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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Yasir

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

It seems that for several days the main author has been unable to add any sources to confirm the existence of Prince Yasir and his claim to a Wikipedia article. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 09:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable and the single-sentence claim isn't verifiable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources, this could be WP:HOAX. Couldn't find refs that would help save it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While Iltutmish could have had other sons, I, too, can't find a source on one of this name. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete without prejudice to possible re-creation, if notability can be established. This place-holder fails to establish any. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Obviously hoax this article.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax article, no sources could be found to prove this person existed ever.Exemplo347 (talk) 00:12, 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) Winged Blades^Godric 09:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Francis Nash

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

non-notability GetSomeUtah (talk) 08:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some refs - icluding a ny-times piece from 1974. I'm sure there are more (but need to hit print archives for this period). He is a significant railroad figure - that oversaw the demise of a rather significant line, and was prolific both before and after (in terms of historical preservation).Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep. His presidency of two Class I railroads probably makes him notable, though we'll want to verify those details. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Railroad (and he's in the wiki there) is sourced from NY-Times (of him stepping down in 1974) in article - [1]. Memorabilia with his sig/name is sold (as railway memorabilia) - from a quick google search, for instance - [2]. Probably possible to source the earlier stuff (not from obit / 90s coverage) - but need to go through print archives.Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary gives me pause. It was probably written by the family and not the Post Standard's writers. That goes to notability; it also means we should be wary of using it as a source for anything other than his birth and death dates. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article is currently sourced from this, I believe - [3] which is independent. The NY-Times source I added from 1974 is more significant - but specific to Lehigh Valley Railroad.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another - from the 50s - ny times - [4] and post-standard from the 60s - [5] I don't have archive access however. Here is a bunch of other refs - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article as prose and incorporated Icewhiz's sources, plus a few of my own. Nash was president and later bankruptcy trustee of a major Northeastern railroad during a period of considerable upheaval and received plenty of coverage. Some of the coverage is of him, some of his position. Still, I think it's probably enough. I certainly don't fault the original nomination. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least per the rewrite the individual is the subject of multiple in depth reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References brought this up to standards and meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:43, 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. It is interesting to note that WP:NSOFT is referred to both in support of deletion and in support of keeping. That page is an "essay", i.e. a page giving the personal opinions of some editors, and it carries little weight against the other arguments, based on Wikipedia guidelines. It is, however, perfectly true that the notability or lack of notability of the company is irrelevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EXMACT

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

Non-notable company. Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article is very promotional, and I can't find any independent sources to verify its notability. Fails WP:CORP/WP:PRODUCT. clpo13_(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is about a product we think that company notability is not important as noted in WP:PRODUCT. Therefore we think WP:CORP should not be applied. Notability of software is defined at WP:NSOFT. At least one of 4 points is required. EXMACT meets at least "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." We think it meets also "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." but of course it depends on definition of reliable sources. We think that a scientific conference and Czech Department of Industry can be considered as reliable sources.Pahlo7 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSOFT. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any references to this software in a search of Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News–which implies that this software has likely received no attention from high quality reliable sources. Until such time as this software receives attention in published books, academic papers, the news media, etc, it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. (If, at some point in the future, it were to receive such attention, it might become sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a result.) SJK (talk) 10:04, 6 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) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Shahjahan

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

Subject does not appear to meet our notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this subject and the organizations he founded are notable. Case of WP:RESUME and/or WP:AUTOBIO. — Stringy Acid (talk) 02:07, 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) 00:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 1 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) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inter Alia (Jesse Dangerously album)

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

Non-notable, unsourced since 2015 Jennica✿ / ^talk 07:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and lack of significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current AFL Women's team squads

