to support it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BASIC says no such thing. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, there's no arguing with that... Suffice it to say, if this is still where it is now on Sunday or Monday, I'll be voting "delete". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I could honestly care less. This was put up for discussion anyway. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment – Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, that's one guideline I generally ignore, especially for any BLP subject that's been active since the 1990s. That one may make sense if you're talking about, for example, a lower profile actor from the 1930s where the sources are likely not readily available on the internet. But that particular claim does not apply to the subject of this AfD. In any case, I view WP:NEXIST as basically being like a "blank check" that can be twisted around to argue keeping virtually any article because "there might be sources out there about it that exist..." I'm basically from Missouri: Don't make an unprovable claim – show me the goods. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, yes, you do "need more than to verify multiple roles to make it pass WP:ENT, passing mentions or not". NACTOR is not passed just because multiple roles are asserted, because every actor who's ever had roles at all would clear ENT if asserting the roles were all it took. We've seen people try to claim an NACTOR pass on the basis of a person having had two unnamed extra roles, in fact. NACTOR is passed only when the depth and quality of sourcing shows that the performer was the subject of substantive media coverage in reliable sources for those roles — even the question of whether the roles were "major" enough to count as significant for the purposes of passing NACTOR lives or dies on the quality of the sources that can be shown to support the majorness of the roles. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        If that is the case, then WP:NACTOR and the rest of the supplementary guidelines are really not needed. All that Wikipedia would need is the GNG. SL93 (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Not true. If all we "needed" was the GNG, and we had no supplementary guidelines to clarify what counts as a notability claim in the first place, then we would have to start keeping articles about everybody who ever got into their local newspaper for doing anything at all — including presidents of church bake sale committees or condominium boards, teenagers who got human interest pieces written about them because they tried out for the high school football team despite having only nine toes, winners of high school poetry contests, the woman a mile down the road from my parents who got into the media for waking up one morning to find a pig in her yard, and me. So no, neither SNGs nor the GNG exempt a person who passes one of them from having to pass the other too. A person whose notability passes an SNG does still have to be sourceable to media coverage for their passage of the SNG, and a person who has media coverage for the purposes of GNG still has to have that coverage be in a context that counts as a notability claim under an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You know I can read what you're saying without your italics, right? SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm beginning the process of adding sources to this article. I'll try to look at it more over the weekend. We'll see if it gets there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @IJBall: If it does, just ping me so I can withdraw this. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Coffee! At the least, I'll put up a "Delete" or "Keep" vote once I've done more work on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Update: I've added a little more sourcing tonight, but I'm still not quite ready to vote "Keep" (though it's getting closer). However, I have found no real sourcing support for Little Bear (TV series). This is the problem with case like this one – the role that you might think would "cinch" someone to clear WP:NACTOR in fact turns out not to be (very) notable in its own right. Basically, children's shows tend to get very little mainline press... I'll try to follow up tomorrow or Tuesday (before the first deadline on this one) to see what else I can find. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the subject is mentioned in 20th_Youth_in_Film_Awards#Best_Young_Performer_in_a_TV_Movie.2C_Pilot_or_Mini-Series, which is not a significant award (Youth in Film Awards). She was one of the five winners in the category "Best Performance in a TV Movie/Pilot/Made-for-Video: Young Ensemble", which further shows that this was a rather minor honour. "Young performer" awards do not carry as much weight as the adult ones, generally. The voice acting career is not not notable either, and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Coffman. The award isnt much notable, but the subject of the article is notable in my opinion. I think the person deserves an article on wikipedia. Talking about references, if there arent any then they should be added instead of deleting the article. {{refimprove}} —usernamekiran[talk] 09:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles with a refimprove tag on them just because it's theoretically possible that the referencing might become improvable someday. For Kristin Fairlie to get that treatment, the onus is on you to definitively show that the necessary depth of sourcing about her does exist — it's not enough to just say that the necessary depth of sourcing might just maybe possibly exist without showing hard evidence that it is really out there for real. Anybody could just say that better sources might someday show up about anything or anyone who exists at all — the way to earn a "keep and flag for refimprove" is to show that better sources do exist to improve the article with. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with "Per WP:ENT. She has had several significant roles in notable television shows and movies". Dean Esmay (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What determines a pass or fail of WP:ENT is not the simple listing of roles — every actor who exists at all would pass ENT if listing roles were all it took. Whether an actor gets a Wikipedia article or not hinges on whether she has garnered sufficient reliable source coverage for those roles, but there's still no evidence of that being shown here. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete is where I come down on this. Fairlie has actually had some substantial credits. But the projects themselves are of the type that don't generate a lot of independent coverage, so what coverage there is for her is... on the "light" side. In fact, that is generally true of voice actors – they generally don't get press coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been in enough major productions that I consider her to be as notable as an actor having only two notable roles in two notable works--just as long as that laundry list of roles can be verified. If there is any reason to believe the list has major errors, I would reconsider. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:31, 22 April 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. Consensus is this fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources, and WP:FOOTYN because the team hasn't played their first match yet. No reason it can't be re-created (or this version restored) if/when these problems are resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naples United FC

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

Unpromising google search. Article is about small soccer team that hasn't played yet, TOOSOON, CRSYTAL, WP:FOOTYN L3X1 (distant write) 00:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC) Nom Withdrawn unless it would be considered disruptive, I would like to postpone this deletion until May 25th 2017, after their scheduled debut game. I think NAC would allow the Nom to close this as Probational Keep, withdrawn, so I can close this tomorrow unless this is objectionable. L3X1 (distant write) 15:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: Given that there are !votes to delete the article, withdrawal of the nomination is not an option unless all such !votes are also withdrawn. If every !vote were to keep the article, you could withdraw your nomination and close it yourself, but this is not the case. If you were to attempt an NAC close, it would quickly be reverted. I would recommend allowing the AFD to run its course and have an admin make the final decision. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 12:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jkudlick OK, I'll let it run its course. Thanks for explaining. L3X1 (distant write) 14:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging some people from the football projects because of their experience, not SHOPPING nor Meat puppetry. I don't know how they will vote, or what they will say. I may have experience with them before, but I have not attempted to influence their vote in anyway. GiantSnowman Kosack Jellyman FilthyDon Peter_James Number_57 BoroFan89 Jkudlick L3X1 (distant write) 00:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that the team is scheduled to begin play in only a little over a month, I don't think a TOOSOON/CRYSTALBALL deletion is a good idea. Furthermore, almost every team in that league has an article, and I don't think this should be an exception. Lepricavark (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the club hasn't played a match, it falls short of WP:FOOTYN and the expectation of it playing, even in the near future, is WP:CRYSTAL. There seems to be surprisingly little coverage for a new franchise which would mean it does not pass WP:GNG either. Can be restored by an admin as soon as they play. Kosack (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot see from Google that this team even exists. Giant Snowman 08:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Club has not yet played a single match (WP:CRYSTAL), though it is listed on the NPSL website as a current club. Strangely, I find no other mention of the club on Google or Yahoo searches, so WP:GNG is clearly failed. Regarding WP:FOOTYN, there are three prior AFDs (Grand Rapids FC, AFC Ann Arbor, and Oakland United FC) that pointed out a particular ambiguity within the club notability section: All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. This does not address teams which are eligible to play in the national cup but have not yet done so; overall consensus seems to have developed (see the three prior AFDs) that mere eligibility confers notability, but that is a discussion for elsewhere. To reiterate, I !vote to delete because WP:GNG is failed, and the club has not played a single match so WP:CRYSTAL applies and WP:FOOTYN does not. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 13:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably because of larger team S.S.C. Napoli who play in Italy, the english name for this city is Naples.AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CRYSTAL doesn't apply, the team's about to begin their season. Just about every team in the league they're currently in has entered into the U.S. Open Cup, so unless it's clear this team won't also be held to that standard, it meets FOOTYN. This is a case for expansion, not deletion. If the article can't be expanded and improved within a few months, then come back and delete it. I would support deletion then 1000%. There's no rush. South Nashua (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator suports this reasoning as superior to deletion If the article can't be expanded and improved within a few months, then come back and delete it. I would support deletion then 1000%. There's no rush. L3X1 (distant write) 19:52, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No point deleting if they will soon pass WP:NFOOTY. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would really like to vote "Keep" but since there is so little citation on this very article (4 or 5 different searches on both google and bing yealded 3 sources, one being the teams Facebook page and the other two being promotional) I cannot. Ether way it seems like WP:TOOSOON, I think L3X1 immediate comment above is the best way to go. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As per the previous comment, I'd be inclined to want to keep the article on the basis that most clubs at their level have been deemed notable, but the complete lack of reliable sources is a real problem for me. You would think a new franchise would generate some press coverage, but apparently not in this case. The fact they haven't played yet isn't the issue, it's the fact that they fail WP:GNG based on lack of significant coverage. Jellyman (talk) 14:42, 23 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Gunn (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southside Wrestling Entertainment}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Sheppard (politician)}}