Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 September	13 September >

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Ruf (Waffen SS)

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

An unremarkable Waffen-SS member; significant RS coverage cannot be found; article is using unreliable sources such as Frontjkemper (forum dedicated to foreign SS "volunteers"); Wiking-Ruf ("Viking's Call" newsletter dedicated to SS division Wiking); etc.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus whether a single award of the Knight's Cross meets WP:SOLDIER #1, given that many were not awarded for valour and that too many were awarded overall (over 7,000). This article is part of about 500 similar articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in late 2008.

The article was discussed at AfD in 2009, closing as keep, based on the comparison to VC or MoH. However, the 2016 discussion above presents these comparisons as insufficient: "four times as many KCs awarded in 6 years as there have ever been for the VC, and twice as many as there have ever been for the US MOH. (...) There's a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it doesn't seem to be prestigious enough to merit inclusion based solely on receiving it."

Likewise, no new sources have been produced during the AfD nor biographical information added following it, resulting in a WP:DIRECTORY listing rather than a balanced biography. I don't believe such sources exist for this subject, and it does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article under WP:BIO1E and failing to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject meets WP:SOLDIER. The nominator is on a de-Nazification streak ignoring WP:MILHIST consensus on subject notability and this ongoing trend begins to look like bad-faith to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Wikiprojects do not determine notability, only community as a whole; pls also see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Further, even members of the project acknowledge that not all KC awards qualify under WP:SOLDIER #1, since only a subset of them were awarded for valour, as required by SOLDIER. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: If you don't think SOLDIER should exist, nominating articles for deletion on the basis of your belief is POINTy, at best. You've been arguing this on the talk page and it appears not enough editors agree with you. Further, the SNG is about presumption of notability. I don't see evidence that Ruf didn't deserve a valor award so I'm presuming he's notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- SOLDIER is an essay, not an SNG; there's no "presumption of notability" based on an essay that needs to be "refuted" by the nominator. In contrast, the notability needs to be positively demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources (as required by WP:SOLDIER). Such coverage cannot be located in this case, and because of this the article has been nominated for deletion under existing policies and guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have expressed before on these articles, I don't feel that the sources provided meet the threshold required by WP:GNG. This one has a few different ones than some of the other one's that @K.e.coffman: has nominated in the past, but I don't feel they meet the reliable sources criteria and agree with his reasoning in the nomination. This one does appear to have been nominated for bravery/valor, so I'm actually more open to it than some of the others, but I would want to see some additional reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multi-volume series by Wegmann et al will have a page or two on this chap. That and other mentions are enough to get him over the GNG line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this is the same argument as offered in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Beck, without producing the source or making sure that the content indeed exists. (The article was ultimately deleted). In any case, even if the source were produced, that would have been a single entry related to WP:BIO1E and would not have been sufficient, as other sources (Fellgiebel, Scherzer) are trivial one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ruf was a member of the Waffen-SS. Thus it is unlikely that any information about him can be found in works that deal with recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Wehrmacht, including Thomas & Wegmann and Fellgiebel. Not that it would be a high quality work, but it seems that neither is he mentioned in Peter Strassner's history of the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking Europäische Freiwillige (dt. 1968; engl. European Volunteers). Thus it doesn't really surprise me, that the article merely references some unreliable (and mostly extinct) websites. The article itself provides only one information, namely that Ruf was awarded the Knight's Cross. In fact, all three sentences feature the word "awarded". In other words, there is no indication of Ruf's notability. Otherwise it wouldn't be so difficult to unearth even the most basic information.--Assayer (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable SS officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another NN soldier. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the same can be said about these other articles; there's information and some sources about him, yes, but still not enough to actually in fact suggest his own convincing article, therefore it's imaginably better to simply list him elsewhere as part of another article. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (R) It's pretty clear that the subject is not independently notable. Given the fact that the KC was awarded to so many recipients, I do not think that it confers an automatic notability. Neither is there the significant coverage required for GNG. I think stuff like this should be maintained in a list, which is why a redirect is the best solution here. The target page already contains the subject's info, so a redirect is best. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaela Advani

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

I was unable to find anything more than a passing mention in a news search for reliable sources and the linked reference on the page is a not found error and wouldn't qualify to establish notability. AfD instead of PROD cause of the prior AfD which closed as No Consensus. -- Dane2007 ^talk 23:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She continues to have things on the fringe of notability. She is now a published author on Amazon (for a non-notable work}. I guess this is a non-WP:RS. This article does not differ much from what I would expect of a paid editor for hire crufting stuff up in hopes of achieving notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means because the exact information there is listed here, is simply what there is to say and advertise about her; the 1 source is certainly not enough because it's essentially exactly to the levels of what the information is: unconvincing and not substantial. There's essentially nothing else from this article. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went through and trimmed some of the unsourced and promotional claims and there aren't many independent RS supporting the page's content. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Indiana Jones film

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

Plans for a future film should not have an article until reliable sources show that principal photography has started, per WP:NFF. This is a high profile film but is not scheduled for release until 2019 and is still in the planning stages. Meters (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let the discussion of WP:FFEXCEPTIONS begin. Meters (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I would say merge any useful info to Indiana Jones (franchise)#Future but it looks like most of it is already there. MarnetteD|Talk 23:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft-space until such time that the article is ready. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a film that is 3 years from its release date. Those have a tendency to not happen, so even that is debatable. More over the title actor who has the main role in 74. He probably will live to be in the film, but that is far from gauranteed, which could scuttle the whole project. Until we have reliable evidence that principal photography has comencedwe should not have this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides TOOSOON, also a violation of WP:NOT (WP is not a crystal ball). Until principal photography begins, there is always the risk that this could go into development hell. --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indiana_Jones_(franchise)#Future. It's too soon for an article since filming hasn't commenced and right now all we have is just talk. The film could be made or it might not be - until filming commences we won't really know for sure. We could probably leave the article history behind so that if/when filming does start, we'd have something to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any point in redirecting it. If we had a firm title it would be a viable redirect, but not with the current title. No-one is likely to ever search for "Untitled Indiana Jones film. Meters (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Delete: There is already a perfectly adequate location for this at Draft:Indiana Jones 5, for a film that has not even gone into production. This article's creator may contribute there until it is ready to move to the main space. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Written in a fannish, conversational style of inappropriate WP:TONE, it's also filled with "rumors said this" and "Spielberg denied that." This is like something you'd see on rumor-mill fan site, not in an encyclopedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above (WP:SNOW) and WP:HAMMER. This is literally two summers from now. Until we know at least some of the cast and the title, I'm inclined against it. Even imdb lacks the 411 on casting director, supporting cast, or set designer(s). Bearian (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay toosoon!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Kohl

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

A memorial to a nonnnotable Nazi Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a regional commander of Gestapo secret police does not qualify for WP:SOLDIER, his claims for notability are claims of association rather than independent notability Atlantic306 (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article; mid-level member as noted above, who is mostly known for the torture of two French resistance fighters who do not have articles or stubs. I did some clean up work on the article at one time, but do not believe it should be kept. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not eveyone who held a government post in Hitler's regime is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a mid-level Gestapo functionary with no independent notability. The tone and the content of the articles suggests a WP:MEMORIAL. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- It strikes me that he was notorious, probably as an effective (and thus, to my mind, obnoxious) policeman. His death and the retaliation for it were perhaps also routine in the nastiness of the occupation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Roller Hockey International. After considering SpinningSpark's previous close and looking at what changed his mind, I still see a consensus to delete. I also see a willingness to retain the information and some suggestions to merge, so I'm taking the least destructive method I can, which is to redirect for now to allow time to merge any useful information. While redirects are free, this particular case is borderline and I would recommend deleting after any useful information is extracted. This also allows a little time for finding more sources if they exist and expanding on the talk page, and if it can be saved, providing the rationale there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Division (RHI)

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

WP:CRUFT; no need for a division article for a league that's barely notable (if it's notable at all, that is). Deprodded by Kvng with a note to consider a merge, but nothing here is worth merging, and it makes little sense to keep this as a redirect. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: how do you come to the conclusion that there is nothing worth merging. It would seem worth mentioning in Roller Hockey International that the league is organized into conferences and divisions. ~Kvng (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I'd be quite happy to see any referenced content here merged, possibly all zero bytes of it ;-p. Seriously though, if anybody wants to improve Roller Hockey International then they can, but that need not detain us from deleting this unreferenced cruft. Also please take this as a preemptive Delete !vote on the other pointless RHI division articles should they be deprodded and end up at an AfD. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but open to Merge to RHI article. This information is notable and should be contained somewhere as this was a major professional league that despite the comment above was very notable during its operating time with national broadcasting and media coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djsasso: What, precisely, do you wish to merge? This entire article is unsourced, so none of it could be merged as-is to the main article. Let's say we delegate to some poor sap the requirement to source this entire thing. The information regarding which teams existed in the league at which times is already contained in the league article, which is all this is - a list of teams folding and starting. If you would like to source this entire article to the point where a merge is preferable, feel free, but that would be entirely new work. Alternatively, if this article is kept, I'm happy to purge it of all unsourced information as per WP:V, which will leave a stub that says a division existed (even though that itself has not been sourced). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There should be no problem merging unsourced material into an existing article especially into a poorly-sourced article such as Roller Hockey International. Deleting material solely because it is unsourced is a WP:DEMOLISH mentality. Policy requires sourcing for material that is likely to be challenged or has been challenged. The material in Central Division (RHI) has been in the encyclopedia since 2009 and it has not been challenged. The only challenge to it in this AfD is that it is not notable. ~Kvng (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would suggest that this article existing since 2009 reflects a complete lack of interest in this non-notable subject, not broad acceptance of its validity. It seems that it is so obscure that nobody has noticed that it should not be here until now. If anybody really thinks that there is mergable material here then I suggest that they ask for the article to be moved into their user space and then merge it, with sources, at their leisure. No rush. No pressure. But also no reason to make it anybody else's problem. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Kvng mentions, only information that is likely to be challenged requires sourcing. As such pretty much everything in this article could be merged. And it would take two seconds to find sources for a major professional league to show what teams were in the divisions in which years so it isn't exactly hard to source either. The point of division articles isn't to show a division existed as much as to show the timeline of that division. So just showing a division existed isn't the point. And I should point out that if you had followed WP:BEFORE you could have sourced it yourself before nominating as is expected of nominators. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Was RHI really a major professional league? I'm not saying it is entirely non-notable but surely its detailed fancruft is non-notable and unlikely to have good RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roller Hockey International as preferred WP:ATD. See discussion above for details and justification. ~Kvng (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Striking as material has been challenged and, through research, found lacking. ~Kvng (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Merge or Delete per Kvng. Additional references are needed in the parent article however. I think without sourcing, that article may also not meet standards. South Nashua (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Roller Hockey International, which presently has no mention of its own Central Division~~. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I looked, and I couldn't even verify this division ever existed. Given the at-times-odd names of "divisions" previously placed in the see also section, such as Murphy Division (RHI), I seriously question whether these divisions ever existed. The few places this "Central Division" are mentioned on the internet appear to originate from this very article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Maybe don't merge then. Struck my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I searched a bit, and not finding any coverage to verify this either. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:N, and apparently WP:V as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's hard to find any clear-cut details about this organization at all, let alone the kind of reliable source coverage that we need to sustain a proper page. I also support deletion. In terms of merging, as stated above, there's nothing solid here to merge in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have retracted my close of this debate on finding this article on roller hockey in Boys' Life. This shows for certain that there is no hoax at work here and at least partially verifies the article content. For the record, here is a copy of my now retracted closing rationale:

The result was delete. I'm usually quite sympathetic to WP:RETAIN type arguments, and certainly policy does not support being unreferenced, by itself, as grounds for deletion. However, in this case, more than one participant has made a good faith effort to find sources without result, and furhtermore, a suspicion has been raised that hoaxers might be at work here. The WP:DEMOLISH argument is all very well, but there is no sign that anyone is actually building this particular house. There have been no substantive contributions since Feb 2009 when the article was first created. I will happily userfy or draftify this on request for anyone who actually wants to work on it. SpinningSpark 16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There does not seem to be consensus on whether the sources provided are sufficient to push this over the notability line. Improvements could be made to make the article less promotional, but this is not a reason for deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MPay

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization. The article was created by a now-indefinitely-blocked sock of an editor who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aximilli Isthill. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) The references do nothing to support notability of this company: some are non-independent, many include only passing mentions, some appear to be rehashes of press releases. Deli nk (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several of the cited sources are to news articles in The Nation, a nationally circulated print newspaper. Google News search reveals plenty of in-depth coverage, easily establishing the subject's notability according to the WP:GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul_012. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (after Delete) to the parent company Advanced Info Service, where the subject is mentioned. Otherwise, this is strictly a vanity page and SPA / COI is a concern. The subject is not independently notable; for example The Nation describes MPay as a service of AIS. This is republished press release, btw. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These articles probably better demonstrate the subject's notability than those currently cited.[1][2][3] Promotional editing may be a reason to nuke and stubbify the article, but notability is there. I'm not against editorial redirection, as long as the outcome is without prejudice to re-creation. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's barely anything here, there's simply the basic information about what to say about the company, and then the sources, which clearly are not establishing any substance at all; I frankly consider this speedy material. The 1 Keep vote here states that they believe WP:GNG is met, yet this would still be a thin attempt at an article, and we know we must be smarter about articles for companies, especially considering PR and what results from that. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Advanced Info Service, which only has a 6-word passing mention, but provides almost no context or background information about the company. Sources exist such as [4], [5], [6], etc. A merge will improve the merge target article for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), what are your thoughts about the sources I posted below. Do they provide sufficient coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline? Cunard (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as promotional . Consider a redirect, after the deletion, but not a merge. promotional material should not be merged. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the article is promotional. Cunard (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is promotional in that it exists to describe the company's success, using questionable sources. For example, the 2nd para of the lead is based on a news article that shows that the material is pick up from what the company provided to the paper:

"Also, we have 200 online merchants who partner with AIS, as well as several thousand offline shops [under the Rabbit card network] that receive mPay. Last year, we had around 5,000 outlets accepting mPay offline via NFC [near-field-communication technology], and this year we expect to have around 50,000 outlets receiving mPay via NFC," said the MD.

Currently, mPay has some 1.6 million registered members, comprising around 1.2 million end-users and 400,000 mPay agents. About 150,000 end-user members actively use mPay each month, with an average monthly transaction value of Bt30,000.

He said that because mobile wallets were aimed at people's everyday spending of relatively small amounts each time, their main rival was cash.

From the article:

mPay has some 1.6 million registered members, comprising around 1.2 million end-users and 400,000 mPay agents. About 150,000 end-user members actively use mPay each month, with an average monthly transaction value of Bt30,000.^[1]

References

^ Thailand, Nation Multimedia Group Public Company Limited, Nationmultimedia.com. "Cashing in on a cashless society - The Nation". Retrieved 20 September 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

In addition, this appears to be a copyvio as the statement is lifted verbatim. The other sections are "products and services" and "partnerships", also typical of promotional articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Leesa-nguansuk, Suchit (2013-08-19). "Opening the electronic wallet". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-23. Retrieved 2016-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Supreecha Limpikanjanakowit, the managing director of Advanced mPay, the payment unit of Advanced Info Service, says cheaper smartphones and improved high-speed wireless broadband have spurred wider adoption of mobile payments.
  Advanced mPay is adding two new flagship services _ mass transit payments and a mobile wallet for shopping _ to increase transaction revenue.
  ...
  Advanced mPay will join with MasterCard next month to roll out the mPay debit card service, letting customers make purchases via MasterCard.
  Since mPay began seven years ago, it has amassed about 700 merchant partners.
  "Partnering with MasterCard will lift the number of outlets in the merchant payment gateway to several thousand in Thailand and 4 million globally," said Mr Supreecha.
  He blames the restriction of mobile payments to the local currency for impeding the progress of mobile payment service in Thailand.
  Advanced mPay is expanding service with Bangkok Mass Transit System Plc this year, letting customers use near field communication (NFC)-enabled smartphones to pay skytrain fares.
2. Pornwasin, Asina (2015-09-17). "New AISmPay accessible to all digital money consumers". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2016-09-23. Retrieved 2016-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Launched 11 years ago, the AIS mPAY service has only 1.4 million active users from 2.5 million downloads. It has seen gradual growth but AIS has decided to spur growth by making AIS mPAY available to all mobile users with its easy-to-use multi-language concept.
  ...
  AIS mPAY is available for all mobile users, not just AIS users. It takes just two steps to apply and start the service: download the app and then set up the account with a four-digit PIN.
  Users can store up to Bt5,000 into their mPAY wallet and they can increase the amount of stored money to Bt30,000 when they register their mPAY account and up to Bt100,000 if they show up at mPAY-partner banks.
  AIS mPAY currently has a strong portfolio: eight bank partners, which together have over 50,000 ATM machines to add money into AIS mPay; 200,000 mPAY stations to add money and to receive payments by AIS mPAY; over 60,000 non-banking channels to add money into AIS mPay; and over 200 merchants and bills can pay with AIS mPAY.
3. Setthasiriphaiboon, Piyarat (2006-08-01). "MPay streamlines its customer services". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2016-09-23. Retrieved 2016-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Advanced MPay Co Ltd, a subsidiary of Advanced Info Service, the country's largest mobile-phone operator, has signed up a disappointingly low 100,000 active users for its wireless payment service since beginning operations last August.
  Managing director Komsan Buppanimite said one of the problems the company encountered was customers not knowing where or how to "fill up" their mobiles with cash, because in the past, neither Advanced Info Service outlets nor Telewiz shops could assist that transaction.The company has shortened the process in a bid to attract a higher number of users.
4. Leesa-Nguansuk, Suchit (2015-11-18). "Mobile networks team up for e-payment". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2016-09-23. Retrieved 2016-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Thailand has 5.5 million e-wallet users. Of the total, 4 million use AIS's mPay service, and the rest use True Move's True Money service
In Thai, "mPay" is "เอ็มเปย์". Here are two Thai sources I found (there are numerous others on Google News):
1. ""mPAY" ข้ามข้อจำกัด เปิดให้ลูกค้าทุกระบบใช้งานได้" ["MPAY" barriers, open to all system applications.]. Manager Daily (in Thai). 2015-09-16. Archived from the original on 2016-09-23. Retrieved 2016-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  ก้าวต่อไปของบริการเอ็มเปย์ คือ การเปิดให้ลูกค้าทั่วไปสามารถเข้ามาใช้บริการได้ โดยไม่จำเป็นต้องเป็นลูกค้าของเอไอเอส ซึ่งจะช่วยเพิ่มปริมาณลูกค้าที่ใช้งานเพิ่มเป็น 1.5 ล้านราย จากที่ใช้งานในปัจุบัน 1.4 ล้านรายภายในสิ้นปีนี้ และจะเติบโตต่อเนื่องที่ 20-30% ต่อไป
  อย่างไรก็ตาม เอ็มเปย์มียอดการทำธุรกรรมต่อเดือนอยู่ที่ประมาณ 8 พันล้านบาท โดยเป็นการเติมเงินในกลุ่มลูกค้าวันทูคอล และการชำระค่าบริการต่างๆประมาณ 80-90% ส่วนที่เหลือเป็นกลุ่มลูกค้าอีคอมเมิร์ซ และลูกค้าองค์กร
  ...
  โดยปัจจุบัน เอ็มเปย์ เป็นพาร์ตเนอร์ร่วมกับ 8 ธนาคาร คือ ธนาคาร กรุงเทพ ไทยพาณิชย์ กสิกรไทย กรุงไทย กรุงศรีอยุธยา ทหารไทย และยูโอบี ในส่วนของบัตรเครดิต ร่วมกับทางมาสเตอร์การ์ด ทำให้ลูกค้าสามารถเติมเงินได้จากตู้เอทีเอ็มมากกว่า 5 หมื่นจุด หรือใช้วิธีการผูกกับบัญชีก็ได้ รวมถึงการใช้เป็นบัญชีเงินฝากออนไลน์ Beat Banking กับธนาคารซีไอเอ็มบีไทย
  From Google Translate:
  The next step for mPAY is open to the general customers can access the service. Without the need for a client of AIS. This will increase the amount of active customers increased to 1.5 million from 1.4 million in current income by the end of this year. And will continue to grow at 20-30% next.
  However MPay peak transactions per month is about 8 billion baht by the prepaid segment in the Call. And the payment of approximately 80-90%, the rest is an e-commerce customers. And corporate clients
  ...
  Currently MPay a partnership with eight banks, Bangkok Bank of Commerce, Bank of Thailand Thailand Thailand's Ayudhya, TMB Bank, and in most of the credit. Together with MasterCard Customers can make money from ATMs than five thousand points or how to tie the account. Including the use of a bank account online Beat Banking with Bank CIMB Thailand.
2. "เอ็มเปย์ เกตเวย์ รับชำระเงินครบวงจร... อ่านต่อที่" [MPay payment gateway services.]. Daily News (in Thai). 2015-12-15. Archived from the original on 2016-09-23. Retrieved 2016-09-23.
  The article notes:
  