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

Non-encyclopedic content, falling somewhere between WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:DIRECTORY – a real-time simple list of names with no context and no scope to include any context or prose. Content is already included with context on club pages, club season pages, etc., and this article adds nothing. Aspirex (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was most likely created based on List of current AFL team squads, an article which has been stable for 10+ years. If the women's page is deleted, the AFL one should be too. Flickerd (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree. I hadn't seen the men's squad page before, but I'd have bundled into a single deletion request if I had. Aspirex (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least Projectify. I know this is all WP:ITSUSEFUL, but I regularly use the men's page, both to view all squads on one page if I'm watching a game, but also to catch vandalism and new page creation via the related changes link. Much easier than adding >700 pages to my watchlist. And (moving onto WP:OTHERSTUFF) if you do delete this and then move onto the men's list, you better be prepared to keep going to List of current NRL team squads, List of current NBA Development League team rosters, List of current NBA team rosters, List of current AFC team rosters and List of current NFC team rosters, and probably more. It seems that it is a standard list for most major sports. The-Pope (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not a fan of lists. Normally I would suggest a category, but there are many AFLW players without WP articles, so they will not appear in categories. This is useful for WP development and to see all current players in one place – rather than lacking context, it actually provides context in conjunction with related articles. It is not an indiscriminate list, and all those listed are notable per WP:NAFL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - compliments similar article for men's teams as well as those in other sports. Not sure why this article has been singled out. Makes sense to have an article grouping of teams, and I agree with the rationales put forward by Jack and The-Pope above -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list compliments existing lists as stated above and is useful for locating the specific womens squads. -- Dane ^talk 02:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jacknstock and The-Pope. It's worth noting that the WAFL is a new professional league, so our coverage of it is going to be a work in progress. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- AFLW; WAFL is Western Australian Football League. I'm guessing you're not from Western Australia! :-D Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The-Pope - this is a single member of a standard list type for sports. This league has only just had their first grand final. Even though it seems like it's too soon to be creating a list of the *current* team members (as opposed to squads of yore), that's partially what Wikipedia is - not paper. This list will help people search for these women, and will, in due course, help people write their biographies. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:41, 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. Sustained notability shown sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Phillips (entrepreneur)

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

An unusual one, but I think this is a case of WP:1E. The man discovered a way to get a good deal and there was coverage of this. But was it lasting or truly significant? Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is anything truly significant? Keep Spencerk (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spencerk (creator), how do you think he meets WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn hi Boleyn, if the article was refocused to become 1999 Healthy Choice promotion scandal, or something, would that fit wp:notability guidelines? thanks Spencerk (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spencerk, possibly, if there was good enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, although not from what is on it so far. Boleyn (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn Thanks, yeah. Given its international coverage, its treatment in a major motion picture, and the place the story has in culture, I think it can be worked on. Thanks for your help Spencerk (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - this is about as classic a case of WP:BLP1E as I've ever seen. I do recall this stunt. It lasted in the news long enough so that he gained his 15 minutes of fame. The subject has done nothing significant since. I remind the gentle reader that truly is not part of WP:GNG, and fame is not the same as notability. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-covered at the time [11][12], people have continued to write about him [13][14][15] and Phillips' story was the genesis for a feature film by a leading American director [16]. Rename/refocus can be discussed outside of AfD, but this is readily sourceable content of continuing interest and shouldn't be lost. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can learn. I can change. Arxiloxos has proven to my satisfaction that the subject is notable, with ongoing coverage of his life and "stunt". I still hate everything Adam Sandler has done since Big Daddy (1999 film), and no amount of arguing will convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 1 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 redirect to Jam Handy#Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hired!

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

Article does not list or cite any context or notability outside of subject's appearance on two episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000. In addition, the only pages that link to the article are: pages related to MST3k, a disambiguation page, two film list pages, an article on the production company's founder (where Hired! is discussed only in its context as an MST3k subject), and a few talk and user pages. A search on Google came up with nothing to fix this issue. Jedzz (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this topic is mentioned briefly a few times here, mentions outside of that book are very minor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If all else fails, this could redirect to Jam_Handy#Filmmaking, where it's mentioned along with another film of his that was MT3K'd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. I think this is a good resolution for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam_Handy#Filmmaking per Tokyogirl79's suggestion. As the nom mentioned, there are really no sources discussing this in any length or detail. Its only claim to fame is that it was featured in MST3K, and all the sources that do mention it are purely in the context of that. As its already discussed in Jam Handy's main article, a redirect to that would be the perfect solution. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:07, 6 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laetitia du Couëdic

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

Individual is non-notable as she has yet to win any major national or international championships as an adult rider. Fails WP:NEQUESTRIAN and is WP:TOOSOON Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep A US-based Google News search alone provides results which indicate WP:GNG is met, including but not limited to:

