Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Per WP:PROF#C6. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alangar Jayagovind

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

Non Notable Uncletomwood (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as failing WP:V. Every single ref given in the article is a dead link, and these references are only given as footnotes for the last two sentences in the article, dealing with his visiting positions and his 26 publications. Nothing in GoogleScholar, and almost nothing even for a plain google search[1]. For the latter, only 376 results, and almost all of those are to Wikipedia mirrors. Nsk92 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, it seems the subject is better known as "A Jayagovind". I searched this and found some relevant results. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references do not add to pasing GNG, and his postions and background do not add to passing any notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As former vice chancellor of NLSIU [2] (that is, its actual head, not its ceremonial head) he may pass WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep a vice chancellor is in effect the CEO of the university and meets WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:PROF#C6 as the subject was the academic head of an university (seems to be a government university). There are some secondary sources available for verification, on searching for "A Jayagovind" such as [3], [4], [5], [6]. These are not the best sources (they seem to be replying on press releases or are quotes by the subject), but can be used for verifiability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately there are no policy-based "keep" opinions. Sandstein 13:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic Sinclair

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

WP:NPF definitely seems to apply here. Benmite (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisting. Benmite (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2017 (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/2017 March 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic is a relatively notable director and musician, and is a major part of the That Poppy project which has gained serious traction in both the online niche AND the mainstream media lately. Cue her collaborations with Comedy Central and with iHeartRadio, all due to Titanic Sinclair. Imesko (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2017

Yes, he is a large contributor to the That Poppy project, but at the end of the day he is not nearly as notable or as well-known as Poppy herself. Also, I have not been able to find much about Poppy or Sinclair in the "mainstream media". Regardless of who managed to assist Poppy in collaborating with Comedy Central and iHeartRadio, he is not the one who appeared in the collaborations with them, Poppy is. I understand your point but would argue that to most, Sinclair is mostly a background figure who drives the project as opposed to someone who is at the forefront of it. As a musician, his band Mars Argo's work did not receive very much attention until his work with Poppy began to garner attention, and his work as a director has been minimal, to say the least. Benmite (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Would have to agree with Benmite; Sinclair isn't a public figure and more of a back stage person for That Poppy. Although mentioned in some sources, he isn't the main subject about them and merely mentioned only. Most sources on this article point to social media (not reliable) or items relating to both Mars Argo and himself. The article has also seem to make random assumptions, such as the arrest section or what Sinclair had commented himself here on Twitter about the page (although it might be light to say that much information about himself isn't in the public domain) as pointed out by user Hay232. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of comments have to be written here? And what is the problem with this article? Gonxunator (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Can be treated by an admin as a soft deletion (WP:SOFTDELETE) because of the lack of discussion. However, please don't ask me to undelete this. Sandstein 13:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brand X Music

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

Primary sourced advert for non notable company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. SaintAviator lets talk 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fictions Tour

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. Search results are stuffs related only about the album Little Fictions —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XTRMST

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

Non-notable per notability guidelines for music. - TheMagnificentist 05:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:BAND / WP:GNG per available sources, including those listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which is WikiProject Albums' list of recommended sources for expanding articles that primarily or exclusively cover musical topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG, The subject does not appear to be notable nor do the sources seem to establish notability.MassiveYR 🌟 (TALK) 13:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000's sources plus this from Vice's Noisey section, New Noise magazine, AVClub. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Also keep per all of the coverage above. Carbrera (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Sourced Orange County Register and Alternative Press. Both are highly reputable publications with a long history. The band also contains two artists who are considered notable, and both of those artists are in at least two ensembles who are considered notable (in the case of Davey Havok: AFI, Blaqk Audio and Dreamcar (featuring most members of No Doubt.) In the case of Jade Puget: AFI and Blaqk Audio.) citing rule #6 of notability "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. [note 5] This should be adapted appropriately for musical genre; for example, having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." Lacroixawayoflife (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatstone.tv

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

Fails WP:GNG RoCo^(talk) 19:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Geed

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

vanity page, no independent sources Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casa Cuba

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews refers to "Casa cuba" in a different context not this gallery. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This a Cuban cultural initiative in Malaysia. It is similar to Canada house in London, but a lot less notable and famous. I did find several decent refs and added them. The organization is real, the refs and notability are real but not extremely strong. I am not sure how it hurts Wikipedia to keep the article. It might actually provide a minimal service to readers. If kept it should be renamed to Casa Cuba (Malacca) or (Malaysia) as there are other Casa Cubas (e.g. I saw refs for one in Tampa).198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When people argue to keep it "it is a lot less notable" than other institutions, this means it is not notable and does not pass our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cuba–Malaysia relations The content and image is covered at Cuba–Malaysia_relations#Cultural_exchange. The gallery is otherwise not independently notable for a standalone article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google " "Casa Cuba" Malaysia -wikipedia" yields several hits, including an Arab Today article and a The Star article from 2011 and 2016. Article has been expanded during this AFD, and could be expanded more from sources, but wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Renaming the article to add a disambiguating phrase "(Malaysia)" or otherwise may be appropriate, but "Keep" decision is compatible. Renaming can be done by any editor after AFD closes, or put to a Requested Move at the Talk page of the article. --do ncr am 19:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a more clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 07:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per doncram. L3X1 (distant write) 14:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selangor Bio Bay