  นายสุปรีชา ลิมปิกาญจนโกวิท กรรมการผู้จัดการ บริษัท แอดวานซ์ เอ็มเปย์ จำกัด เปิดเผยว่า เพื่อตอบสนองกลุ่มผู้ประกอบการรายย่อย และร้านค้าทั้งแบบที่มีหน้าร้านอยู่บนออนไลน์ หรือตามตลาดนัดทั่วไป จึงร่วมกับ ธนาคารกสิกรไทย เปิดบริการ “mPAY Gateway (เอ็มเปย์ เกตเวย์)” เป็นระบบรับชำระเงินที่ครบวงจร เพียงเข้าที่ เอ็มเปย์ เกตเวย์ ที่เดียวก็ได้ครบทุกช่องทาง ทั้งออนไลน์ ออฟไลน์ และ ผ่านบัญชีธนาคารหรือไม่ผ่านบัญชีธนาคาร โดยที่ผู้ขายไม่ต้องไปเชื่อมต่อกับทุกธนาคารเอง... อ่านต่อที่
  ...
  สำหรับ เอ็มเปย์ เกตเวย์ เริ่มต้นเมื่อผู้ขายสมัครใช้บริการ ตั้ง Username และ Password ก็สามารถเริ่มรับชำระได้ทันที ในการรับชำระแต่ละครั้ง ผู้ขายเพียงใส่จำนวนเงินของแต่ละคำสั่งซื้อ ระบบจะสร้างลิงก์ ขึ้นมาเพื่อให้ผู้ขายส่งลิงก์ชำระเงินไปให้ลูกค้าผ่านทางเอสเอ็มเอส, ไลน์, วอทแอพ, เฟซบุ๊ก หรือทางใดก็ได้ เมื่อลูกค้าชำระเงินผ่านช่องทางที่เลือกไว้ เอ็มเปย์ เกตเวย์ จะแจ้งการชำระไปยังผู้ขายตามคำสั่งซื้อเพื่อชำระเงินได้ทันที... อ่านต่อที่
  From Google Translate:
  Mr. Preecha Paralympic Kanjanakul Sankhagowit. Managing Director of Advanced mPAY Co., said in response to a small group of entrepreneurs. Both stores are located on the front line. Or the market in general, in conjunction with the Bank of Thailand Open "mPAY Gateway (MPay Gateway)" is a payment system that is integrated only into the MPay gateway at the same time all channels, both online and offline through. no bank account or bank account. The seller does not have to connect to all the banks themselves.
  ...
  For MPay default gateway on the seller signing the Username and Password, you can start accepting payments immediately. To receive each payment Sellers simply enter the amount of each order. The system creates a link Up to link payments to wholesale customers through SM SM, Male, Whats App, Facebook or anywhere. When customers pay via selected MPay Gateway will pay to the vendor an order for immediate payment.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow MPay to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article and consider it neutrally written. MPay is based in Thailand, so most of the sources are in Thai. I have listed two Thai sources above but there are many other that can be found in a Google search that a user proficient in Thai can use to expand the article.
Cunard (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ and I meant to comment sooner, there's nothing to sensibly or sufficiently non-PR to merge, because it's all still PR for a business that swims in PR; examining the sources listed above found each and every article to contain at least the normal amount of this PR, for example, "For MPay default gateway on the seller signing the Username and Password, you can start accepting payments immediately. To receive each payment Sellers simply enter the amount of each order. The system creates a link Up to link payments to wholesale customers through SM SM, Male, Whats App, Facebook or anywhere. When customers pay via selected MPay Gateway will pay to the vendor an order for immediate payment"; this is essentially a sales pitch and as are the ones above it, to nearly to the top, because it only shows how and what the business is, it's not actual journalistic news and it's certainly not guaranteed to be uninvolved with PR and PR activities (as such, none of that can honestly be called "significant", "independent" or "notable"). Another note is that the fact these "news" are set so far apart in time, it shows they were simply expected and unsuccessful, therefore repeated, attempts at PR. As such, none of this can be accepted if there's still such questionability. Another note is that every single article begins with a sales-pitch-coated sentence, suggesting that is especially not NPOV-news, if all that can be mentioned is PR itself. The first Keep votes are thin and are not substantiating themselves, including acknowledging the PR concerns here. As with other AfDs, there are no benefits of keeping this in the history at any costs, if it's vulnerable to not only repeated advertising but anything of the sort at all. As always, there has been consensus that no amount of likely convincing "sources" can outweigh the damages and overall actions of accepting advertisements, regardless of whatever is shown. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken this duplicate vote since you voted above. I cannot agree that the newspapers the Bangkok Post, The Nation, the Manager Daily, and the Daily News are all publishing news articles filled with PR.
Another note is that the fact these "news" are set so far apart in time, it shows they were simply expected and unsuccessful, therefore repeated, attempts at PR. As such, none of this can be accepted if there's still such questionability. – I cannot agree that the fact that the news articles were "set so far apart in time" demonstrates that they are "expected and unsuccessful, therefore repeated, attempts at PR". That logically does not follow. Instead, that the news articles were set so far apart in time demonstrates they were driven by Thai media's sustained interest in this major Thai payment service provider.
Cunard (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I posted above as to why the article is promotional. The new sources do not overcome the promotional concerns as they do not rise to the level of CORPDEPTH, and are mostly PR-like. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Stampede

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization. The article was created by a now-indefinitely-blocked sock of an editor who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aximilli Isthill. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) The references do nothing to support notability of this company: some are non-independent, many include only passing mentions, some appear to be rehashes of press releases. Deli nk (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage needed to meet WP:NCORP. My online searches turned up only a smattering of press releases, but no detailed coverage by independent sources. Altamel (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, blatantly puffed-up advertisement - I assume someone's been looking for other articles the sock farm has worked on substantially? - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I have nominated a few others for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mammoth Lakes Real Estate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brookhaven (Retreat), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MPay. Deli nk (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO. With sections such as "Notable Clientele" and "Awards", this article is purely "corporate spam". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brookhaven (Retreat)

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization. The article was created by a now-indefinitely-blocked sock of an editor who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aximilli Isthill. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) The references do nothing to support notability of this company: many are non-independent, some include only passing mentions, some are dead links. Deli nk (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the referencing is amazingly bad. Primary references, Glassdoor, sponsored content sites ... every RS is a dead link ... if this is actually the best they can do for notability with their own clippings file to hand, then delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:WEBHOST. Advertising and promotionalism; with no sources to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's so hard to parse through this article and its sourcing I'd say WP:BLOWITUP. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to salt this, as suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth Lakes Real Estate

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization. The article was created by a now-indefinitely-blocked sockmaster who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aximilli Isthill. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) The references do nothing to support notability of this company (most don't even mention it). Deli nk (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Amazingly bad referencing again, I only got half way through tagging it all. Heavily promotional for the owner as well. Obvious advertising, and it seems they were unable to show evidence of notability with their own clippings file to hand - David Gerard (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; blatant advertising. Probably Salt as a local real-estate agency is unlikely to become notable in the future. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. This is like an article on the third-largest real estate law firm in Lake George, New York. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Farrell

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

I withdraw my nomination. Subject is deemed sufficiently notable. Admin please close this nomination if don't get back to it. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A stub article, which does not indicate any kind of notablity. Appears to fail ANYBIO and WP:PROF Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the book he edited on Bakhtin is cited all over the place and widely reviewed, and Sources and Analogues is, as every Chaucerian knows, an essential piece of scholarship. Keep. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. The scholarship is significant and makes him notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Drmies is correct. After checking out Google Scholar with the book title - there are plenty of reviews. In other words, his works have made a significant impact (in his field). I am withdrawing my nomination. I don't have time to do a self-close right now - so if anyone wishes to feel free. I will try to do it later. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Latendresse

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both considering applicable notability and then the fact there's no inherited notability from any listed teams. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Luc Lessard

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article on a non-notable hockey players born in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both considering applicable notability and then the fact there's no inherited notability from any listed teams. The article itself barely actually contains a lot of information, let alone a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Carpentier

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another article on a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both considering applicable notability and then the fact there's no inherited notability from any listed teams. There's essentially nothing else here that couldn't simply be found from the other related articles. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Montgomery

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another non-notable hockey player born in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both considering applicable notability and then the fact there's no inherited notability from any listed teams. This is another case where there's simply not a lot of information apart from playing for those listed teams, which amounts to no independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Medvec

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and yet another non-notable hockey player born in 1988.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These articles do little more than create work for others; any article that has "currently" in its first paragraph is guaranteed to age poorly. Kablammo (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both considering applicable notability and then the fact there's no inherited notability from any listed teams. Even then, what's simply listed is who he plays for, leading to say there's then not a lot of information. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zachary Ward

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

JLOPO (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable actor with no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this should be deleted now as basically a set BLPPROD, none of this actually then establishes any substance for confirming his own independent notability; all there is are the trivial works he had. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG and does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR at this time, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CX CMa

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

Its been tagged to death, but apparently abandoned by the original author. Much of the article is incomprehensible, or likely wrong. It is a faint eclipsing binary star, one of hundreds of the type, . It is not contained in the list of stars in Canis Major, or the template for stars of Canis Major, a big clue that this is not a notable object per WP:NASTRO. Simbad lists nine papers mentioning the star, an astonishingly low number. Even more astonishingly, four of them are about either this star or a small number of objects including this star. There was a flurry of interest in 1984 that the light curve of some eclipsing variables showed an interesting asymmetry, refuted a few years later. Lithopsian (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article, hopefully improving it in the process. As for the O'Connell effect that Lithopsian apparently means: I have not found a refutation of it, rather there is a variety of explanations for this observed phenomenon. It might be worth a separate article. Aside from that, I believe that the article "CX CMa" should be renamed into "CX Canis Majoris" in order to keep in line with other articles on stars. --Schlosser67 (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if the article is kept, it should be renamed as suggested. The article is now a passable stub rather than a half-nonsense mash-up. Still not notable, though ;) Lithopsian (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist will hopefully bring further discussion to reach a consensus. — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: based upon three publications that include the object's name in their titles, it appears to just satisfy the WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kulhari

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was previously a misguided removal of a PROD. The subject appears to lack meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Sitush (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del no evidence. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Search results come back with items not related to the subject of this page, thus lacking coverage and notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Federation of Film Societies of India. Never usually close on one !vote however participation is extremely low and relisting this won't gain any new !votes, and as redirect always prefferred over deletion I'm closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Abraham National Award for Best Documentary in SIGNS 2011

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

Non-notable award. Not much coverage in reliable sources except for some trivial mentions. Article is pretty much written like an advertisement and doesn't include any reliable sources. As per my research, the award is given out at the Signs Film Festival, which itself isn't a notable film festival. Basically fails GNG. - Managerarc™^talk 16:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Federation of Film Societies of India, nothing substantial to warrant a standalone article. Anup [Talk] 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bagio White

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

Lots of refs to other people and own web-site refs to himself but nothing independent and reliable about him. All this for an article that pops up ready-made, very well formatted and constructed from an editor on their very first edit. Some work has gone into this but it still fails WP:GNG by a mile Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable graphic desginer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are exactly Zero independent references available which talk about a subject. A clear delete. I'm wondering of the magazine is notable as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete which in fact only goes to state the obvious and actual intentions of this article: PR, by both stating what his business is about and then his clients, that's not acceptable even if it was factual. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to hair conditioner. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hair serum

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

Contested PROD. Hardly an encyclopaedia article in its current state. Adam9007 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Unreferenced marketing babble. "Hair Serum" snake oils been on market since 19th century. I see no evidence it is a special category of hair care product. It is just a marketing synonym for "lotion" Staszek Lem (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a notable topic. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and unencyclopedic. MB 04:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hair conditioner. Basically the same thing. In fact, it's a pretty clear merge, and by merging, we avoid the redlink that is just bait to have the article recreated again. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per Montanabw, article should be merged to Hair conditioner. Safehaven86 (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hair conditioner; "serum" is just a hair care marketing pseudoscience term. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Park United Sparrows

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

a fourth tier amateur club created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN has not participated in a national competition to my knowledge. No indication of wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination and Fenix down. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Club played in the 2014 FFA Cup preliminary rounds so it does satisfy WP:FOOTYN. The COI is concerning, but the club is notable and so it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 15:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

they only played in the preliminary rounds. LibStar (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The preliminary rounds are part of the tournament, are they not? Smartyllama (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are, but not for the purpose of WP:FOOTYN, since they are explicitly organised on a regional basis to determine the single state qualifier. Fenix down (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - the policy says "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" (Emphasis mine.) Notice the difference in language between the two parts. So is the criteria actually playing in a national cup, or being eligible to play in one? The club clearly meets the latter criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it does not. As the qualifying rounds are specific state competitions, the club only becomes eligible for national competition if it wins one and actually qualifies for the competition proper. To my knowledge this club has never qualified for the national competition. Fenix down (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're eligible for the Cup even if they've never qualified. If they weren't eligible, they wouldn't be participating in qualifying. As an analogy, there are a number of national teams which are eligible for the FIFA World Cup but have never qualified. Any FIFA member is eligible whether they've actually qualified or not. That's why they participate in qualifying, but, for instance, the Martinique national football team doesn't participate in CONCACAF qualifying in spite of being a CONCACAF member. It's not eligible for the World Cup since it's not a FIFA member. Obviously, I know there are different notability criteria for national teams than clubs and I'm not trying to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, merely point out what "eligible" means. Smartyllama (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination and Fenix down. Because eligibility to participate in national cups is too ambiguous in this case, and maybe we should re-evalauate WP:FOOTYN.ronaz ^Talk! 11:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination based on the AfD discussion below and speedy keep reason #1. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Houghton

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

No reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, which provide significant coverage, fails GNG and WP:BIO. Unable to determine if this also still a living person. Notability is not inherited through association with a Nobel Peace Prize winner. This does not appear to be a notable person. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women and finance projects to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative bank spurs renewal of South Shore, Geranios, Nicholas K., Chicago Sun - Times 06 July 1986 [7]
BANKING ON A NEW PHILOSOPHY, ]

Gibson, Edie. Chicago Tribune, 16 Aug 1987 [8]

Investing in inner city // Chicago bank redefines role in community, : [FINAL Edition]

Wiseman, Paul. USA TODAY [McLean, Va] 08 Jan 1993 [9]

'DO-GOODERS' AT BANK REVITALIZE CHICAGO'S SOUTH NEIGHBORHOOD,

Geranios, Nicholas K. above was picked up by the Boston Globe 05 July 1986 Lots more article on Houghton and her role at this bank and in this neighborhood. I am sure that other archive searches will have similar. Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, all of the links provided go to an empty ProQuest Log In page. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She appears to get only passing mention here [10] "The New Old-Fashioned Banking". R. Grzywinski. Harvard Law Review. 1991.
Normally I don't provide a link for searches, but here is a relevant Google Newspaper search [11]. All I am seeing is her being quoted in an entire news story or passing mention in an entire news story. If someone can find a few articles that cover her specifically, then that would be good. Sorry to say, I don't have the time to go through many of these. But I support the effort by anyone else. ----Steve Quinn (talk)

User:Steve Quinn, an alternative way to support the effort,, is to withdraw your nomination and just leave the page togged for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proquest Newspapers is behind a paywall; it is easier to use this paywalled archive when looking from material form the 1980s, 90s. Those articles and the many others found in that archive are valid sources for WP and AFD, and would readily enable an editor to write a good article on Houghton. Non-paywalled searches on topics form a generation ago can take a little longer, but produce material like this form the Chicago Tribune, "South Shore Bank Spreading Its Creed," May 30, 1988|By R.C. Longworth. [12]. We need an article on South Shore Bank, and one on ~~Chicago~~ Mary Houghton. 2 notable topics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Steve Quinn discovered that "South Shore Bank" is now called ShoreBank, and has an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I was thinking the same - that we need an article on South Shore Bank. Please go to this article's talk page, I have some ideas I'd like you take a look at. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copying my comments from Talk:Mary Houghton here, My point about Houghton meriting an article has to do with the fact that people who were well known 2 or 3 decades ago sometimes get deleted simply because too few editors have access to newspaper archives, whereas contemporary notables are easy to source. I may or may not be able to make time to go back and take a more careful look at Houghton, source, and improve her article but I certainly saw enough to think that someone definitely should do so (or, do some good archive searches before recommending deletion.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: on the chance that you have a moment to look at this 1980s Chicago banker.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

per E.M.Gregory - I am withdrawing my nomination, based on the fact she is probably a notable person, and simply tagging this article for improvement.