Article could use improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- My take is that these are simply sports interviews for the most part, not articles about her. She’s kind of a novelty, young, but not really having accomplished a lot yet. Has a lot of PR, but not really notability-level. There are a lot of junior riders who win national events, we don’t give most of them their own articles. But I don’t have particularly strong feelings about the issue; if others want to do a WP:HEY and improve it, they can. Montanabw^(talk) 03:25, 9 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) Winged Blades^Godric 09:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of the Rational Voter

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

A long article, short on genuinely reliable independent sources. Half the sources are the author himself, the balance are generally trivial, or unreliable (e.g. Volokh). The article was substantially expanded by a user who appears to have some relationship with the author, Caplan, and has promoted Caplan extensively in other articles on Wikipedia. This book does not appear to be influential and some of the reviews are - ahem - unflattering. One fo the sources is actually just a comment by someone saying they haven't read it! Guy (Help!) 07:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether the reviews are flattering or not is absolutely irrelevant. All reviews a book receives count toward its being notable. If a book receives lots of reviews calling it total crap, and no positive reviews at all, then it probably is notable and we should have an article about it, because of the large number of reviews. Things are notable because they get attention in reliable sources, and there is no rule the attention has to be positive (whether the reviews themselves are well-informed or written by people who know what they are talking about is likewise irrelevant). Possible COI issues are also not a reason for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous reviews by mainstream outlets suggest notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Keep Easily passes WP:NBOOK. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely reviewed and discussed. The already-cited, detailed article by Louis Menand in The New Yorker [17] pretty much cinches the case by itself, and there is plenty more evident in the most basic searches. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 02:58, 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 merge to Microsoft Surface. There is no real consensus on whether the subject passes GNG, and if it does, whether it's enough to override CRYSTAL in this case. However, a merge was proposed and agreed to by the article creator, so that seems like the best course of action. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Surface phone

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

Article is based entirely on speculations and rumours. Looks like a clear case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Indrek (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete agree too soon. A fan might volunteer to take it into user space until it gets announced and has more reliable press, or at least enough sources to have a notability argument. W Nowicki (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A fan might volunteer to take it into user space I'll drop a note on the page author's talk page, but they appear to have ragequit so I'm not sure if they'll even read it. Indrek (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~i'll take it into holding in mine, if he's not around. we'll need it sooner or later, most likely. no need to start from scratch.~~ -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is too soon, since it is planned for 2019 it is possible it will be canceled. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wayyy too far out. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:CRYSTAL states, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". This anticipated event is virtually certain to occur, and the subject matter is of obvious wide interest, as per the many global news sources that have covered this topic. As such, the topic passes WP:GNG. See below for some source examples; additional sources are available. Another option is to draftify the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Express
International Business Times
The Science Times
The Science Times
Latin Post
Viet Times (In Vietnamese)
Tom's Guide
The Times of India
The Times of India
Indian Express
Christian Today
Travelers Today
The Christian Post
Express
Christian Post
First Post – "Surface Phone expected in 2019"
University Herald
The Science Times
The Register
Express
The Christian Post
PC Advisor
Network World
Fox News

Keep. Thesources discussing it are quite sufficient. As a proposed vey significant product line from a famous company, it would probably be a notable project even if nothing comes of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for further evaluation of sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the article but would like this article to be kept I think in my view it has a lot of potential just like the other Microsoft Surface articles. Although it hasn't yet been released its in the pipeline to be released and its better to have it created now than later and the admin above North America provided far more references than I could find on the web which is good in my view... I would eventually like to continue expanding the article with the help of others but at the moment its stalled due to the deletion template. Regards, StewartLittle 07:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the deletion template does not mean the article cannot be edited. The notice even explicitly says "Feel free to edit the article". Indrek (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the sources above, as far as I can see, they mainly say that Microsoft might be working on a device that might resemble a smartphone and might bear the Surface brand. There's no concrete evidence that anything of the sort is actually being developed or will ever be released, and I have to disagree with the above assertion that "This anticipated event is virtually certain to occur".