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

Non notable "hi-tech area" fails WP:NGEOG because its not a natural place (like a pond or creek) or a road. If it is an actual structure, those have to pass GNG (at the least), and this doesn't. There are 4 or 5 news sources, but WIKIISNOT a list of every corporate structure ever. L3X1 (distant write) 02:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is mistaken. The guideline here is WP:GEOLAND, which covers populated places. In this case, it would seem to be a district, and so I believe GNG would apply. Gnews does reveal some articles. Searching for the Malaysian name might yield more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that this is an actual structure, and thus not covered under GEOLAND. The MY press has 5 or 6 articles on it, but I don't think that is enough to establish notability. In light of 22 Cortlandt St. AfD, I think this sin't going to pass GNg either. L3X1 (distant write) 14:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First ping didn't take Shawn in Montreal L3X1 (distant write) 16:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

No, it is clearly stated to be a "970-acre high-technology area. So it's clearly not a single structure. With all due respect, you should not be nominating articles for deletion without understanding the content. It couldn't be more clear that this is not a single structure, and I'm having trouble understanding why this is unclear to you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is using "structure" to mean something different. Yes, erected populated places -- collections of structures that form districts -- are clearly covered by WP:GEOLAND. But that is besides the point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the nominator a service and make his or her case, succinctly. This appears to be a stub on a recently announced planned high-tech business district. It is therefore likely not yet notable, even when local language sources are taken into account, based on what we can find. I have categorized it and added it to Template:Selangor, to get some eyeballs on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a "legally recognised populated place", but rather a commercial development (an office complex). In addition this is WP:TOOSOON with sparse coverage. Delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable commercial development. MB 04:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Mai

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

A7 was rejected, ~~unnamable~~ unnotable musician, MUSICBIO L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe that a musician being unnamable is an acceptable reason for a deletion nomination (honestly, unless this was a typing mistake, I would tend to consider such a reasoning quite prejudiced). Ella is quite famous actually, and qualifies on MUSICBIO. Called a "UK sensation" by Billboard,[7] and the "new queen of the breakup album",[8], Mai has released multiple EPs[9] and has appeared repeatedly on Billboard top charts: #20 on Billboard R&B Albums,[10] #8 on Billboard Heatseekser charts,[11] #38 on Billboard top R&B/Hip Hop albums,[12] and others. Here's her Billboard biography,[13] and some other significant coverages:[14][15][16][17]. Lourdes 03:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a typo, thanks for pointing it out, Lourdes. L3X1 (distant write) 13:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears notable based on sources.198.58.162.200 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability has now been shown. SL93 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Adams

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

Actor's entire article is built around one casting on Days of Our Lives, and likely built from an IMDb profile. Hardly a notable BLP. livelikemusic talk! 01:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article shouldn't be deleted no matter what other people say. This article has enough citations needed, and the citations support the article, about the number of tv shows and movies the actor has starred in. It is very annoying when some annoying editors think it's more than okay for the article to be deleted. So I'm against it. --Princessruby (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. What votes like the above are really about are the Liv and Maddie fanboys. But, objectively, Adams is currently short on WP:NACTOR. Note that I can't even confirm if Adams' role on DOOL is currently a contract role or just a recurring role. Let's look at this one again in one year... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON and WP:NACTOR. Lacking significant roles so far but looks like career is advancing. WP:BASIC for bios requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" and references in article now say nothing about him as a person, just gives casting info which is not significant coverage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ According to a trusted source, Lucas' role in days of our lives is a contract one. Just by someone saying it's not a contract, it doesn't mean they are right. Plus I can see a team has been formed, for this article to be deleted!!! --Princessruby (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (Striking – You already voted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Delamont

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

This article lacks enough independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Two sources were written by the subject, and the other four are from her university, including her vita and a page of her specialties, which she wrote. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fellow AcSS [18] passes WP:PROF#C3 and big citations on Google scholar (32 publications with >100 citations each and h-index 53) also give her a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep well-cited researcher. The article can be improved, but AfD isn't the way to go about that. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep enormous citation record is conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. [19] is not given to all faculty, I assume. No Google Scholar profile, but GScholar shows top cites to articles and books by her as 954, 374, and a bunch more at 200-500 range (co-authored). Not seeing any sources about her, but she is likely at least borderline notable per WP:PROF. Couldn't find any reviews of the book, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Angus Gunn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southside Wrestling Entertainment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. consensus confirms our usual practice

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

James Sheppard (politician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City rivalry in Finland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beaufort Broncos

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - for the record, they do exist, but are clearly not notable. ansh 666 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it looks like the team was renamed as is now defunct, based on [20] and the fact they do not appear on the league's page here [21]. The single source I found discussing the team is not enough to prove notability. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding the depth of coverage in reliable, independent sources of the type needed under WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. What the IP writes makes little sense in terms of policy, and there is no other input, so this is essentially uncontested. This can be treated by an admin as a soft deletion (WP:SOFTDELETE) because of the lack of discussion. However, please don't ask me to undelete this. Sandstein 13:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up North (Comedy TV Series)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pippen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We can't relist this discussion forever. There's real disagreement about whether WP:ENT is met, and the article is no longer completely unsourced. Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Fairlie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak delete is where I come down on this. Fairlie has actually had some substantial credits. But the projects themselves are of the type that don't generate a lot of independent coverage, so what coverage there is for her is... on the "light" side. In fact, that is generally true of voice actors – they generally don't get press coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she has been in enough major productions that I consider her to be as notable as an actor having only two notable roles in two notable works--just as long as that laundry list of roles can be verified. If there is any reason to believe the list has major errors, I would reconsider. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is this fails WP:GNG due to lack of sources, and WP:FOOTYN because the team hasn't played their first match yet. No reason it can't be re-created (or this version restored) if/when these problems are resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naples United FC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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