I am copying the other (brief) talk page comments below :

As I said, I was thinking the same - that we need an article on South Shore Bank. Also, I'm not sure what you meant by "one on Chicago" (I wish there wasn't an article on Chicago, so I could write it - well, you could help me

). There is an article on Wikipedia named ShoreBank - is this the wrong title?

Anyway, I propose that we combine all of these elements into one new article - I'm thinking "South Shore Bank". It seems, there are plenty of references that pertain to this bank. In this way, we can have a whole section on Mary Houghton, and other sections about other people involved. I am willing to withdraw my nomination on this basis.

Also, regarding ProQuest - I think I can access these at via my public library online. I think there is no worry about a pay wall for these.

Well, let me know what you think and if you have any other ideas. I'll probably withdraw my nomination if you insist, but I'm not sure there is more than passing mention about Houghton in any given article. Of course, these might be useful for building an article piecemeal per COREDEPTH. However, my preference is to have everything in the South Shore Bank article. Yet, it seems you are proposing at least two articles on the AfD page, but I am not sure what the second one is supposed to be. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same bank. If you scroll down the older name appears, and the name change. Nice work. I'm not certain about Houghton. There's nothing special about ProQuest, whatever new archive your library has access to will provide many of the same articles, and some newspapers - too few, sadly - have searchable, online archives. My point about Houghton meriting has more to do with the fact that people who were well-known 2 or 3 decades ago sometimes get deleted simply because too few editors have access to newspaper archives; whereas contemporary notables are easy to source. I may or may not be able to make time to go back and take a more careful look at Houghton, source, and improve her article but I certainly saw enough to think that someone definitely should do so (or, do some good archive searches before recommending deletion.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to keep all of this on the AFD page. Also, You are allowed to withdraw your deletion nomination, since no one has yet iVoted to delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC). Copied here by Steve Quinn from this article's talk page ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Boy Styles

AfDs for this article:

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

One new interview since the last time this article went to AfD. I'm not convinced that enough has changed to rock the boat from the previous consensus, when the community said there was not enough in-depth coverage of him. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred You are wrong. Read the interview. It has established EVERY PIECE OF INFORMATION on the page. Stop abusing your power and use common sense instead. The new source isn't just an interview, its a lengthy credible article that verifies all the details of Danny Boy Styles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiggamafu (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete There has been notability established with the source cited. I don't think a prominent music producer that is easily searchable online should have his Wikipedia page deleted based on your argument. There have been edits to fix the issues prior to the AfD such as the Discography has been removed. I sincerely believe this page should exist with the current information and help build it with more credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janky11 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Janky11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The "new" article was published before the last AfD took place, and one source does not establish significant coverage. Styles still does not meet WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO/WP:MUSICBIO. WP:MUSICBIO excludes publications where artists talk about themselves. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete The article establishes significant coverage since the coverage is solely based on where he's from, the fact that he's the main producer behind The Weeknd. There isn't anything else to cover, especially since the other information is correctly cited with credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanzadeh1 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Per original poster and previous AFD. VViking_TalkEdits 21:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Janky11 and Alanzadeh1 are Confirmed sock puppets of the article creator, Jiggamafu. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jiggamafu.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we did before and nothing new justifies inclusion now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taco trucks on every corner

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

A catchphrase from a presidential campaign spokesperson. WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. It's too soon to know if this statement is going to be notable, as it now fades from the current news cycle after having been a "nine day wonder." The essential, missing element is "enduring notability." Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG easily with significant coverage in numerous independent reliable sources. But that is not enough. Passing GNG only means it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. On this topic we absolutely should also consider WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, and base our decision on existing coverage in reliable sources. And after much review of the voluminous existing coverage, my conclusion is that the topic passes WP:EVENT. The coverage of how the event sparked the creation of the Guac The Vote campaign from the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce was the 'final straw' that made me decide to move this article into mainspace. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Re-draftify. News coverage persists to this very day (e.g. [13], non-UTC time). It still may be too soon to deduce whether or not this may have lasting significance, or if it will end up being a WP:NOTNEWS situation. A great deal of sources have covered the topic, so it does meet WP:GNG. Including re-draftify as an option in my !vote because this was moved from draft to main namespace on 12 September 2016 (diff), perhaps prematurely. Another option is to selectively merge to another article, such as Discrimination in the United States § Discrimination against immigrants (obviously topically related), or perhaps United States presidential election, 2016, or perhaps to both. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep taco trucks memes on every wiki. Solid references. Ask me in 10 years if it has "enduring notability." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG and, per 1Wiki8, WP:EVENT as well. Non-trivial coverage in reliable media sources has been persistent and voluminous.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this poorly written article, on the grounds that sourcing is massive, and the phrase has formed a significant part of the campaign. New sources include: "Samantha Bee Uncovered the Shady History of the 'Taco Trucks on Every Corner' Guy," Esquire (magazine) [14]; "Latino group hopes to troll Trump with taco trucks on Election Day," CNN [15].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The topic continues to receive coverage up to this very day: [16] (non-UTC time). Seems quite likely to have enduring notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable event in this election cycle. it will fade in immediate relevance, but thats not important for it to stay. it is notable NOW.Mercurywoodrose (talk)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GreenEarth Cleaning

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

Although this has been around a while, there are no references that support any notability. The references provided all relate to the chemical used but there is already a perfectly good article at Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane that deals with that. Searches find the usual press releases and promotional stuff and many companies saying they are using the product but nothing about the company itself. Previously PRODed but de-PRODed as a well referenced article (?) Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails GNG, under promotional pressure. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GreenEarth is not notable in its own right and references, which are fine, just talk about the chemical. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vaporwave. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsonwave

AfDs for this article:

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

This topic is not notable. Most keep votes on the talk page revolves around people liking the genre more than the subject (and mostly anonymous users at that), rather than anything substantive. All cited sources state to the effect "this is a thing" with little elaboration, and a Google search doesn't even return many relevant results. The page also appears to have a close connection to the "creator" of the genre. Either delete this or merge it into vaporwave.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge - reasons stated above. I've made a section in vaporwave already. --Therealelizacat (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into vaporwave. It's literally just vaporwave with Simpsons visuals. There may have been a lot of reporting on it when it was new and fresh, but there's nothing significant past July 2016, when the creator said he'd stop making more videos (see WP:SUSTAINED). It's notable only in context with vaporwave, which has spawned similarly psychedelic videos. clpo13_(talk) 21:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into vaporwave per Clpo13's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into vaporwave in full agreement with clpo13. --AndreniW (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had a lot of mixed feelings about this, but I'll go with Weak merge/keep due to the reasons above, but also because the amount of coverage has led to an article that, while a little short, is more than of stub length. While the "notability legacy" arguments, for lack of a better description, here aren't terrible, I can't help but feel that users in deletion discussions of other internet topic articles I've created have made their arguments regarding "significant lasting" of topics, if you will, only based on their opinion, not based on the amount of signifcant coverage as notability does and should work. Also, I have found a September 2016 Geek.com article discussing Simpsonwave, which does dispute Clpo13's claim. I'll also prove the nominator wrong that I have no connection with the creator of the genre, I just wrote the article. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa–Nebraska football rivalry

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

Unsourced and it is not a notable rivalry. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into their respective articles - this is not a very notable subject. --Therealelizacat (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure everyone agrees about the game being a true rivalry, notable or not, but the "Heroes game" is notable and the title, "Iowa–Nebraska football rivalry" matches other rivalry games in the conference. The conference, both teams, and college football media call it a rivalry game and the game is frequently referred to as the Heroes game, Heroes Trophy game, or a rivalry game. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs sourcing, of course, but I think this one passes the WP:GNG bar. The first step is determining whether there is coverage of the series as a rivalry. My searches show that such coverage is abundant. Examples include the following: (1) Associated Press ("From the moment Nebraska joined the Big Ten, the league tried to make Iowa its biggest rival. The conference didn't need to try so hard. . . . his comments are indicative of just how heated the series between these border-state rivals has become in recent years."); (2) Quad-City Times ("there is a growing border rivalry between the two schools . . . 'In football, it’s pretty big,' Iowa center Adam Woodbury said of the Iowa-Nebraska rivalry."); (3) Sioux City Journal ("Iowa-Nebraska football rivalry spills into Sioux City politics"); (4) The Grand Island Independent ("Iowa-NU rivalry heats up in a hurry"). In fairness, some articles question whether it's too soon to call it a true rivalry. See (5) Ottumwa Courier ("Iowa hopes to make Nebraska game true rivalry"). Other factors to be weighed include: (i) border-state series like this are more likley to be considered rivalries; (ii) series competitiveness is so-so with Nebraska winning 29 of 46 matches; (iii) existence of a trophy (Heroes Trophy awarded to winner, see here) adds to the bona fides of the claim to rivalry status; (iv) antiquity of the series dating back to 1891 with 21 games prior to 1920 also adds to the bona fides of the rivalry claim; (v) frequency of play (46 games with long gaps from 1947-78 and 1983-98, but they are now in the same division and play every year); (vi) prominence of the programs (six claimed national titles, five of them Nebraska's, since 1958). Cbl62 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a rivalry trophy and are in neighboring states.--SportsMaster (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a major rivalry for a trophy. Ample coverage in third party sources. Smartyllama (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Subject won a medal during the Afd (non-admin closure) Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Davidson

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

Just why is this person notable? Not per consensus Tennis Guidelines or Wikipedia NSPORT/Olympic guidelines. You usually have to win a paralympic medal in order to be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, the guidelines say that you have to win a medal to be presumed notable. This is something quite different. Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports): Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline. The fact is that there has been significant independent coverage of Heath Davidson to write an article. We know this is true, because a substantial article has already been written. He is a very well-known face in Australia because he appears in Optus commercials. Any distinction between Olympians and Paralympians belongs to an earlier era. The latter are as well-known today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what was said... you usually have to win a medal... not always because rarely GNG will enter into the picture. If it can be shown he is the exception then that will be fine. If you are trying to say that like the Olympics all Paralympic athletes are notable, that's silly and off the charts wrong against consensus guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now he has won a gold medal! [17] Can we close this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AfD rationale is moot as athlete has now won a medal and satisfies guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I withdraw the nomination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kellerman

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

Just why is this person notable? Not per consensus Tennis Guidelines or Wikipedia NSPORT/Olympic guidelines. You usually have to win a paralympic medal in order to be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, the guidelines say that you have to win a medal to be presumed notable. This is something quite different. Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports): Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline. The fact is that there has been significant independent coverage of Heath Davidson to write an article. We know this is true, because a substantial article has already been written. Any distinction between Olympians and Paralympians belongs to an earlier era. The latter are as well-known today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what was said... you usually have to win a medal... not always because rarely GNG will enter into the picture. If it can be shown he is the exception then that will be fine. If you are trying to say that like the Olympics all Paralympic athletes are notable, that's silly and off the charts wrong against consensus guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant was that for recent Paralympic athletes, widespread coverage in high-quality reliable sources is often the case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's rare. And looking at the sources for this article I don't really see it. Many go to nothing at all, some go to articles that simply have his name in a list, or one has his bio write-up at the Paralympic website. So far those reference in the article don't cut it so I hope there is more "widespread" coverage that is hidden from view. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meet GNG. The SMH article is the tipper for me. http://www.smh.com.au/sport/olympics/rio-2016/rio-paralympics-adam-kellerman-out-to-break-a-12year-medal-drought-for-australia-20160616-gpl1rp.html Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now... that's a great article for GNG! Not a tiny gazette, not just his name on a ledger. I formally withdraw my deletion request. He doesn't meet WikiProject Guidelines, but he meets GNG. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie Soldan

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

Just why is this person notable? Not per consensus Tennis Guidelines or Wikipedia NSPORT/Olympic guidelines. You usually have to win a paralympic medal in order to be notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A gold medal at the Parapan American Games isn't enough? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the parameters of the Parapan American Games and if every medalist is automatically notable. You are not automatically notable if you win gold at the Pan American Games. Per the sources in the article , not really notable. Per Olympic Guidelines and Tennis Guidelines he's not notable. GNG requires more than is currently listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:GNG per Google search and Google News to start. Article could use expansion and additional references, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That says nothing. We look for full articles in major press publications. So just writing Google search and Google News tell us nothing to convince whoever closes this that they are Notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? WP:ATD, a policy, "suggests" you do due diligence before nominating an article for deletion. But if you're not willing, no problem. I'm sure we can improve it so you can withdraw the nomination. Hmlarson (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you seem to be getting snotty, I guess it depends on what you mean by due diligence. Did I go over to Wikiproject Olympics to see whether Mackenzie Soldan was covered in the guidelines? Yes I did and he failed notability. Did I double check WikiProject Tennis Guidelines to check on Mackenzie Soldan? Yes and he failed notability. Did I check WP:NSPORT? Yep, again a big fat fail. So I also looked at the article sourcing to see if it passed. I concluded it did not. So take your attitude elsewhere. If you feel you have the sources to convince others that he easily passes GNG, again that's cool. There have been a bunch of non-notable paralympic article creations as of late but perhaps this particular article is one of the few that merits keeping. GNG is tricky and perhaps more eyes on this will bring forth those goos sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - mirror. Thanks! Hmlarson (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additional references added including, but not limited to: PBS feature and The New York Times.Hmlarson (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times is a blog but the PBS feature was pretty cool and is giving me pause to think about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with the Gold Medal in an important but non-Olympic event, with the PBS bio and with something like Mackenzie Soldan wins national wheelchair tennis championship, I have been convinced that while she fails WikiProject Sports Guidelines, she qualifies for an article by GNG. Together those items are enough for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Out of courtesy to the nominator, I will close this early, if that's what's desired. The nominator's wishes should be respected. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Secret (film)

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

WP:CRYSTAL, as the film is as yet unreleased, and additionally fails WP:NFILM for lack of coverage. Submission to a category for consideration for the Oscars in 2017 is not anywhere close to either winning or nomination, and is the only thing being covered about this film. MSJapan (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan , why did you nominate this for AfD only 40 minutes of article creation? [18]--Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Film projects are typically deleted if they're in the development stage and there is only speculation of future production, not already-shot upcoming films simply because they haven't been released yet. (I dare the nom to AfD Rogue One as it is also "is as yet unreleased.") WP:CRYSTAL is for unverifiable speculation of topics, not verified topics such as this. Not surprisingly it took less than three seconds to find in-depth coverage of this film, no less verification. [19][20][21][22] As it takes at least a couple of minutes to set up an AfD, it seems WP:BEFORE was not adhered to. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly looked, and I even looked in the Portuguese media. All of that was more or less is "it was submitted to the Oscars." A lot of that material you've found, by the way, isn't about the film, but the story behind it, which was also a book, so the validity as film coverage is debatable. The second Variety article is also a press release. So is one in-depth article going to be sufficient? I'd also point out that the only substantial source, an interview with the director of a film about his own sister based on a book by his other sister, isn't particularly "independent of the subject." I nominated this for AfD because the editor created his account, added stuff to the list articles, and then created an article simply to support that (incorrect) addition. This is not Rogue One and has nowhere near the pre-release coverage of Rogue One. Don't try to pull an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument out here. and just to put the nail in it, the same editor took the theatrical poster off IMDB and tried to upload it to Commons on a CC-BY-SA-4 license. So yeah, there's no AGF here. MSJapan (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually did followed WP:BEFORE, why did you claim "lack of coverage" and that the Oscar submission " is the only thing being covered about this film"? I'm not buying that BEFORE was followed. Just by you're incorrect analysis of the sources provided, you're admitting your entire deletion rationale was incorrect. Variety pieces of course have coverage about the development of the film and it being based on the book. That's coverage and that's why Variety, a film and televsion trade publication, covered it. And what's with this contention about the 2nd Variety article and the Chief International Correspondent John Hoperwell writing a press release? Do you have any actual evidence of this or have you just committed a WP:BLP violation of reporter John Hoperwell? And for the article that includes an interview, once again a nom attempts to save a losing AfD by claiming an interview is not "coverage." Interviews are coverage per WP:GNG. The publishers (sources) who decided to conduct the interviews are independent of the subjects. It's only claims by the interviewees that have to be considered not independent, not the independent publishers. If you have any evidence that Variety, Stuff.co.nz and Grupo Record (R7) are not independent of this article topic, we'll talk. Your'e wrong on every level with this one. Why are you still keeping this AfD going? --Oakshade (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just don't see the point of deleting it. It hasn't been released yet but even now, this and this to me to be solid English-language sources, and then there's all the Portuguese language coverage of the film being Brazil's foreign-language Oscar submission, which, whether it gets a nomination or not, is generating significant coverage. So we already have what I would consider to be bare minimum for GNG, and again, the film's not yet released. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, so what if s/he tried to upload the poster to the Commons incorrectly? It's not like the editor misrepresented it as his or her own. For newbies our image licensing rules can be confusing. It's going to be removed. It's no reason necessarily to abandon AGF, or WP:BITE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - since apparently we keep any old garbage someone creates to support vague assertions when nominations for awards never count. Apparently ENN is false these days, and existence is notability. MSJapan (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cute and unnecessary use of WP:THROW. It's been quickly proven there is no garbage here (it will likely expand into a quality article after release) and WP:GNG was the deciding factor here, not WP:ENN. You made a mistake and that's it. Like we all do, learn and move on. --Oakshade (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG and notability for films. It was the Brazilian government's selection for the Foreign Language Oscar. κατάστασ η 22:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's 'withdrawal' is such an aggressive slag at disagreeing editors, at a failing Afd, and such a misrepresentation of what editors have been saying that I for one won't do a non-admin close. Let it fester. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is this Variety article for starters, per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep"s are weakly argued, making reference to either no notability standard or to WP:SOLDIER, a mere essay that has no authority, or to sources that are yet to appear. Whether a redirect is warranted is a separate issue not sufficiently discussed here. Sandstein 10:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Debus (SS officer)

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

Notability -- an unremarkable SS captain; significant RS coverage cannot be found.