I do agree that the subject, speculative as it is, is noteworthy, and probably some mention of it might be in order for, say, Microsoft Surface. But a separate article? As said above - too soon. There is simply no encyclopaedic information about it available right now, everything in the article as of the writing of this is pure speculation (even the infobox image is, unless I'm mistaken, a fan-made concept render). Taking it to userspace seems like the best course of action, if there are people willing to work on the article. Indrek (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for the spreading of rumors. The Surface Phone has not been confirmed officially by Microsoft - all of the "sources" posted above to back up keeping the article are simply speculation pieces, many of which are from sites that do not hold much credibility in the technology world. The image used on the article is a concept render, not an authentic photograph of the device. There are claims in this article that are straight up lies. This for example - "It was availabile for a purchase in 2017" - is completely false. This article should be deleted and if the time arises where there is credible information regarding the aforementioned device, then it may be recreated. MikeMeowz (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. We cannot just create article based on rumored upcoming events with no verifiable sources. The fact of the matter is, none of the verifiable news sources can confirm that the Surface Phone (if it's even called that) exists, nor have they seen one. Once the product is announced, we can add a long paragraph with all those sources in the Annonuncement section stating that it was long-rumored, because the existence of rumors can be verified, but not the rumors themselves until the product is announced officially or cancelled. If it is cancelled like the Surface Mini, and a verifiable news source can vouch for the product's existence, then that content could be verifiable. WikIan -(talk) 14:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again - let's see how stare decisis works out in this case. Take a look at the case of this recent case regarding the Samsung Galaxy S8, which I put into the same hot seat a couple of months back. That was closed as kept as the consensus there, according to J947, was that GNG overrides CRYSTALBALL. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an extremely strong case of GNG overrides a weak case of CRYSTALBALL, doesn't it? J 947^{^{^(c)}} 18:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's nothing encyclopedically relevant in the article at this time; sample copy includes: Some critics have complained about the delay in the phone being announced -- seriously? I would have expected much more if the subject of this upcoming (possibly) phone were notable. I don't see it here just yet. No objection to recreation once the phone is officially announced. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article was double-relisted on 29 March, which caused it to be commented out of that day's log page due to a script bug. Fixed now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 04:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Consensus is that GNG overrides CRYSTALBALL as this passes GNG and per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samsung_Galaxy_S8
Merge and redirect to Microsoft Surface. "rumoured". "Microsoft is yet to make an official announcement for the Surface Phone. Its release has reportedly been delayed". It fails WP:V. Too soon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In addition to my !vote above, I also support a merge to Microsoft Surface. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica's sources. Failing that, would prefer merging to deletion. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep (or merge. that's good too) meets WP:GNG. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've placed a request here for the article to be merged into Microsoft Surface I'll support the recreation of the article if the phone has been announced but since Microsoft has recently had a major hardware announcement they still haven't yet confirmed its existence. Then I think the best course is to merge both articles together....Stewart Little (talk) 11:34, 4 May 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) 00:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Election results in 2005

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

Useless and redundant content forks, there is no relation between any of the events covered in these articles aside from the fact that they were all elections in the given years, already covered at articles for individual elections. We already have List of elections in 2005 etc, so there is no need. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating related pages

- CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Pointless. Number 5 7 08:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These seem incredibly unnecessary. I can't see this article being useful for anyone. PureRED (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the relevant "List of elections in..." articles, as WP:CFORKs at valid search terms. ansh 666 19:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, since if the intention was to create lists (these articles don't identify as lists), then lists already exist, as noted by nom. If the intention was full featured articles, then the combination of unrelated election results doesn't pass WP:GNG. Creating a redirect is useless, since if anyone ever searches for "Election results in 2005" they'll expect to see results - not a list of elections. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, completely pointless. Mélencron (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - These are useless as they are covered in other articles. -- Dane ^talk 02:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per IsaacSt's excellent reasoning – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - agree with nominator.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 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 keep. sufficient consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glayton Modise

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

Attempted to redirect, which kept being reverted with, quite honestly, nonsensical explanations. No indication that this person passes notability criteria. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frederick Samuel Modise per WP:BLP and WP:GNG. The Modise, Sr. article does at least have a few more sources. This is Paul (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Frederick Samuel Modise, where this person is already mentioned. There is nothing to establish independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC) Update to Keep based on sources added, especially by @E.M.Gregory:. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went to the Frederick Samuel Modise article, and was almost ready to support a redirect or merge, but I don't understand the relationship between "Glayton" and "Frederick": Are they father and son? Neither article says!96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not well written, but the Glayton article makes reference to Frederick as: "...the father of only son Glayton Modise." Glayton thus appears to be the son. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right -- I found this quote: "Bishop Glayton Modise, who has died in Johannesburg at the age of 76, was the leader of the International Pentecostal Holiness Church, which has 350 branches and more than three million members in Southern Africa.