This article is one of roughly 500 similar stub articles created by editor Jim Sweeney in the span of about three months in late 2008 to early 2009.

The topic of the notability of Knight's Cross winners has been extensively discussed here: Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles; the summary in this subsection (Part 3). There's currently no consensus that a single award of the Knight's Cross meets SOLDIER1 due to the facts that not all were awarded for valour, and that too many were awarded (over 7,000).

Note: the multi-volume source referenced below --Franz THOMAS & Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945 Osnabrück 1985 -- would not have information on the subject, since he was the member of the Waffen-SS not the Wehrmacht. So the assertion by editors below that the series will have "several pages" on the subject is not based on fact. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect name to list article where mentioned. Otherwise, at this point, not seeing notability for stand alone article. If it is kept in the end, then it would help if someone could expand it with more in depth information. Because it is not there at present. Kierzek (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until consensus has been achieved one way or another about whether or not the KC meets the notability criteria. Deletion of valid KC winner articles for which other sourcing cannot be found is premature until that has happened.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't believe the above to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion as WP:SOLDIER (which is a project-specific essay) does not trump WP:GNG, which still needs to be demonstrated via significant RS coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the GNG is just a guideline, I'm not so sure about that. At any rate, what about Franz Thomas & Günter Wegmann's multi-volume "Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht, 1939-1945"? I strongly suspect that it's far more than a simple listing of recipients like Fellgiebel. I do not believe that you have exhausted the German-language sources, especially since I'm fairly certain that many are not available electronically. Or Mark Yerger's books in English that cover various units and other awards that the KC winners might also be in? You may think that he is biased or not, but the basic biographical facts would still be reliable, IMO. The taint from any bias does not extend to simple facts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am fine deleting articles about subjects that don't meet GNG or SOLDIER. I oppose this current round of de-Nazification, however. With a citation to prove award of the Knight's Cross the subject meets SOLDIER. I know not everyone agrees but I'm not trying to systematically undo Jim Sweeney's work, either. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the above commentary does not provide policy-based considerations.

@Sturmvoge: in the case of a single KC award, the claim to notability is based on only one even (WP:BIO1E). Even if we were to accept Thomas and Wegman as RS (of which I'm not convinced), this would result in a WP:PSEUDO biography. The number of sources does not really matter, if the claim to notability is based on only one event. Yerger, for example, is likely to be drawing on the same sources as Thomas & Wegman did.
@Chris Troutman: SOLDIER is a MILHIST essay, and Wiki projects do not decide notability; only the community as a whole. Moreso, frequently awarded highest awards (Knight's Cross) do not imply the same level of notability as rarely awarded highest awards (Victoria Cross). In this particular case, even the project members acknowledge that not all KC awards meet SOLDIER1, as only a portion of them were awarded for valour; the rest were for given for successful completion of missions (aka "successful military leadership"), and would not qualify under SOLDIER1. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sturm is right, Thomas & Wegmann;s multi-volume series will have a page or two devoted to this chap, when taken with other sources, he will meet GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- editor is mistaken; as a member of Waffen-SS, the subject would not be covered by above authors. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: for context, here's how the source is described in the aforementioned discussion (emphasis mine):

Authors such as Dörr, Thomas and Wegmann provide a detailed coverage of the military career based on the military records of the German National Archives. This information includes trainings, units assigned to and commands held and date of promotions and other awards presented. In many instances, if this information was not lost, they also state who, for what actions, and who approved the nomination of the KC.

This does not sound like "significant coverage" to me; this is still BLP1E situation and a brief bio, using which would result in a WP:PSEUDO biography.

Separately, I've seen Thomas and Wegmann used in dozens of articles to cite various awards, but I don't recall seeing them cited for biographical data. See, for example: Clemens-Heinrich Graf von Kageneck or Felix Adamowitsch. Collection of materials by Charles Hamilton's Leaders and Personalities of the Third Reich does include information on low-ranking soldiers; see for example this edit on the subject's article.

So stating that Thomas & Wegmann will have this coverage is an insufficient argument in this discussion, as the source has not been produced and the extent of biographical data is unknown. Similar to TonyBallioni, I do not believe that, even if the Thomas & Wegmann entry was produced, it would be sufficient to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have a better argument regarding the lack of multiple sources, but have failed to establish that they don't exist, especially in German. You believe that Thomas & Wegman won't, based solely on a snippet view; I simply don't know, but until that is established one way or another there is no reason to delete this. And your claim of WP:BIO1E is meaningless given that the vast majority of MoH or VC winners are notable only because of their medal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To quote MSJapan from aforementioned discussion: "According to the KC article, there were 7,161 awards of this decoration in six years. That's four times as many in that period as there have ever been for the VC, and twice as many as there have ever been for the US MOH. (...) Recipients of the KC often have no other sourcing for them other than their KC citation, which is not saying much when we compare it to the sources we have on VC/MOH recipients. Therefore, there's a preponderance of evidence that indicates that it doesn't seem to be prestigious enough to merit inclusion based solely on receiving it." This comes down to the rarity of the award; it's much more likely to have sufficient coverage when the award is rare, such as MOH or VC, vs the mass award such as the KC.

The prestige of the KC system as a whole also deteriorated as the war progress. For the full years that the Oak Leaves (2nd award to those who already had a KC) were in effect, the following numbers were awarded:

50 in 1941

111 in 1942

192 in 1943

328 in 1944

194 in the first four months of 1945.

The rate of award was almost doubling every year. At the rate the High Command was going, they would have awarded 600 Oak Leaves by the end of 1945, almost as much as in the three preceding years.

Thus it's understandable why there's no sufficient coverage on all of the 7000+ recipients. The aforementioned discussion was exhaustive and Thomas & Wegmann was all that was put forth for the low-ranking officers and soldiers. What's available is generally from WP:QS authors, such as Kurowski, Agte, Landwehr, etc. No better sources have been presented at this AfD and the Wilhelm Beck AfD, and I believe they do not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete officer who received an award from a regime that had engaged in reward inflation so much that we should not bow to their willingness to give out awards in establishing notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable for anything outside of the Knights Cross, and I do not belive that consititues enough notability to meet WP:GNG in itself. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Debus was a member of the Waffen-SS. Therefore I would assume that he is not included in Thomas' & Wegmann's work on the Ritterkreuzträger of the Wehrmacht. One would have to turn to Ernst-Günther Krätschmer's Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS (1st ed., 1955) instead. That book is strongly biased, to say the least. Krätschmer, a Waffen-SS veteran himself, and Paul Hausser, who wrote the preface, tried to promote a positive image of the Waffen-SS. Debus is also mentioned about five times in Peter Strassner's Europäische Freiwillige (1968), which deals with the 5. SS-Panzer-Division "Wiking". Historian Karsten Wilke, who wrote his Ph.D. thesis about the HIAG (veteran's organization of the Waffen-SS), characterized this book as apologetic. Needless to say, that the respective publishers are considered to be on the extreme right. Strassner's book was published by Munin, the HIAG's own publishing house. These are not, what I would consider to be reliable sources. First, because of their unbalanced and ideologically distorted representation of facts. Second, because they don't meet basic historiographical standards. That kind of literature is special interest.--Assayer (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please allow me to correct some assumptions made here. Thomas' & Wegmann's work on recipients of the Knight's Cross has multiple volumes and series and is covers recipients who served as infantry men, pioneers, etc. These books include both soldiers who served in the Heer of the Wehrmacht and in the Waffen-SS. As mentioned before, these books are based on the analysis and research of the German Federal Archives and are endorsed by the Military History Research Office (MGFA). The MGFA is the central federal institution in Germany for all questions about German military history. Does this meet the criteria of Wikipedia? I leave this question to the more knowledgeable editors here. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- this is interesting; I checked the "Franz THOMAS u. Günter WEGMANN (Hrsg.) Die Ritterkreuzträger der Deutschen Wehrmacht 1939-1945" entries at Sources referenced by Scherzer in the above discussion, and the subheadings for the series include (1) infantry; (2) paratroops (Fallschirmjäger); (3) air defense forces (Flugabwehrtruppe); (4) mountain troops (Gebirgstruppe). Many of the SS divisions were Panzer / Panzergrenadier. Were there perhaps other books not included in the listing then? Or do they include Waffen-SS under Deutschen Wehrmacht? Do the books contain anything specific on the subject of the article under discussion? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know Scherzer's work and it is RS. I don't know the other work by Thomas' & Wegmann and therefore rely on others above for statements of their work. A problem I see with a number of these bio articles is a lack of detail as to the event or events which led to the awarding of the Knight's Cross. And clearly in this case given the man was a member of a combat division and received the award "while second in command of the 5th SS Reconnaissance Battalion in May 1944", shows that this is not one that was awarded for any political based reasons. Does not anyone have any RS source to add to the event or events which gives readers more detail? I don't have a source which would since I don't have my copy of: Schneider, Jost W. (1993). Their Honor Was Loyalty: An Illustrated and Documentary History of the Knight's Cross Holders of the Waffen-SS and Police, 1940-1945, any more. Otherwise, as I state above, at this point, not seeing notability for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- at this point, no new sources have been presented; and I don't believe they exist. Even if Thomas & Wegmann covered the subject, it still does not overcome the lack of multiple RS and WP:BIO1E, and the fact that such coverage would be run-of-the-mill: decorations, service postings, etc. This is bio article that falls too far short of GNG and is not saved by SOLDIER due to the mass nature of the KC awards (compare to only 181 Victoria Crosses awarded during WWII). K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the information I have found on a booksellers's page, Thomas & Wegmann do indeed include recipients of the Waffen-SS. Whether Debus is actually included in the respective volume "Teil VIIIa", I do not know. I would question, however, that the MGFA "endorsed" these books. I found a single review of the second volume of this series by Florian Berberich in the MGFA's journal MGZ 40 (1986), pp. 276f. He considers it to be an important reference work for soldiers and for people interested in military history, and suggests that the work could be helpful even for military historians. What sounds convincing at first glance, needs to be put in perspective, though. In 1990, when reviewing another publication by Thomas (and Manfred Dörr) on the bearers of the Close Combat Clasp in Gold, Reinhard Stumpf of the MGFA made clear that for the time being the research on military symbols would remain to be the domain of enthusiasts outside of professional historiography. (MGZ 47/1990, p. 298) More recently, historians like Sönke Neitzel, Peter Lieb and Christian Hartmann have tried to utilize statistics of military awards as an indicator for combat value of individual units, but, as Roman Töppel has shown (Das Ritterkreuz des Eisernen Kreuzes und der Kampfwert militärischer Verbände, Ztschr Heereskunde 446/2012), to receive a Knight's Cross a soldier needed more than to be "extremely brave on the battlefield". To be considered for the award he also needed a superior officer who would propose him. In his biography of Jochen Peiper, historian Jens Westemeier described Peiper's favoritism concerning these proposals and spoke of "Ordenskameraderie". For example, Westemeier calls the award for Georg Preuß "a bad joke".

To cut a long story short, even though it might be possible to reconstruct the military careers of each and every Knight's Cross recipients, these biographies present a distorted picture of the actual events (i.e., if the provision "played an important role in a significant military event" in WP:Soldier, is to be based on historical fact instead of Nazi propaganda). Veteran's organizations, particularly of the Waffen-SS, have based their image as an elite on their Knight's Cross Recipients. Collectors of militaria have an interest in such biographies (which is the reason, why Thomas & Wegmann reproduce bestowals documents). But on the whole, individual Knight's Cross recipients like Debus did never reveive any WP:SIGCOV by historiography, let alone in the broader public. --Assayer (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Assayer: Thanks for the additional information -- this confirms to me that Thomas & Wegmann is not quite RS. Likewise, I've found that there's no reliable historiography on individual KC holders, unless they are notable for other things, such as for being high level commanders or for their post-war careers. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (D) At the moment I don't see enough to pass GNG. This is essentially a WP:BIO1E. I would have advocated a keep, but it seems the award has been awarded to so many recipients that I doubt receiving it would confer an automatic notability. I would recommend a redirect to List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (D) where the subject is mentioned. A redirect also preserves the edit history should any further information about the subject be researched in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like reasoned arguments in favour of the topic being notable exist and have not been contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ox

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:86.137.93.16 with the following rationale "removal prob notable exhibit in museum". Unfortunately a single exhibition at a museum does not, IMHO, suffice to pass WP:ARTIST. The museum in question is a notable institution, through not particularly famous (pl:Muzeum Sztuki w Łodzi). I do believe that on Polish Wikipedia having a single exhibition in a museum like this sufficies, but I think the English Wikipedia criteria are stricter. Still, I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this - and after seeing them, I may propose adding a clarification to WP:ARTIST on how many and what exhibitions are a sign of notability, something that I feel would be worth clarifying. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 07:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - However, I feel that if the sentence in the "lead" had a reliable source, then this would be an unquestionable keep. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interview transcript that I added as a reference, Alvin Curran describes the subject as "quite well known for her translation of pieces of music into visual display" (though not included in the final published interview). Maybe that goes part of the way, though I have not found anything stronger yet that could support the claim. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm surprised to see that the Muzeum Sztuki in Łódź has only a stub in English Wikipedia, but it is (as one of the oldest museums of contemporary art in the world, not just in Poland) unquestionably notable. A solo exhibition there is a very significant event. Mduvekot (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets WP:ARTIST 4(c): has won significant critical attention. Reviews in Artform, Neue Zeitschrift für Musik and several books (I have cited Explorations in Art and Technology) establish notability. Ox's CV lists a number of publications about or including the artist, which I take to mean that adequate sources do (appear to) exist. Mduvekot (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. Sources found by User:Mduvekot are indeed sufficient for ARTIST 4c and address my concerns. Thank you for saving this article! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Johnpacklambert would you want to reconsider? MorbidEntree is on a forced Wikibreak. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Singh

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a property appraiser at the local level in one single county. This is not a role that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself, but there's simply not much else here to hang a standalone article on. Content about the SeaWorld lawsuit would be perfectly appropriate in SeaWorld Orlando's article but is not enough to justify a standalone BLP of Rick Singh himself as a separate topic from that, nothing else here is particularly noteworthy at all, and the article is referenced only to the kind of local media coverage that a county appraiser would be expected to generate in their local media -- neither the volume nor the range of coverage shown are enough to make him more notable than the thousands of other people at his level of significance who don't have and won't be getting Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Almost all articles are examples of in-depth coverage. Passes WP:GNG, regardless of WP:NPOL. Usterday (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. For a political figure of purely "local to a single area" interest, such as a smalltown mayor or a non-metropolitan city councillor or a county clerk, WP:GNG is not passed just because local media coverage exists, if its scope and volume falls entirely within the WP:ROUTINE scope and volume of local media coverage that would be expected to exist for a person at that level. If they do not objectively pass NPOL by virtue of the office held, then the media coverage has to show them as significantly more notable than the norm for their field of activity, such as by nationalizing beyond the local media. Every single county appraiser in existence would always qualify for a Wikipedia article if local coverage were all it took to get them there — but it's not a level of office at which we can or do extend automatic notability to all of them, so a county appraiser has to be individually demonstrated as significantly more notable than most other county appraisers before he can be deemed notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, one would have to research the potential for GNG of hundreds of appraisers before you would be satisfied. GNG says nothing about showing someone is "more notable than similar people", it merely discusses in-depth articles. What is your evidence that there are "thousands like him?" other than an assumption that in-depth coverage is common for local politicians? I would argue it is not at all common, and that this level of press does show him as more notable, especially with the high profile of the cases he has dealt with (and in-depth articles about these focussing on his role). Usterday (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an "assumption" on my part that local media coverage of local political figures exists; it's a simple, easily verifiable fact, because covering local news stories is what local media are for. It's not the case, for example, that some smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get covered by their local media while other smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get ignored by theirs; all mayors and municipal councillors and county officials always get coverage in their local media, and could always be claimed to pass GNG if local media coverage were all it took. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all" property appraisers are from one of the largest counties in the US, and deal with hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and citizens like SeaWorld. It is a false equivalency to compare this person to, say, someone from central Arkansas or Iowa. The page has evidence of GNG, and you are indeed merely stating "everyone else will obviously have the exact same coverage", without providing evidence of why you believe this other than assumption. Anyhow, we are allowed to disagree here. I just don't see any actual evidence of your position here, and believe that GNG should not be read as you are reading it. Usterday (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not my own personal "reading" of GNG. It's not enough to be familiar with the simple letter of Wikipedia policy — you need to also have a familiarity with the reality of how GNG is actually understood and applied at AFD in those cases when its passage or non-passage is debatable. And one of those realities is that for a political figure at the municipal level of governance, GNG is not deemed to have been passed on the basis of exclusively local coverage — people at the county level of office, sometimes even right up to the actual county executive, are often deleted if there's no non-local coverage to show, even with as much or more local sourcing as you've shown here. That's not my own tendentious interpretation of GNG; it's just the facts of how GNG works for topics at this level of interest.