He inherited the leadership in 1998 from his father, Frederick Modise." "Obituary: Glayton Modise, head of ZCC breakaway church," Chris Barron, 2016-02-21 This may prove useful in sorting out this mess.96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for missing that in this article. I was looking at the father's article, which was unclear, but I fixed it here.96.59.183.125 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As the leader of 350 churches, Glayton was in a position similar to that of the bishop or archbishop in a major denomination. Accordingly, he is certainly notable. The current article is hardly more than a stub, but that is not grounds for deletion. Are there any newspaper obituaries? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I posted his obit earlier, right here. Was that what you were looking for, & somehow overlooked? (It's all good : we all overlook stuff, since we're only human.)

Yes, the Obituary in the South Africa Sunday Times is liked above. Having read it, I am all the more convinced that this is a keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, very good. While you weighed in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erika_Grey, another article on the chopping block, I notice you didn't vote. Since your last comment there, much discussion, especially pro, but also con, has ensued & developed. Do you think you could take another look and weigh in some more? It's been relisted. Moreover, the article is more solid since some recent edits to Erika Grey. Thanks.96.59.129.57 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As per Peterkingiron (talk) who mentions his oversight, but I'd add, the fact his father is notable is a very strong argument for keeping. (Not that having a 'notable' father, alone, is sufficient, but it helps.96.59.169.231 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I add that I just looked at article: "a total membership of over three million." VERY notable, even if for no other reason.96.59.169.231 (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added a few of the major South African papers that covered him. A number of articles during this tenure, teh church was a big deal and campaigning politicians used to stop by, producing article that describe the Church's scale and buildings. When he died, there was a battle over who would run the church; involving a son, Modise's two rival wives, and thousands of people mobbing courts where some aspect of teh church's afairs were being settled. Also a good deal of violence. It would be nice if someone felt equal to the challenge of producing a good article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 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 no consensus. As concerns WER v REW, at least in the present, improved state. There's however consensus to merge Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd into WER v REW. Sandstein 11:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WER v REW

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

Insignificant legal case for non-notable person. Only sources are Popbitch (a primary source as original party to the super injunction) and Society of Editors - a niche website of specialised interest. Article is unlikely to ever pass GNG. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for approx the same reason. Not going to pass GNG, insignificant legal case of non-notable subject:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per O Fortuna. Please also note O Fortuna's other recent edits to the article. (addition 12:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC))~~Delete~~. I did leave a note on the talk pages of a bunch of articles like this to notify the creator/maintainer of those article, DanielJCooper that many are likely to end up here. I also posted a note at WikiProject Law to see if anyone there thinks these articles need to be saved. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was shocked that anyone would think something this far under the public-consciousness radar would warrant an article to begin with. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need to list every law case in the UK, especially ones where there will never be enough detail to bring it beyond a totally uninformative stub. If the person concerned was notable, and mentioning the case would pass BLP concerns, it could perhaps merit a brief reference on their page - but they're not of course. Alternatively, it could be referred to in the broader page about superinjunctions or privacy injunctions - which it already is. So this can go. N-HH talk/edits 12:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a no-brainer of there ever was one. Do I feel snow in the air? Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Hutcheson v News Group Newspapers Ltd into WER v REW. The case had ~~significant~~ implications in English case-law and has been discussed regularly, in reliable sources, since; but they are effectively the same case, so no need for two distinct articles. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 11:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Thank you for commenting and explaining! I will change my !vote. I hope you respond to my post at WikiProject Law about the other similar "Super Injuctions" that have equally weak RS at this time. Daniel said they are stubs, so maybe there is RS for them also. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what are the "significant implications" for English case law? They may well exist, but I'm not aware of any, and there's nothing in this comment or the article in question to explain what they are. The only reason AFAIK that the case was discussed at all in the media was because there was a vague link to an actual notable person, which led to a bit of tabloid interest. I'm still not clear that either page is needed or justified. N-HH talk/edits 12:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ps: OK, I see that page was expanded since I last looked. Please see comments here on that (placed there as probably too detailed for this AfD page). N-HH talk/edits 12:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to above: as far as legal decisions go it really was not significant. It set no new precedent, just being an interpretation of existing law. It wasnt relevant in the wider issue of super-injunctions (cases such as the Trafig toxic dumping etc having the real meat in the area), and arguably it would not have raised a blip if it wasnt for the relationship to a much more famous non-party. A person with no celebrity connection wouldnt have made the press except as a passing mention in a law review. The key quote is the final one from the Guardian: "a further setback to the power of privacy orders to restrict reporting". Emphasis mine, this was just another in a line of super-injunction related cases at the time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It now passes the WP:GNG, having been covered in multiple, third party, reliable, independent sources, with both depth and persistence of coverage. The issues raised in the nomination have been addressed, in so far that the notability of.one of the parties is less than the other, and the sourcing has been improved. About 500%, in numbers :) ...Whiiiich the article did not when it was nominated. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 16:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Notabilty (now established) for its superinjunction status rather than notability of parties. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:26, 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 no consensus. Bordering on "keep", but the outcome is the same: the article is kept, at least for now. Opinions are divided about whether the coverage is sufficient for an article, and this is something editors can in good faith disagree about. Sandstein 11:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Benjamin