And according to List of United States counties and county equivalents, Orange County FL only ranks 33rd in the US by population — which is not a high enough ranking to make "one of the largest counties in the United States" a compelling exemption from having to satisfy the same standards of more-than-just-local prominence that any other county-level official would have to meet. Even the largest county in the entire United States, Los Angeles County, California, still doesn't hand an automatic inclusion freebie to its county assessor on purely local media coverage alone, if nothing extralocal can be shown to demonstrate that anybody outside that county needs to care.

I said the stuff about the SeaWorld lawsuit could be addressed in SeaWorld's article, for example. But it's not strong evidence that we need to maintain a standalone BLP of him separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not among the largest in US population; they are though in terms of revenue, and property values, which is what property appraisers deal with. That said, diminishing a State such as Florida as "merely part of the US" is strange to me. If the largest US county's assessor had this much press, in my mind, they'd qualify too. But the 1000s you referred to earlier, you are right, probably do not. More than that though, there is no wording in GNG that supports your reading of it. Point one is about "significant coverage", which this page has. Point two is that the sources must be reliable, which they are. Point three points to the use of non-primary sources, check again. Point four is that they are independent of the subject (sources that is), check again. Point five states that GNG is not a guarantee that something is notable. Are you arguing point five? That you don't believe GNG is good enough here? Otherwise, there is not "letter" in GNG that you can point to. Only the "Ignore all rules" aspect of the policy. There is, despite the protestations of many people on Wikipedia, nothing that dismisses local coverage from GNG. Even still, are you calling Forbes, the Orlando Sentinel, and NBC "extralocal" (a word not found in GNG to begin with). You keep stating "it's obvious" or "it's the way it is" to support your arguments, but that's not evidence for your point. Again, I agree to disagree, but am also happy to have an in-depth discussion of GNG if that's what you want. An AFD may not be the most appropriate place for that though. Usterday (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this again: the letter of GNG is one thing, but there are many ways in which it's still up for debate how GNG actually applies in actual practice. For that, you need to familiarize yourself with the actual corpus of AFD discussions on similar topics, to see where consensus lands on points of debate. I am not making up my own personal interpretations here; the actual established precedent at AFD is that purely local media coverage is not enough to satisfy GNG for a political figure at the county level of office.

Every single mayor of every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single municipal councillor in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single police chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single fire chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single school board trustee that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Unelected candidates for office would pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. But our rules are intentionally designed to keep articles about smalltown mayors and smalltown councillors and smalltown police chiefs and school board trustees and unelected candidates out of Wikipedia.

The thing is, as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to keep in mind that our articles are highly vulnerable to getting misused: people routinely try to overwrite our articles about them with their own self-penned public relations puff bios, and other people routinely try to dirtwash our articles about people they don't like with WP:BLP violations and WP:POV commentary. The only defense we actually have against either of those things is the oversight of other editors — but that only works on topics that are of broad reader interest, and fails to be effective when it comes to more limited-interest topics. In an article about a municipal or county-level official who's known only locally, and does not have nationalized prominence, an inappropriate edit can linger in the article for months because not enough people are actually seeing the article to notice that an inappropriate edit has taken place. I am not making this up: earlier this year, I actually came across an article about a county-level political official which was making the unsourced claim that its subject had been arrested for smuggling small children into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone to rape and cannibalize them. Yes, it's a blatant BLP violation, and yes, I revdelled it right away — the problem, however, will be more evident when I reveal to you how long that claim was sitting unchallenged in our article, because no responsible editor had actually seen it before I did: three full years. Yes, we really did spent three years calling a local politician a cannibal pedophile, because his article wasn't generating enough traffic to get that inappropriate content noticed and dealt with.

We can't properly maintain an article about a topic that isn't generating a broad and relatively consistent volume of readership — which is one of the reasons why our rules around local political figures are designed to be much more restrictive about their includability than we are for statewide or nationwide officeholders. We have to protect ourselves from the possibility of getting misused as a PR platform, and we have to protect both ourselves and our article subjects from the possibility of the article getting misused as an attack-edit magnet — and when it comes to local politicians at the municipal or county levels, the only way we can do that is to not have articles about them except where they can be shown to have wider prominence beyond just one local area. I did not make this up myself as my own personal tendentious rule; AFD established a consensus around this.

Oh, and by the way: NBC's local affiliate in Orlando is not the same thing as the national news division of NBC News — the WESH reference is local coverage from WESH, not nationalized coverage from the NBC network. And the Forbes piece is not about Rick Singh, but just namechecks his existence and provides a brief soundbite from him in an article about something else. So no, that's not "coverage about him" either. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's rationale (local coverage of a civil servant). Noting also that Usterday has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G5. Creator of page is a sock of Jeremy112233. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracted. Wasn't blocked until after page was created. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bringing a lawsuit against a company doesn't grant notability. We would have articles on anyone who had ever sued anyone for spilling their hot coffee on them when they wern't warned it was hot if we did. Amortias (T)(C) 19:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that a local assessor doing their job and challenging property valuations is entirely routine. Local coverage about such cases happens all over the country. The article seems to be to be highly promotional, perhaps written to influence a reelection. MB 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A county property appraiser needs to be notable for more than a single action to justify an article. His suit against Disney interests might be worth some sort of article, but that does not justify a biographical one on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

89.7 FM Ponoka, Alberta

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

Another newly-licensed radio station which has not yet launched. As per numerous other recent AFDs, this is no longer a valid notability claim under WP:NMEDIA in and of itself; a new radio station is no longer eligible to have an article until it has actually gone on the air for real, and does not qualify for an article the moment the regulatory agency grants the initial construction permit anymore. Delete, without prejudice against recreation once the station is actually on the air. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's far too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch, especially considering that the station only just got approved last week (so they have until September 2, 2018 to launch, and even that is barring an extension). Until there is verifiable evidence to indicate this station is broadcasting, we can't have an article on it yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlaunched station, and we don't know if/when it will become notable. If/when it does, we can recreate the article. But it's not notable now. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:Crystal. Should be made an article after it has been launched.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Updyke Jr

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

This individual is only known for a single act of vandalism. This is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. Although the event was a news story, the references are really about some trees, not the subject of this article. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Note that there already is substantial section on the victims (deceased, sadly) at Auburn Tigers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Auburn Tigers Large amount of coverage and even appeared on 30 for 30 to discuss his actions. [23] GracefulRed (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS, without redirection. A redirect would still serve to define this person by a single stupid act, which we shouldn't do per the spirit of WP:BLP. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently he wanted to get caught [24] GracefulRed (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that article gives the reason why we shouldn't define this person by this one action. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything starts with a single act. 9-11, John Hinckley, lee harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman, etc. Updyke made news afterwards by appearing in several documentaries, made news repeatedly after this including 30 for 30, and has continued on to happily ride this act. [[25]] GracefulRed (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, per 86.17.222.157 and per WP:PERPETRATOR. The act may have received substantial coverage, but it all seems to have been news about the act, and speculation on why he did it, rather than about the man himself. Hinckley, Oswald and Chapman, on the other hand, all received substantial and lasting biographical coverage, and not just about the single acts that they're known for. Little Will (talk) 08:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (Note some stuff in AtariHQ, still not enough for significant coverage.) czar 18:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songbird Productions

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

Fails to meet WP: Notability (organizations and companies). The article subject is a developer of homebrew video games for defunct platforms. No claim to notability and no sources. Was a contested WP: PROD back in 2009, but no justification was given by the contesting editor. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. I don't see a claim of significance here, much less notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They have had one or two games reviewed in some of the more obscure retro gaming magazines which might of helped notability however I feel they have failed to have any impact on the industry what so ever and remain in the home-brew area. If you look at the about page of their website it clearly states "Songbird Productions was founded in 1999 by well-known Atari fan and hobby developer Carl Forhan to develop and publish games for Atari consoles, primarily the Lynx and Jaguar." So ye, it doesn't qualify for wikipedia what so ever. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sekulić

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

Not notable. Attempt to link this man to Tesla brings just doubts and questions Vujkovica brdo (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The link to Tesla is supported by many of the Google Books and Scholar search results above, and there is a sourced statement in the article that says that Sekulić was a "public representative in the Provincial Assembly of the Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian Kingdom", which meets the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a provincial legislature. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was just a provincial politician. The link to Tesla is too weak, bears no significance, no notanility.--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. WP:POLITICIAN requires significant coverage in reliable sources, none indicated. Being "the guy who turned Tesla on to electricity" seems borderline notability but there is no solid claim this is that guy. It makes this more of a WP:INHERITED argument. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:POLITICIAN says that anyone who has been a member of a provincial legislature is presumed to be notable. And if you just look at the Google Books and Scholar searches liked above, which I pointed out before, you will see that there is loads of solid evidence that this is that guy, and that there is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources about him being that guy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN does not say that (item #3) and no source/evidence has ever been provided that this is conclusively "the guy". The "Tesla echo chamber" you are noting is not direct evidence, just a claim being repeated over and over again. The original claim seems to be Ciril Petešic / 1976 and he only gives us a probability, not direct evidence. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3 of WP:POLITICIAN is about local politicians and unelected candidates. Criterion 1 is the one for members of provincial assembles such as Sekulić. And the standard used by Wikipedia for including content is verifiability by reliable sources, not your personal knowledge that those sources are "wrong". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely described as a quasi official in a vaguely described "entity inside an entity" gives us #3. Could be #2, doubt its #1. At this point we don't guess so feel free to cite the more extensive biographical and/or historical sources already written about this past holder (required for all three). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 says "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", an exact fit for Sekulić. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"exact fit for Sekulić" Source? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source saying that he was a member of the provincial assembly is, as I already said, in the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is vague, the cite does not say he was a member of the provincial assembly (in fact says nothing, needs WP:NONENG), and its a book about Tesla. Can you cite any significant coverage in an independent source? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth do you mean by "needs WP:NONENG"? That policy says that non-English sources are allowed on Wikipedia. You are being played for a fool here by an editor with some kind of weird intra-Balkan nationalist agenda. Take a step back and look at who is following what is said by a secondary source and who is performing original research by giving a personal interpretation by synthesis of primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read entire policy, namely: "if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided". Also maybe read WP:TALK Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep. He seems to be primarily known as Tesla's teacher but the legislative post saves him from WP:BIO1E. My keep is weak, though, because it is difficult to find sources that say anything about him other than as Tesla's teacher. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Which particular event saves him? WP:BIO1E=People notable for only one event. The legislative post is not a notable event, rather a status. Shall we now write biographies of all members of the Provincial Assembly of the Croatian, Slavonian and Dalmatian Kingdom?--Vujkovica brdo (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And why not? We routinely keep articles about members of provincial assemblies elsewhere in the world, so what's so special about this one that we should treat it differently? The fact you have fooled one editor into following whatever nationalist agenda you are pushing here, and to follow you in making personal interpretations of primary sources rather than go by what is said by a secondary source, doesn't mean that you have fooled the rest of us. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the Provincial Assembly of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just read the talk page discussion about this article, which seems to have prompted this deletion nomination. Firstly I would note that disagreement about content is not a reason for deletion. More importantly it seems that the editors who have nominated this for deletion and supported it have got the idea of original research totally back-to-front. We go by what secondary sources make of the primary sources, not Wikipedia editors' personal interpretations of the primary sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No time to read anything. I'm off with Wikipedia, this is just ridiculous as it seems an oligopoly. Good luck with this none cooperative project. Oriol20 (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.¸This person was notable in his time as a physicist. He was member of the Yugoslavian Academy of Sciences and Arts. He had his work internationally published. He was also a representative in the Provincial Assembly of the Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia (WP:POLITICIAN). The article needs to be extended and not deleted. Kavonder 07:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.27.160 (talk)

Comment - It should be know we have ~~IPs~~ an IP showing up in this discussion that fall into the range used by an editor who regularly WP:SOCKs on this topic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By your use of the plural you must be including me in that accusation. Please either withdraw it or, if you have evidence that 141.138.27.160 is a sockpuppet, change it to the singular. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"IPs" as in what is showing up on related talk pages. Suspected IP ranges can be found in the SPI. If your IP is not in that group your golden. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke of "IPs showing up in this discussion". Only two editors identified by IP addresses have shown up in this discussion, so I don't see how your "IPs" (plural) can not include me. Once again, please change it to the singular if you didn't intend to accuse me of any likely wrongdoing. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see much biographical data to justify notability. In order to link him to Tesla I do not see much English language sources confirming him being Tesla's influential Physics teacher. One book( Nikola Tesla: istraživač, izumitelj, genij by Tanja Rudež, Školska knjiga, 2006 page 14), in Croatian, says, "U godisnjem izvjestaju za skolsku godinu 1971./72. vidi se da je prof. Martin Sekulic predavao predmete Maschinenlehre (strojarstvo) i Arithmetik (aritmetiku) a bio je i kustos fizikalnog laboratorija u toj skoli". Google translate: In the annual report for the school year 1971-72. see that the prof. Martin Sekulic teaching of the area the Maschinenlehre (mechanical engineering) and Arithmetik (arithmetic) and was also the curator of physical lab in the school. So, not a Physics teacher. --A. Perun (talk) 02:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His link to Tesla is well sourced and Tesla's article has that stated. If you think that's wrong you are free to start a discussion on Tesla talk page. The talk page of Sekulic article also has a great number of sources. I would say that the link to Tesla is not disputed by any source. We don't have any source that says "Sekulic has no link to Tesla" while a great number of sources do state that he was his professor. You can't be doing original research. The article is a bit short, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Kavonder 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.138.31.91 (talk)

Comment - the WP:POLITICIAN rational that Sekulić was "a member of a provincial legislature" failed verification. All we seem to have now is WP:INVALIDBIO "person A has a relationship with well-known person B". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I googled this person and found two Croatian scientific journal entries that mention him:

Vukelja, T. (2008). Zajednica fizičara u Banskoj Hrvatskoj početkom 20. stoljeća [The community of physicists in Croatia proper at the start of the 20th century] Studia lexicographica 2(2(3)), pp. 71-99. ISSN 2459-5578. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/110735?lang=en

- lists him under "Members of the community trained in physics as the major subject"

Paušek-Baždar, S. (2002). Prirodoznanstvena sredina u doba hrvatske moderne. [The realm of natural sciences at the time of Modernity in Croatia] Hvar City Theatre Days, 28(1), pp. 237-246. ISSN 1849-0255. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/73979?lang=en

- mentions him as one of the three high-school professors who were the authors of "valuable scientific discussions of universal value in Rad JAZU", the other two being Josip Torbar and Antun Laska. It continues to specifically point out highlights from Sekulić's work in the rest of the paragraph.

So while this is borderline with regard to WP:SIGCOV, there's sufficient evidence that there are secondary sources relevant to this context that found this person worthy of note, and there well could be more. If we can have an article about Barbara Radulović, surely we can spare one for this person, too. The discussion on what relationship he may have had on Tesla seems like a fairly simple content issue that can be resolved separately. Keep. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was: Speedy Deleted by TomStar81 on CSD-A7 grounds. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tatacliq.com

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

Delete. Company not notable and just another start-up. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per nomination and WP:A7 --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Iazyges (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect to Channel Awesome. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy with the Glasses

AfDs for this article:

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

Why was this article recreated? I thought it was merged into Channel Awesome. Was there something that warranted splitting it up from that article? Restore the Redirect AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC), update 22:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bueller 007, Spike Wilbury who discussed the merge as well as Kkj11210 who restored the article after it was redirected. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Channel Awesome, Protect Redirect. Given how TGWTG fully became Channel Awesome (eg no splintering groups), there's no reason to have this as a separate article and in fact some of these content should be provided as a history of the Channel Awesome page. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a delete, but a very obvious merge/redirect. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything to merge that wasn't merged already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Channel Awesome. We have a lengthy section about this there. I also looked at the sources and they seemed strenuous because the majority were mentioning Channel Awesome first, sidelining our subject. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Channel Awesome per Mr. Magoo and McBarker's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, protect redirect per Masem. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Masem (and salt too.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Baughman

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

I believe this has been significantly edited by someone close to the subject. I'm honestly not even sure the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance I thought that fellowship of the American Academy of Neurology might, if sourced, meet WP:PROF criterion 3, but its requirements don't appear to be "highly selective" as required, and I can't see anything that might meet any other criterion of that guideline, so any possible notability would have to be based on the general notability guideline, which I haven't yet checked. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a critic of the accepted consensus in psychiatry who lacks the coverage in reliable sources to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also have been unable to find enough coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Alaghari

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

Unremarkable person, probably a conflict of intrest . Fails WP:BIO Razer^{Text me} 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references provided were copied from nos 2-4 on Sachin Bansal - no evidence that they were relevant to this person. Without these, this is sourced only to the subject's Facebook page. The Indian newspaper search has nothing about him and the normal Google search returns just the usual social media pages. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable t find even passing mentions for this person in any reliable source. Anup [Talk] 22:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as outrageously and noticeably PR in that not only is this article listing his career information as if this were his job listing, it then only cites something that was imaginably the quickest and essentially the best the user may have thought of: Facebook. SwisterTwister talk 02:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (criterion A7). {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 15:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Crypty R

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

Non-notable author. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible CSD A7: A biography posted by a WP:SPA account which has been used only to post articles about this person and his stories. His own Goodreads biography describes him as "aspiring". Searches, including the Indian newspaper search, are providing nothing to indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Taiwo Adedamola Harold Sodipo

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

The writer and the subject share the same surname.

Couldn't find any reliable source. Marvellous Spider-Man 12:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional material which fails GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some better searches:

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After going through the potential serarches, I am not seeing any evidence that Harold Sodipo is notable. He seems to have started a company that became a player in Nigeria's oil industry, but there just are not sources that would give us the ability to say anything about him. There may be off-line sources or sources in Yoruba or other Nigerian languages, but until people come up with them we just have no justification for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter, Dhumaketu

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

Non- notable! A simple story in a textbook doesn't have a place in enwiki! Varun FEB2003 11:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a reference of a review which indicates that the story was included in Volume 2 of an anthology published by Penguin Books (though note also that the reviewer regards it as "dull and uninteresting"). However, in the absence of anything more, I would agree with the nominator that this is insufficient to merit an article here. AllyD (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It simply fails WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 22:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Choubey

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he contested but didn't win any notable post in election. Marvellous Spider-Man 11:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both WP:NPOL anf WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 22:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected politicians are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already Deleted - Article was speedy deleted twice. On the third pass, it was salted. Based on the article creator's account name, Premlesnar007, this appears to be a bad-faith campaign of self-promotion. Other articles were created, including Joginder Tiwari, Dancer Prem and Prem Shandilya. Another similarly-named account, DancerRajanPrem, was involved in the creation of other articles. I would probably encourage that further flare-ups be treated as sockpuppetry/vandalism. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dancer Rajan Dancer Prem

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

No links | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 11:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claim of notability; should be speedily deleted under A7. Anup [Talk] 22:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Naidoo

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Dineshn. The given reference contains just enough to provide basic verification that the subject is an executive at a travel business and produced a film, and I have added another, a brief interview relating to his business career. These aside, there is a short 2013 newspaper piece – via HighBeam (subscription required) with a passing quote from the subject in role as "group operations director for Serendipity Tours", but in sum these are insufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability, whether relative to a film or a business career. AllyD (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- no indications of significance or notability. Sources not there to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nom with no delete !votes present (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 14:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ingo Beyer von Morgenstern

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

Delete: Lack of references, no citations, mo sign of notability, unsectioned, looks like it was copypasted, and yeah not even a single link.

As WP:REF says, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space", then this article already violates it with the fact that here are no references. If this is such an autobigoraphy of himself or people he have relations with who is not notable, then this should be removed as per WP:AB.

The article also doesn't state any links, either within Wikipedia or not. This therefore, challenges the notability of the said person. If you search the person using Google, pages about him would appear, but the creator has not stated external links and references, as well as putting citations without any link or text.

It also has very incorrect grammar, punctualization and capitaliation. It is also unsectioned, therefore making the information very confusing as it would look like as it was one topic about Ingo Beyer von Morgenstern.

As WP:BLP says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", which puts the aritcle under contest for deletion as per WP:BLP | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 09:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

In the edit summary, the user says "initial outline not completed" but still, things such as this should either be made at a draftspace or a user's sandbox. He/she also dosen't have a userpage link as seen in his signature(s). (P.S, I'm not doing a sign of aggression to the user, just saying the article's ineligibilities in order to be one.)| Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 10:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Keep: User has improved article since, providing accurate information and references. Thanks for complying. | Democratics ^{Talk stat: Open} | My Guestbook Here 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Feminist Forum

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

This website seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (websites). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found some sources: Transforming Gendered Well-Being in Europe, Introduction to Gender, Exploring Civic Innovation, Traveling Heritages, Revolution from Above. These are all books with the first book having the most content relating to EFF. There is also this document from the University of Amsterdam, Feminist Collections Journal, and this UN-related Website. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article and added sources. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article currently talks about it as if it's current but seems like it was ended a long time ago: [26]. Mr. Magoo (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I ran into sources that said that the live version of the EFF was set for Poland in 2008. However, the online version seems to be ongoing. I wasn't sure how to work in the live version to the website part. >.< Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the website now owned by a domain holder like pointed out by Rhodo below? The archive link is of europeanfeministforum.org which is now sold off. I weren't sure before if it used to be the same website but the archive link seems to say so. I can't find any other websites or forums carrying the name. It seems ended? Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it seems like it is. I'll see if I can find an archive link. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone beat me to it. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some of the sources Megalibrarygirl links to (and those in the article) look pretty good. I'm a little concerned that some of them look to have connections to the organization itself and its participants, but regardless, there's enough material published by respected third party publishers to write an article. I also noticed that the official site (need to go through archive.org because the domain is now a spam site) isn't even available in English, which suggests sources in other languages. Sure enough "Forum féministe européen" returns a few more. Seems this passes WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per refs and cleanup done by Megalibrarygirl. Article meets notability guidelines and should not be deleted per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the currently version demonstrates that the subject meets GNG per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Klimasara

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

This bio hasn't improved at all since the prod was declined in 2007. I can't find anything to show that this person meets WP:NMUSICIAN. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable percussionist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I noticeably found nothing better at all, this should've been deleted long long ago including with that PROD. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Karina Chmiel

AfDs for this article:

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

Nearly 10 years ago this was one of my first prods. It was clsoed as keep, but with arguments that seem very obsolete now - mainly, she exists on Google. Well, that's not sufficient today, and it does not seem that in those 10 years she got any more notable - I don't see any reviews of her works, any awards, nothing. Pretty much a Tolkien fan artist, whose work was used in some books/etc., but that fails WP:ARTIST. On a side note, she still does not have article on pl wiki, which has a much more lax criteria for notability of biographies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a relic of a time when non-notable fan cruft survived on assertions like "the one topic that defines Wikipedia is Tolkien". Even then no one claimed that Chmiel passed the notability guidelines for artists, and she still does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The later arguments for Keep appear to be stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Abse

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

Fails both WP:NACADEMICS and the WP:GNG – can't find any independent sources that mention Abse independently of his more famous relatives. "Contributed to a journal" is not a claim to notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 18 may pass WP:Prof#C1 in the field of psychology, and sources exist for WP:GNG Xxanthippe (talk).

WP:PROF says "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied" (although I don't have much experience with that guideline so it may be that that part is ignored). Don't think h-index on its own is a good indicator of notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable enough. CLCStudent (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JNN for an explanation of why that opinion will (or at least should) not be taken into account by the closer of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as WP:AUTHOR, with over a 1,000 library holdings; he's not notable for WP:PROF of course, but the holdings are enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete sources are about his more famous relatives and give him passing mention. Fails GNG - we don't have to beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source here describes Abse as a distinguished psychiatrist, a paragraph here in NPR, a brief mention here. His paper was cited by 21, this one by 11, wrote a book here printed 8 years after his death, a brief mention here, and cited here and this paper was cited by 55. A reference says equally high-achieving but very different brothers, the important psychoanalyst Wilfred Abse (1914-2005).... Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nasz-polityk.pl

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

This was prodded years ago, so now we are here. This website fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites), it is not discussed by any sources except self-published. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A school project gone bad. A free website which takes no responsibility for the posts by its own anonymous internet users. Prone to revenge editing; with zero coverage in the media. Poeticbent talk 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly original research, fails the relevant notability guidelines of WP:42 and WP:ORG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boot

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

constant inaccurate changes being made Hanbev (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Geoffrey Boot[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per John. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Estate agent with an expensive hobby, but he was on UK TV recently in a programme about air racing. The deleted, uncited claims appear to be true and could be reinstated if anyone was interested enough to do it properly. I came here to work out why he was being called "Baron" in the programme—an unusual title in England—and I know now. Helpful.--103.250.141.213 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Keep - Neither source confirms his notability, since one is local and the other has nothing to do with him. On the other hand, I don't mean to commit WP:ITSUSEFUL, but the IP editor above seems to suggest that this person might be notable for a sport or a historical example of someone who purchased the title of "Baron". I'll look into this. Jergling (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: He is a member of the Isle of Man House of Keys, which is a national parliamentary body. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this inherently passes GNG. See this news article: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/colourful-past-of-new-mhk-baron-boot-1-7462204 Jergling (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gazette (a formal publication of UK central Government, BTW) entry indicates that his arms were awarded "with chapeau". Wikipedia again to the rescue: Barons in Scotland#Chapeau: It all depends whether his was a red hat (gules) or a blue hat (azure) to show whether his is an inherited title, with land, or one acquired by transfer. His 2011 success in the British Air Racing Champions Jubilee Trophy from the Royal Aero Club is documented here. The event is supposed to be modelled on the Schneider Trophy races, but they were historically important in aeroplane development. Nowadays only for hobby flyers.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax. Such uses of the word as are found bear no relation to the meaning given. JohnCD (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bellywopping

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

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. As this word is not used much. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this definition is either a hoax, or very obscure. The majority of reliable sources use the term in the context of riding a snow sled downhill on one's belly and not in the context of sloths mating. My guess is that this usage is something made up by someone trying to create an amusing Wikipedia article. We are not in that business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like notability has been established on account of his role and the sources, which should probably be put to use in the article though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag

AfDs for this article:

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

NonNotable Civil Servant. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of this routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him Uncletomwood (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete pending much more RS coverage; that one source is good, but we need more than a single interview for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I !voted keep in the first afd, and I stand by that decision.

Firstly subject is not only a civil servant but also author of around half a dozen books, a notable aspect that nominator missed.
Sources such as this one published by The Economic Times and another by Indian Express definitely adds credibility to the claim of notability of subject.
Additionally, full-page review of his book 1857: The Oral Tradition was published by almost all national mainstream media houses. It makes subject a strong candidate for inclusion per AUTHOR#3 too.
Sources: Outlook India, Times of India, Tribune India, Telegraph India, Indian Express, The Hindu, The Hindu2, DNA.
There are few hindi sources, I was able to find. This one says, Pankaj Rag has written a book titled Dhuno Ki Yatra on Indian film music, which is an excellent work in this field. Another one introduces subject as the famous hindi poet and historian. I believe all these sources give a fairer idea on the question of notability of subject.
And why there is not a trillion sources for his books published in Hindi languages, Wikipedia Project India has an essay at WP:INDAFD to answer that. Anup [Talk] 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another significant coverage of subject as an author by Economic Times. Anup [Talk] 09:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as Director-General of the National Archives of India, at least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reference in multiple reliable sources present and as mentioned by Anup, subject is also author of multiple books.Pratyush (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of multiple books reviewed in reliable sources such as the Times of India and the Economic Times. Director of the National Archives of the second-largest nation on Earth. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Mohan (engineer)

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No claim to notability made. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and doesn't attempt to claim Notability--Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spoke with the editor who submitted this article, and pretty much everyone in the help channel was confused as to why this was moved from the Draft namespace at all. I propose moving it back instead of deleting, as a potential mistake by the reviewer (ping SwisterTwister) --MarkTraceur (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Moving back to draft space would not make the subject notable. We have to eventually face it at afd, if not now, some time later when it comes back to mainspace. Subject neither meets WP:GNG nor WP:PROF and there is no hope for him unless he grabs some honorary chair or turns out to be a serial killer.

But I must say, this is not an ideal ending for an AFC draft. It should better have been declined with notability cause. Now the anonymous editor has a lot to take in; first they accept it, then delete it. What a mess! Anup [Talk] 06:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Venter

AfDs for this article:

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

A largely uncited BLP that does not meet GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Previous AfD closed as "no consensus" in 2007 based on "100 movies threshold". PORNBIO has been tightened since then, so this no longer applies. The award listed is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy on Verifiability requires that all Wikipedia articles be built by summarizing what reliable, third party (independent) sources say about the topic. Our policy on biographies of living people is just as strict, requiring that all contentious material be cited to a high quality reliable source. This article fails both policy tests and must be deleted unless properly referenced. I completed a good faith search for such sources and found nothing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like Dora Venter but don't think her accomplishments warrant an article here, and the lack of references in this article bears me out. Many important facts in the article are unsourced, and of the sources, one is self-published, one only verifies that she won a minor award, and the last is from Interviú, which by 2005 could hardly be regarded as serious journalism. ubiquity (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails pornbio & gng .–Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete comes nowhere near any of our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently, preliminarily edited the article in question here, and it can likely be expanded (even with some of the currently-cited sources in the article) further in the future. The subject here has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Barcelona International Erotic Film Festival's (which is one of the most "well-known industry award" ceremonies in Europe) "Best Supporting Actress" Award, which is a "significant" & major award category. Guy1890 (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guillem Cornellà

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 02:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (per this) and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a fully-professional league or senior international football. Insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Batanero

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 02:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (per this) and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cardona

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 02:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (per this) and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY Not notable. BlackAmerican (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plays for the reserve squad of an FPL club, not for the club itself. WP:TOOSOON at best. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty in Tanzania

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as WP:OR for years and not, apparently, ever fixed. There may be some stuff here that could be merged into articles on the economy of Tanzania, but this looks like a mix of WP:SYN and redundant content on (e.g.) Tanzania's political system. $THING in $COUNTRY is a thing, but this article fails to make a case for its own existence IMO. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an indisputably notable topic, just as is Poverty in the United States. AfD is not cleanup. Instead of expending energy trying to delete an article about a notable topic, I suggest that the nominator spend a few minutes reading a few of the readily available reliable sources about the topic, and then summarize and reference those sources, thereby improving the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a whole book about the topic: Contextualising Poverty in Tanzania: Historical Origins, Policy Failures and Recent Trends. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the authors had bothered to write an article that was not a disjointed personal essay. I know nothing about this subject and do not consider myself competent to rewrrite the article, It has required rewriting since it was written, that's evident from the first AfD. But maybe this is one of those topics where we are doomed to have a terrible article forever because nobody competent to write a good one, can be bothered. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is possible that someday a well-sourced article can be written on this notable topic, but right now the piece of an un-salvageable disjointed personal essay. WP:TNT applies here. Alternatively, we could redirect to Economy of Tanzania. Neutrality^talk 13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and almost speedy at that. Clearly notable, and I don't really think the quality is so bad that it needs to just be blown up and started over.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable topic. The prose is low quality, but not so bad as to warrant WP:TNT. If you were to improve this page, you could use the structure currently in place, and even a large amount of the current text. Deletion is absolutely not warranted here. Never has there been a better place to use our catchphrase and unofficial motto, "AfD is not cleanup"! Fieari (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:GNG. It does need some cleanup, but I agree with Prisencolin and Fieari that it is not to the point where WP:TNT is warranted. Not seeing a justification for deletion.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect to Canonical (company) may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ubuntu Foundation

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication that this organization is anything other than dormant, as it has been since 2008. Nothing more than a commitment which was never brought to pass. No indication that it ever satisfied WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Ubuntu Member and can confirm the Ubuntu Foundation is not a legally registered entity and does not exist at all and definitely is not governed by the Ubuntu Community Council or Technical Board as the article claims. Benjamin Kerensa 05:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkerensa (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canonical (company), or just delete, barring a sudden influx of RSes - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this entity does not appear to exist. Redirect to Canonical (company) as a backup option, but Delete is preferred given the unclear status. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TIRADE

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

Fails WP:NBAND with no secondary sources, chart positions or major label signing - just the band's own content, and some Facebook user pages used instead of wikilinks. McGeddon (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything about them which resembles an article in a RS source, except for some blog-reviews/interviews. So they fail WP:GNG. They are also far too small and new to pass WP:BAND either. They have just a released a few songs. They don't have a proper homepage. They have a music video on youtube which only has about 3,100 views. They are not played in radio stations or something similar significant. So I guess its fair to say its to early to have an article for them. Dead Mary (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GARAGE, only self-published sources. --Drm310 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Florida Gators softball. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Florida Gators softball team

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

This AfD additionally covers the following near-identical articles:

This is a group of articles covering individual seasons played by the the University of Florida's softball team from 1997 to 2007. These articles were created over the course of a few days in 2009 by User:Ocdmuch and have not seen any noteworthy edits in the ensuing seven years.

The guideline for articles about individual sports seasons is WP:NSEASONS and it states that "articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players." These articles are exactly that: a game schedule with a win/loss record, player rosters and statistics. There's no prose and what references there are are almost entirely dead links.

Even if these articles were improved with prose, they're never going to be as encyclopedic as say, 1986 New York Mets season because these are all years in which the Florida Gators accomplished nothing of note, so there's no hope that the articles will ever meet WP:NSEASONS' allowance for "national championship season[s] at the top collegiate level". A Train^talk 09:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Florida Gators softball. NSEASONS also says "It is strongly recommended that those articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created." If no prose is added to these articles then they should be redirected. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per YellowDingo. I'm open to keeping if someone can show me some coverage of the seasons in reliable sources, but I haven't been able to find anything. Smartyllama (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tama Girard

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

No evidence of notability. A passing mention is the best one can find in independent sources, about his song on the soundtrack of an Emmy-winning documentary, or as an entry as one artist in a long list of artists performing somewhere. No indepth coverage from independent sources at all. Fram (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. Advertising/vanity article created by article subject. reddogsix (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was initially convinced that the "Emmy-winning documentary" was a hoax as it's fairly elusive on Google and nowhere to be found on the Emmys website, but to save any other editors the trouble, here it is: The Impact of Your Choice is apparently a driver's education film from 2009. A Train^talk 15:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These are the New England Emmy Awards, a regional subdivision of the "real" Emmy Awards (they are also real, not a hoax indeed, but not what one expects when it is said that X has won an Emmy Award). Fram (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is a link to the artist and his contribution to the art of, art within, and the collaborated works of the referenced artist Nuno Bettencourt (within the article), sourced and referenced by both MTV and Viacom: Tama Girard Sold for Free (feat Nuno Bettencourt) is apparently referenced here MTV/Viacom as a recognized original piece of work created by both artists in a collaboration). Singsingery (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singsingery (talk • contribs) [reply]

Comment. Here is another notable mention, discussion, interview from a cited radio station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSUB-LP?wprov=sfla1) 96.7 FM The BUZZ www.thebuzz967.com referencing and citing his contributions to film and music composition, and his creations and collaborations with Jeff Russo, Nuno Bettencourt, and debuting their original works together, in full FCC radio broadcast, all mentioned within the subjects article. The discussion of subject and artist's article, has been cited and referenced from news, newspaper, radio and media publications. Singsingery (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (talk • contribs)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we have the reliable source depth that's necessary for a biographical article. His work has gotten discussed in various blogs and the like, fine, but that's not truly encyclopedic. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is in-depth noted coverage, and the finding now is., Although these articles appear to be similar, their publish ID numbers, article ID numbers, dates of articles published, are all published at different times and platforms, cited by notable news and media referencing an "Emmy Award" win, which is recognized in prior (commets above, July 10, 2009 publication) as "Notable" and recognized, referenced and cited through Wikipedia articles. This is after all, an Emmy Award win, and did actually happen and cited by notable references in several published articles, multiple times and multiple publications. If any other editors are looking for the difference in these published article IDs and dates, you can see the difference Seekonk School herein one of the other publications, released on a different platform, location, and published dates. The standout, notariety, and the significance of why this article should remain, is this documentary actually become part of a "school curriculum" used for education, and also used by state and federal law enforcement agencies, to educate teens, making its mark in history by independent film documentary, being incorporated and utilized as a state , town and federal resource. Reference, Seekonk Massachusetts, The Impact of Your Choice is apparently released in several separate publications. This cited and referenced publication is from August 7, 2009. Singsingery (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've done a little more in-depth research about the Emmy award winning documentary, "The Impact of Your Choice". There are substantial citations from State and Federal agencies referencing the this documentary and it's significant role as an educational resource and Emmy Award achievement. This documentary's has become a widely used resource, nationally. Here are just a few links files from news, state and federal government acknowledgement and citations. News in the State of R.I. [27]. Fall 2007 Edition - Rhode Island Department of Corrections - RI.gov [28]. Superintendent's Annual Report - East Providence School District [29]. Singsingery (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Please only vote once. You are making a case for the documentary here, but the AfD is for the artist who contributed a song to the soundtrack of the documentary. The documentary didn't become part of a curriculum because of the song or the artist. Fram (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry about the the extra vote text, it was meant to be a comment. As far as the extra added in-depth research on the Documentary, it was and has been mentioned throughout the conversation and debate here, the validity of both. -The documentary, and the artist, in question., In the understanding that one claim of each, (the artist and the documentary), support the other.. -Listed and citing the artist as "original contributions", which takes part in creating the entire project . So again, one claim directly supports the other claim. The stronger case, claim, cites, and contribution of the Documentary itself, makes any claim of anyone's involvement and contribution in "creating" that piece of work, is an integral part of the creation's whole, facilitating the success, achievements and mission of the of these documentary. The artist and subject has a significant amount, and enough of an apparent "contribution" to the documentary, to be noted, cited and referenced for his "original" work and "creative" contribution facilitating Emmy win, in several publications. I'm not sure if you found some evidence through your research claiming that the artist did "not" have any contribution to the success, Emmy win, or the documentary becoming a widely used and sought after resource? I'm only asking because, your comment is stating that direct projection, after it (Emmy win citing), and the subject of this article, have been cited, recognized and referenced several times. If so, I'm just wondering if you could reference that finding in your next comments. Thank you. Singsingery (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I obviously can't find sources that explicitly state that the song did not contribute, that's proving a negative. But there's plenty of evidence from the omission of any mention of the song or artist from articles about the documentary. The three bolded sources in your comment above are a case in point, as not one of these (If I checked correctly) mentions the song or artist, but still you use them to advocate keeping an article on the artist. Well, the second and third don't even seem to mention the documentary either, so I'm not sure what they are meant to show. Fram (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems the "majority" of the references you're referring to, most of the creators and contributors were omitted, as this article and files are a "mission statement" only, rather than a news and accrediting platform.. The places where the "news" seemed appropriate and should have been, was actually listed, cited and referenced multiple times in above mentioned and cited articles. This documentary and it's creators, have been cited and referenced multiple times, supporting the claim of all information regarding the artist and subject, without any evidence to deny, debunk or facilitate the deletion of this page and article. Singsingery (talk) 08:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our notability guidelines like WP:BIO? That the information in the article is true and verifiable isn't sufficient, the subject (in this case, the artist) must have received significant, indepth attention in reliable, independent sources. Being mentioned in an article about a different subject (like the documentary) isn't enough by far. Fram (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither here in this discussion nor in the article itself can I see evidence of notability. Mentions, tangential mentions, endorsements yes, all of those, but nothing that indicates any significant notability from reliable sources. This looks like severe over-hype - "Me thinks the lady doth....etc. etc". Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hmmm.. Im not sure why you're not seeing it. I just revisited the above referenced source files .. Page 24, within Superintendent and added curriculum. And Page 8, "Addressing DUI" in The State of Rhode Island department of corrections. Singsingery (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They indeed mention the documentary, for some reason "search" didn't return this. The main problem remains, neither of these mentions the artist (who is the subject of this deletion discussion, not the documentary!). Fram (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, you're quite right. But there, they shouldn't be., -as these are mission statements and not a platform for credits of creation. This was merely an entry of why and how this original work, (referenced in "original composition and created works" by the subject article), was utilized and resources facilitating significant meaning behind the documentary's mission, warranting it a Winning Emmy Award. Within this understanding., This Documentary does in-fact incorporate creative works and original compositions, by the subject and article, and cited by news articles in above mentioned references, and in page references. This in itself, is, are, and continues to be the the "cited and noted facts"., This process exists for exactly this reason. Thank you for your feedback.. Singsingery (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is yet another cited resource, regarding and crediting the artist/subject of the article, for his direct and significant contribution of "Original Works" for the Emmy Award "win" of "The Impact of your Choice"., This crediting was directly from the producer for this documentary, during an interview heard here, on July 16, 2009 (forward interview to 49:00), on Dreamvisions Radio Network , (Wikipedia Sourced) [Interview with Deborah Hoch Producer July 16, 2009, 10:35 am] Singsingery (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin L. Walker

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. A PROD nomination was removed by the author (who appears to have a COI based on contribution history, promotional tone, and off-wiki activity) with the reason "has appeared in multiple notable films". He has starred in one, but mere appearances in others don't mean much. The numerous sources in the article aren't coverage of the person, they are coverage of a recent film, giving trivial mentions to the person. Or they are primary sources (interviews and such). This fellow may be up-and-coming, but up-and-coming doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of references here but none of them appear to be reliable -- even if they were, there's nothing in them to establish notability, per @Amatulic:. A Train^talk 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. This is strictly a vanity page with an overabundance of links to notable entities, in an apparent attempt to inherit notability from them. The tone is over the top, and this article should be promptly deleted. Possibly Salt as the article was previously deleted (in 2011). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant over the top promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this article has shown enough to suggest, regardless of improvements, none would actually be substantial and convincing, the works listed are trivial and anything else added is simply attempting to mirror and sugarcoat it. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arakkal Dhanwantari Temple

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

Notability FlorenceJoyner (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the temple may exists, it seems quite improbable to reliably source the contents of article. Anup [Talk] 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shevonne Durkin

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

To be fair the first reason that I thought of nominating this article for deletion was that when I came across it there was one source, IMDb, which does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources of Wikipedia. Thought of another way, IMDb tries to be an undifferentiated total directory of everyone who has every appeared in a professionally made film, and that may be putting their inclusion criteria more tightly than they are meant to be, whereas Wikipedia has inclusion criteria far more stringent than "has appeared in a film somewhere". I did do a search and found another source, but I highly doubt it would pass muster as a reliable source, and saying it provides indepth coverage of Durkin would be a bit much. Having reviewed the list of Durkin's appearances, they consist of one episode appearances in TV shows or bit parts in marginally notable movies like Tammy and the T-Rex. The one exception is her role in Leprechaun 2. However our guidelines for actors say we need two significant roles, not just one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two mentions of her on high bean are just passing mentions in reviews of the film Leprechaun 2 with no significant statements about her role there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator; subject does not have much indepth coverage, and does not meet WP:NACTOR. (Yes, I'm supporting a JPL nomination for deletion. This is not one of the signs of the apocalypse.) --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article topic does not appear to meet WP:NPOL Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Montt

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

Not notable. This article is a collection of minor achievements, includingh being candidate to deputy two times and being councillor of a commune. It is also promotional. War ko ^talk 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a place the size of Lo Barnechea is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and neither is being a non-winning candidate for higher office — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: 1. It is councilor of a municipality, 2. He has been director of a major Chilean public institution as is General Directorate of Credit Pledgee (DICREP).Andya Andya ^Andya 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Councillor of a municipality" does not pass WP:NPOL; municipal councillors qualify for Wikipedia articles because municipal councillor only in major internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto, London, Tokyo or Berlin. Lo Barnechea is not in that class of cities, so it's not a place where the municipal councillors get articles. (2) Being a director of a public institution is also not an automatic inclusion freebie — it can get a person into Wikipedia if there's enough reliable sourcing about them in that role to pass WP:GNG, but it is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be much better sourced than this is. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for national legislatures are not notable for such, only successful ones. In general local municipal councilors are not notable for their position and nothing suggests that Monttt would be otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Samuels-Thomas

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NHOCKEY but passes GNG via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources discussed in the 1st AfD. Rlendog (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as per Rlendog. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Samuels-Thomas passes WP:GNG. See a listing of those sources in the first AFD. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes GNG. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He still fails for the time being as an ice hockey player, however it is much easier today to find articles about the subject than it was at the time of the previous AfD. The subject can now comfortably pass the WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above and the sources brought forth in the first AfD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt White (ice hockey)

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 07:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Later, this article will meet WP:NHOCKEY, but it does not at this time. CLCStudent (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Stealth Productions

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional page, likely created by that website's commercial owner. No 3rd party cites. Only sources are from by website's owner. Iclaude73 (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment there's a bit of GNews coverage. Obviously the company doing a promotional outreach, but a lot of media took them up on it. Article would need a pretty thorough rewrite though. Mostly the problem is that nobody ever got around to fixing the article with the sources from the first AFD - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Crane family. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Crane

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crane family unless evidence of independent notability is forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: Seems like the most appropriate course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an opinion since I have no idea what is usual with regard to fictional characters in popular TV series, but I can see that this article that has had many editors over many years. I can also see that this character is discussed in major daily newspapers in the context of this soap opera, and I suggest that the editor who created this page @Spanish lullaby: and those editors who made substantive additions (albeint most edits were made by IPs or by editors long vanished) to article be notified of this AFD and perhaps invited to source it@Chadoz, TAnthony, and FruitMonkey:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, little interest in this article, I just updated it to remove a dab to Rachel Barrett. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thank you for your comment! If you find any major daily newspapers that discuss this character, please post them here as it can help to decide whether or not the character has notability or not. The guidelines for the notability for a fictional character can be found here, and the general guidelines apply to fictional characters from every medium, including television. One important thing to determine while looking at the sources discussing this character in the context of the show is whether or not the character is being discussed beyond singular mentions in the context of plot or the actress's credits. Just so you know, newspaper recaps of episodes including the character do not support notability. I personally have not found much information (as I was thinking about expanding this article in the past), but I would encourage you to post any sources here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bunch of plot recaps in major dailies in a quick search, but I didn't look very hard, not past the first page of hits on a news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thank you for your response. I have refined the news archive search by adding the name of the soap opera "Passions" and found only plot recaps in the major dailies. I only found one reference in HighBeam, but it was a plot recap. I have only found references to Katherine Crane as a brief reference during episode recaps, a part of a long list of characters from the show, or an aside about Elizabeth Storm or Leigh Taylor-Young's career. I am sure you know this already, but I just want to remind you that some of the hits from a quick search may be for articles/information outside the show as I can imagine the name "Katherine Crane" either referring to a real person or something else. The closest thing to sources I could find is the following: 1 and 2, but I do not believe it is enough to warrant a separate article for the character. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was using proquest, "Katherine Crane" + Passions. Thing is, I never edit on soap operas, and not often on fictional characters of any kind at AFD (I tend to stay away from topics where my ignorance is near total), so I wanted to give folks who edit soaps a fair chance to make a case. After all, the article has been year for years and has had a lot of editors. If anyone sources this, feel free to flag me. Otherwise,

merge to article on fictional Crane family. I ran a news archives search, and failed to see any notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I greatly appreciate that. I feel the same, and tend to stay away from topics that I am completely unfamiliar with to avoid making any mistakes. And thank you pinging all of the people involved with the page. I should have done that originally, so I apologize for the oversight on my part. I agree that all the editors who contributed to this page should get a fair chance to make their case, as they might have something that proves notability that I did not find (you can find a lot of stuff through archived websites so you never know for sure). Aoba47 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with the above comments. It's okay that it was nominated for deletion, sometimes pages here get deleted and then redirected or something similar. Carbrera (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Eadie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. While consensus did once accept Winnipeg as prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass just for serving on city council, the original basis for that consensus (its presence in one of the lists of cities that were formerly present in global city) is no longer true. Current consensus on a number of recent AFDs has now deprecated Winnipeg as not internationally significant enough to hand its city councillors any special status anymore, as it was listed in the "self-sufficiency" class of "honourable mentions", and is not actually classed as a "global city" per se by any external source either. And none of these articles is sourced remotely well enough to pass WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Bearcat and newly established consensus on council members from Winnipeg. - Enos733 (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – These could be merged to Winnipeg City Council, which would enhance and improve that article by providing more information and context about these subjects. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're all already named (and current committee assignments already listed in the notes table) in that article, and there's not really any reliably sourced content in any of these articles that would add anything noteworthy beyond what's already present in that list. Bearcat (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect, delete or merge? Sandstein 10:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all consensus can change, and in this case it seems to have changed to reject city council members from this place as default notable. I would hold the same position on city council members from Des Moines, Iowa and other cities in the US of similar to Winnepeg global impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who are these people, anyway? --Buick Century Driver 05:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hirsch

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

Delete: as non-notable. Checked Google and obits -- no indication of sufficient notability. Quis separabit? 00:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. A non-notable college sportscaster who died in recent days, and was the subject of obituaries in local news media. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added to article. He was notable before death from multiple coverage, interviews over years (see multiple prior years' quotes from him in first Statesboro Herald source in article, which must be from previous coverage), and 2012 lifetime achievement Hall of Fameship in Georgia radio. Instant article creation upon death reflects Wikipedua's gap. Coverage in at least 5 local/regional media. Radio broadcaster with thousands of hours exposure (several hours per game, plus radio talk shows like one he was in 10th year of, is more known than a TV broadcaster with same career length (and a couple minutes talking per news show). Think Joe Garagiola or Howard Cosell, vs. I don't know which TV news broadcaster.

Also he bought and sold radio stations (not yet covered in article). And his pioneering first commercial broadcasting of any college baseball team's entire season, starting working from seat on an overturned garbage can, is interesting, notable.-do ncr am 16:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Doncram. Multitude of third party RS coverage of his death. Connormah (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We normally keep articles of long-established sports broadcasters and I see no reason to make an exception here. Passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have multiple, reliable, independent sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Records

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

Bit of an odd one this: the article was originally created regarding a 1970s division of Warner Bros. Records, but since 2006 the article has been re-written to include an entirely different Pacific Records set up in the 1990s, so the article now discusses two separate record companies, and the distinction is not made entirely clear. At the very least, these should be two entirely separate articles with disambiguators, but I am struggling to find reliable independent sources that discuss either subject in detail, and I am wondering if either record label is worth keeping. The 1970s record company's notability seems to rest almost entirely on a Billboard Hot 100 no. 1 single, "Undercover Angel" by Alan O'Day, but this inherited notability isn't enough to have a separate article about the record label and it fails WP:CORP. The 1990s version also appears to fail WP:CORP, with just this article in a local newspaper: of the four artists bluelinked in the article, two are incorrect links to entirely different Wikipedia subjects, the sole chart entry by Sprung Monkey was on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and not the Hot 100, as you might think from first impressions, and the Steven Ybarra article has been flagged for WP:COI. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neither of the record labels covered by this article appears to have enough independent coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. In any event, they should not be combined into a single article; they are separate companies with no direct relationship and should be covered, if at all, in separate articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The most important "Pacific Records" was the French jazz label from the 1940s/1950s. That said, this should be two articles, not one. Both labels are likely notable because they had significant, if short-lived, chart success, and neither are "vanity" labels, so they can't be merged into any artist page. The prose for the more modern of the two is unambiguously promotional, and if someone speedied it for G11 I wouldn't really squawk. The second is barely a one-line stub, and if someone came from Alan O'Day's page, they wouldn't really learn anything they didn't probably know. In it's current state, none of it is sourced. I'm not going to !vote because I'm ambiguous about deleting this. I do think both labels are probably notable, but there's so little here worth keeping. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

78.26: I'm a bit dubious as to how "significant" the 1990s Pacific Records is – one song that reached no. 13 on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart (not the Hot 100) doesn't seem particularly significant to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if this survives the deletion discussion I will split the article into two, as they should be – perhaps then it will be easier to judge each one on its own merits and decide whether they should stay. Richard3120 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: in fact some further investigation shows that not only was the one hit by Sprung Monkey on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and not the main Hot 100 chart, it was released on Surfdog Records, not Pacific Records. So now I would say there isn't a single reason for the 1990s Pacific Records to have an article, as there is no evidence of notability at all either for the label or for any of its artists. Richard3120 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I hadn't had a chance to look into this deeply yet. Yeah, that makes sense given this charted in 1998, and Pacific signed Sprung Monkey in 2015, according to the article body. I've done a bit more digging, and there's no discernible reliable coverage I can find, so I will in fact be !voting. next.

Delete - the piece is highly promotional towards the recent California label, this label does not have a length of history, nor does it have a significant roster of notable artists. Per Richard3120's investigation, the label has also not had a nationally charted hit. I found no coverage beyond the very local. The 1970s version of Pacific Records is probably notable, but there's nothing sourced and so little information provided that it's not worth keeping, if someone wants to start an article on that label, they would just as well start from scratch. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This qualifies for a WP:TNT. Neither seems notable enough and the article certainly mixes up two different companies. Starting this from scratch (if at all someone can prove it is really notable), is the way to go. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob McNeil

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. While I appreciate McNeil's service in the Revolutionary War, not every soldier is notable, and these is nothing here to suggest he was. ubiquity (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actually, he is significant enough for an article. Although there are many articles about American Revolutionary people, almost all are officers, if not generals. There are few articles about enlisted soldiers from the war, and even fewer about enlisted Revolutionary spies. I have added links from other articles involving McNeil and the early exploration and development of western Virginia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadden (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, few enlisted men had documentation of their service, especially on the Western frontier, or in dealing with Native American leaders such as Cornstalk. There are a number of resources refering to his service, and a modern component dealing with his grave site and other issues. He was significant in Western Virginia history, and West Virginia history. Hadden (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but except for the Roanoke Times article, which is about a girl and her scout troop, don't all the other references constitute original research? The point of our notability guidelines is to provide an objective way of determining notability, which is basically people are notable if qualified sources say they're notable. The resources produced for this article would thrill me if I were doing genealogical research on my family, but I am not convinced they prove the subject's notability. ubiquity (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article is almost entirely cited to primary sources, which do not help establish notability. This was the best I was able to find, mentioning the subject as a Revolutionary War soldier, but being mostly about the son: Floyd County. The subject does not meet GNG per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if it is all true, I doubt whether the guard who tried to prevent the murder of a captured chief would be notable. He seems to have done little else of note. I guess that getting a land grant was routine for ex-soldiers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Could mention his name in the Pocahontas County, West Virginia article, I guess; just nothing standing out here for an article. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northern Exposure (video blog) episodes

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

Now orphaned list of episodes for a deleted video blog series; pls see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Exposure_(video_blog)_(2nd_nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G8 so tagged. I don't see why another AfD is needed; this page has no RS, and I see no reason why it should continue existing in the face of a valid AfD deleting the parent article. It's not technically a subpage, but it's still a perfectly good G8 in my estimation. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- @Jclemens: the Talk page showed that a prior AfD existed, which closed as "no consensus" along with another list of episodes:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 16 May 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I didn't see the prior AfD discussion, but yeah, I guess we have to let this one at least until SNOW. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that his should qualify under G8 speedy. This is a list of episodes from a blog whose article was deleted as non notable. This is definitely a page "dependent on a deleted page". The speedy G8 criteria are just a listing of examples, not an all-inclusive list. Meters (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my comment on the previous AfD for the parent article. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as there is no reason for this particular episode list to exist independently of its parent article about the video blog. I'm wary of saying CSD G8 applies, however, because whether or not a list or article is a WP:SPLIT, dependent topic, or simply related can be a question of judgment to be determined case by case. I think it would be an expansion of G8 to apply it here, and it is far afield of the examples given there. The dependent page must be functionally dependent (as an article's talk page is to the article), not merely dependent in its subject or content. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unicole Unicron

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

~~Fails basic WP:GNG. Not enough WP:RS sources. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to know what I can do to make this page stronger so that it will not be deleted. Unicole has been recognized by several news sources including Vice and MTV, which are linked in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.143.141 (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to know what can be altered, modified or updated so that this page will not be deleted as Unicole has been widely recognized with clear public presence and this article has been well sourced with accurate and significant news sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.130.205 (talk) 06:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over the top promotion flooded with linkspam and primary sources. Only sources worth thinking about are MTV and Vice. MTV has her as part of a reality show so are not exactly independent. That leaves Vice, more accurately Motherboard, one individual source. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the "pophatesflops" interview source that has just been added as well as a link to Christine Teigan's tweet about Unicole (Christine also being a celebrity with 2.61million followers tweeting about Unicole is further evidence of Unicole's worldwide relevance), and I don't see how the fact that MTV was a reality show (which again reached thousands of people around the world) causes it to not be a reputable or counted source? If it is not permitted to link to any personal sites for any sources of information I can understand that and will happily take those citations down but all of the information for this page is accurately compiled and relevant. Her online presence is constantly growing with more citations forthcoming and she is presently widely known by thousands of fans across the globe which is evident by the citations already included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmagician (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re "pophatesflops". Subject talking about herself, not independent, not a reliable source. Re a trivial tweet. No more need be said. Re MTV. People employed by MTV are not independent of MTV. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only 1 reliable and (somewhat independent) source available for the subject (Vice). The MTV source is trivial mention. This is WP:TOOSOON. The amount of link spam in the article shows that it is there to promote a currently non-notable youtube artist so I am also advocating a delete per WP:NOTPROMO. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 15:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle for the Galaxy

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lack significant coverage from reliable secondary source. Also a WP:PROMO article written by the developer's head of marketing. The1337gamer (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found announcements: [30] from Pocket Gamer, [31] from Adweek, and [32] from 148apps.com. But announcements aren't good enough to establish notability; we need reviews. It looks like the developer is also up for deletion, and I'm not sure it will survive, so I've voted to simply delete this article. If the developer's article survives, we can redirect there. Or maybe Ninja Kiwi, the publisher. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NRP; I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources either. --Izno (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From author

Hi, I understand, that the problem is that I work for the owner, however I made the article only with facts, there is no promotional materials (except screenshots maybe) in the text. Text describes how well game performed and how is it played. As for reliable sources you mentioned, that you need reviews - there are 110000 reviews in google playmarket, yes it's not from a one big source, but it's the real people accounts commenting on the game. Please consider to keep our article, as it's a notable project in many points. And these points are:

Best quality graphics in similar games category (even Clash of Clans graphics are simplier)
Cross-platform availability (unlike Clash of Clans again, the game is available also for pc/mac users, not only mobile)
Multi-language - even though some translations are still being worked on, there are 5 complete manual translations.
And well as Google Play Market says the game reached more than a million, but less than 5 million downloads.

As for the NinjaKiwi being mentioned as the developer in Play market - the game is being moved to our account, as the contract with NinjaKiwi has ended. So they are actually publishers. I can provide proof within a month, after the completion of transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia strongly discourages COI editing, but it's not forbidden. The bigger problem is depth of coverage in the media, which Wikipedia uses as its inclusion criteria. Topics which haven't been the subject of "significant coverage" are routinely deleted, though what this phrase means exactly is up to editor interpretation. For pop culture, such as video games, it's often reviews by professional journalists. Number of downloads, user reviews, and features generally don't affect the outcome. We had to draw the line somewhere, and this is where we drew it. Articles like the above Adweek source carry some weight, but that one is basically a glorified press release that says "someone released a video game". The best way to demonstrate notability is to locate published reviews from professional journalists. They don't need to be online or in English, but if there's no coverage, we don't really have anything to say about the topic. Sometimes I think it would be nice to have a catalog of every game ever made, but there are already websites that do that, such as Wikia and MobyGames. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, how much time do I have to improve the sources? I believe we need an article on wikipedia, so I'm gonna put some effort in it. Can the page be drafted until then, not deleted? I wouldn't be happy to write it down all again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions usually last for one week, but they can be extended up to twice, for a total of three weeks. It could be moved to draft space or your user space. I'd be fine with that, personally. It seems entirely possible that this could eventually become notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and last question, after I add more info and sources, do I have to inform anyone anywhere to check the page again? Or how is it works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to alert people that you've made improvements to the article is to simply say so here. Luckily, there's a lot of help available for writing video game articles at WikiProject Video games, including a list of sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As of this relist, it appears that the article author has added multiple reviews by sources with editorial control, which meets our WP:GNG. I'm satisfied for notability. Fieari (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fieari: Did you even read the article and check the sources? The only website used that is on the list of reliable video game sources is Pocket Gamer and that article is not even a review.

• The Pocket Gamer quote is not a review. It's just a sentence from a standard news article that briefly describes the game. There is no critical commentary whatsoever.

• Nine Over Ten is a one-man self-published blog with no indication of editorial oversight or policy. Evidently does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.

• Mob Core is not a review either. It's just a quote taken from a product page to download the game. No critical commentary whatsoever.

• The GG citation just directs to Mob Core.

• The App4Smart reviews are written by non-staff editors. They are essentially self-published user reviews. Not reliable sources.

• For Gamehub.vn I see no indication of editorial oversight or policy. It's not even clear the article editor is a member of staff.

If you're going to participate in AfDs then put some effort in your checks. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Mob core is a pure review, there is not citation in it from a product page, also it has a version in russian http://mob-core.com/android_games/2943-bitva-za-galaktiku.html. and the reviews contains critical thinking on pros and cons.
2. Added the gg correct link, but this one is more of a citation from product page though.
3. Gamehub.vn article has logotyped images and authors profile is marked as "editor" and "admin". There are also 2 lesser articles about BFTG on this website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Tyurenkov (talk • contribs)

Delete - Sourcing, even after the recent efforts, largely consists of obscure/unreliable sources, or ones that don't offer significant coverage or third party coverage. (For example, the 148apps source is merely a database entry, likely ripped from the game's entry in one of the app stores.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. Consensus to delete, however, I'm going to userfy for User:Nihonjoe as there have been no objections to this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Hunter Adams

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:PROF, WP:GNG or any other part of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no claim in the article that would be at all likely to lead to a pass of WP:PROF, so any possible notability would be based on WP:GNG, which I haven't checked yet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quick Yahoo! search yields only WP:ROUTINE coverage; fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG p b p 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Her role as head of the Association of Mormon Letters is almost enough to pass the guildeines for academics, but not quite there. We have scattered coverage, both in multiple publications taking note of her death, and the high beam search will show scattered coverage from the Deseret News. However 2 of those sources are just 1 that amounts to a "person on the street" quote because she was at the event the article was on, and another where she is just mentioned in passing as a source of something mentioned in passing in the article. The coverage of her work with the Sons of the Utah Pioneers does come to be extensive, but we only have one source on it, and would really want multiple sources. Beyond this I can find lots of references to her having done work editing, but nothing at a level that seems to truly rise to the level of notability. With the Joseph Smith Papers Project for example she was an editor, but not one of the top three overall editors, who I believe are all notable, but that is established in large part because of their work with other material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Combining the WP:PROF criteria with GNG, we have someone who has done substantial academic work but also work with non-profit organizations (e.g. Sons of the Utah Pioneers). Taken in total, this meets WP:BASIC as we have multiple sources from independent, third party publications. As in other discussions, just because a person may not meet all of a particular SNG criteria, that does not trump GNG, so if that is met, a person qualifies. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough of significance to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Supported by 1 source from what is basically the news bulletin of her institution. No real claim of notability. It is telling that ~~the article's own creator is not !voting "keep"~~. Uncontroversial, in my opinion. Agricola44 (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Update. Johnpacklambert (creator) changed to "keep", but does not indicate what from Montanabw's changed his mind. Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep I have been persuaded by Montanabw's argument that we have enough sources to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Subject seems to pass the minimum, although I would like to see the article expanded. Shallownotthou (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Agricola. I am not seeing anything even remotely close to passing GNG here, not to mention WP:PROF. There is just one ref in the article, to a news bulletin from the subject's own institution. Nsk92 (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are however several sources listed in the article. Just because they are under the heading of sources and not references does not mean you can just ignore them in considering sourcing, in fact it makes your argument for deletion highly suspect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, yes, sorry, you are right, I was indeed hasty and I missed the 'Sources' section below 'References'. However, now, looking at what is listed there more closely, I am still not convinced. The first item [33] looks like a library catalogue entry for her at BYU, where she worked. The second item there, [34], is her BYU faculty profile. The third item is a dead link[35]. The fourth item on the list, "Mormon Times, Dec. 8, 2009" [36] leads to the home-page of the newspaper "Desert News". I am not sure what is being referenced here. Doing a search for "Linda Hunter Adams" there produces two hits, with 1 sentence mentions of her name, in stories dated March 1, 2003 and April 13, 2009 [37], [38]. The next source listed is an Amazon.com entry for her. In my opinion, none of these sources amount to much in terms of WP:GNG. After that the 'Sources' section lists 3 obituaries, which is indeed much more substantive coverage. However, one of them, [39], appears to be a blog, even though it is hosted at the Association of Mormon Letters webpage. One other obituary [40] comes from a division BYU itself, the institution where she worked, not exactly an independent source. The last item there is an obituary in Daily Herald, a local paper [41]. From looking at this obituary, it seems clear that this is a paid obituary placed by family members, with an announcement of funeral and visitation arrangements, as is customary in these situations. Even taken together, I don't see this coverage as passing the bar of WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft instead, because considering WP:PROF, her leadership position at BYU is enough for WP:PROF; she's not notable for WP:AUTHOR considering there's only a 100-limited number of library holdings. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. My concerns with the sources have already been articulated by Nsk92. There coverage is what I call trivial and the ones where the coverage is somewhat substantial are not independent sources. Accordingly, the significant coverage required is missing here. In fact, I looked up on Newspapers.com and wasn't able to find anything significant either. I'm not convinced about WP:PROF either - no significant work, or highest post in academia. The closest claim is the one about being an editor of the journal, but the WP:PROF criterion requires one to be an "editor-in-chief". Considering the lack of coverage in independent sources, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy/Draft if someone is willing to take it and work on it. If no one volunteers, I will. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was also willing to, so I thought Drafting to Draft:Linda Hunter Adams sufficed. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate ST and Nihonjoe's suggestions of userfy, an option we probably don't exercise enough for wikinotable but as yet undersourced entries; unfortunately though, I don't see what notability criteria this entry meets. I don't believe being a mid-level university administrator and editor is enough for an auto-pass at NACADEMIC (the closest would be criteria #8, but it does not seem like the pubs where she was top editor were major), so subject would need to pass GNG, and I think Nsk92 has done a good job explaining the current insufficiency of independent sources. If at some point someone does turn up independent sources, that would be good grounds to request the closer or another admin userfy the old entry for improvement. But so long as those sources remain hypothetical, I think delete is appropriate. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I point out that anybody can userfy by copying the source to their own sandbox or word processor. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete the leadership position doesn't even begin to satisfy WP:PROF. Doesn't pass GNG either. Delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no point in userifying as she will never meet WP:PROF. he references claimed to be relevant for GNG are not independent, and there is no reason to think theat better will be found, because thee is nothing in her career which would call for it. The relevant guideline for this is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a point, and I will userfy it myself if the decision is to delete. I'm positive I can find enough independent sources to meet GNG, though I don't have the time at this very moment. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As found by multiple other editors, I just don't believe that she's notable. I also support deletion. I want to say as well, though, that I don't object if someone wants to work on a related draft page; that's their decision. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to be clear I wouldn't object to that either; anyone is welcome to work on whatever they wish. I only think it's useful at the AfD level to maintain a distinction between when "delete" is the right outcome and when "userfy" is better. I think doing so is more useful to anyone considering working on it, knowing what the community thought of the entry as it stands, and it's also a helpful track record if the entry gets revived but then renominated for deletion. I don't think it's so useful to close as "userfy" if consensus is that subject isn't notable (versus consensus that subject is likely notable, just hasn't been established yet). But for sure, that shouldn't stand in the way of anyone who has access to as-yet unidentified sources that might demonstrate notability! Innisfree987 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2008 European Drift Championship season

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

Little content other than a entry list, and supported only by primary sources. A search for reliable sources does not indicate this championship was ever covered in any detail, so likely does not meet notability guidelines. QueenCake (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until this was nominated for deletion, I very much forgot this ever existed. The main reason for keep for something I forgot about and lost interest in editing is that it is a national drifting championship otherwise merge to European Drift Championship. Online sources may exist though I stopped bothering to work on such since I am on a cusp of retiring. Additional sources are available IIRC but in mainly in car magazines, namely Japanese Performance and Banzai. Donnie Park (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is significant coverage in magazines it could be a keep; at the moment though there is nothing to support the articles. I would also advise against merging to European Drift Championship, as the only content existing are individual entry lists, which don't really belong on a championship article. QueenCake (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst a majority of sources no longer exists such as results I found these otherewise they gave to be in print magazines that I don't have, [42][43]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Site websquatted, had to resort to archive.org to get end result: https://web.archive.org/web/20101114002715/http://www.europeandriftchampionship.eu/points%20table.html Fruitmince (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Johnson (Miss California USA)

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

The 6 sources are more or less split in half. 4 or so are about her being Miss California. 2 are from Thousand Oaks media, thus being extremly local and not much useful. another 1 or 2 appear to be personal reflection/blog pieces. The last 2 are sources that mention her, but really are about her fiance, and so do not go to show she is notable. For her to be notable for her relationship with Phelps we would need more indepth and more sustained coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like the Phelps relationship is swaying the community towards "Keep"; hopefully the article will improve in the future. (Change from Delete Original comment: I edited the article in the past to remove excessive intricate detail cited to local sources, but what's left is not convincing to confirm the subject's notability. She is probably most notable for her relationship with Phelps, but a redirect there would be kind of demeaning. So I'm voting delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I think hell just froze over lol ;) --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The world at large has noticed this topic in multiple ways. The son was featured on TV just about two weeks ago, and I'm guessing now that a little research would show that Mom was also in the pictures. Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant press for both her title and her relationship with Michael Phelps. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- what's in the article is WP:ROUTINE local coverage or trivial mentions relating to Phelps. "Receiving press" is not a guarantee for a Wikipedia article, per WP:NOTNEWS. No new sources have been presented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- [44] [45] [46] [47] PageantUpdater (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, examining the source leaves me uncovinced that the subject meets GNG. For example:

Cosmopolitan -- fluffy interview
Brides.com/blog -- non RS as a blog
NYT -- good article but it's mostly about Ms Johnson's relationship with Phelps, which I don't believe establishes her individual notability for an encyclopedia
NY Post -- it's a tabloid as I understand, so would not be considered RS for a BLP

Perhaps she can be covered in the "Personal life" section on the Phelps article, as an alternative to deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is plenty of recent precedent that if WP:GNG is met then article should be kept - which shouldn't even be an issue Talyah Polee (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chelsea Hardin Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Rodriguez (Miss Texas USA) (2nd nomination). PageantUpdater (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has now been updated with more references PageantUpdater (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Since when is a successful beauty pageant contestant, successful model and noted fiancé of a celebrity NOT enough to establish notability? IF she won Ms. Logjam Creek, AR, I could see the cynicism, but Miss California USA is a prestigious honor. In other examples, I've seen articles on actors who appeared on MTV and had a long resume on IMDB be consider unnotable. Just because it's not ABC, NBC, CBS, or FOX doesn't mean it is not unencyclopedic 2601:C1:2:42EB:3533:E339:CC40:53E4 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IP (the one over me) and Unscintillating. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending the outcome of this RFC, then consider relisting if still in question. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 00:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cosmopolitan interviews are a valid source of notability, "fluff piece" or no, given that they are published under editorial review. The NYT source is sufficiently about the subject for me as well. There seems to be wider attention as well. This all adds up, and is sufficient to establish notability for me. Fieari (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Thailand, Nation Multimedia Group Public Company Limited, Nationmultimedia.com. "Cashing in on a cashless society - The Nation". Retrieved 20 September 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]