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

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

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

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

Previously deleted in 2016. Its sources are all passing mentions of Benjamin's online role as an Internet troll and minor role in Gamergate. Only source with some semblance of depth is this article in The Sunday Times, which covers a "trolling campaign" of his. At best, this is BLP1E, and at worst, this is a minor figure with no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) (By the way, the easiest way to tell that Heat Street is unreliable is to find this page when looking for its editorial credentials. Reliability is about editorial pedigree and reputation for fact-checking.) czar 01:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by your claim that the Heat Street contact us page shows evidence that this is an unreliable source. Can you explain further? (full disclosure: I am an occasional Heat Street contributor.) Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor I usually work under is The Washington Post's former video director, btw. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the absence of an editorial policy, the absence of a reputation for reliability and fact-checking, and I only mentioned it as acknowledgement of the biography's talk page discussion. If you want to discuss further, the best venue for your question is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where, for instance, a current thread addresses Heat Street by name. czar 08:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't common practice for online-only publications to list their editorial policy on the mast head. Not publishing an editorial policy is not the same as not having one. Still don't get how this is relevant. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Schierbecker It is mainly relevant because if Heat Street had a written editorial policy, it would likely be considered a reliable source (rather than a marginal one). If Heat Street could be considered a reliable source in this article then the notability of this subject wouldn't be in question. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Benjamin meets Wikipedia's notability policy for entertainers by a good margin. His videos have 136 million views (plus another 12 million on this channel). The sources don't just show popularity, but that Sargon is a global political force. A Los Angeles Times reporter calls him a "provocative cultural commentator." BuzzFeed calls Benjamin and Paul Joseph Watson "prolific political-correctness watchdogs." Heat Street calls him a "resoundingly popular anti-PC YouTuber". Another source not mentioned in the article, and also surely not a passing mention: Sargon on The Rubin Report. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It says on your user page that you're a reporter for Heat Street. Isn't that a conflict issue if you're using sources of a publication you're part of for an article you made? GamerPro64 04:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I acknowledged my affiliation above. No, it really isn't a conflict to vouch for the verifiability of your own outlet. You can even cite yourself "within reason" per Wikipedia policy. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are looking for conflicts you may want to focus on my interview with Sargon last year. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't notice the disclosure at the top. Also, looking through Google News there is an article about Sargon's game from Siliconera that can be useful. Also saw a piece about him on Gizmodo recently but am not sure its appropriate for the article. GamerPro64 05:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable person. Youtube views & videos are not sufficient for establishing notability if he has not achieved consistent, significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and I don't see much having changed with the article from when it was first deleted. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if we use the most rigid definition of WP:RS, then this person is covered by TeleSUR,^[1] the Los Angeles Times and the Sunday Times. I've seen worse coverage in failed AfDs. Maybe we should reinsert the TeleSUR-part to show that mr. Benjamin/Akkad got significant non-trivial coverage.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned by name once in an article, especially for the same event, is not significant coverage. Don't see how you can write a biography with solely passing mentions, the LA Times opinion piece, and the Sunday Times mentioned in the nom czar 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the coverage is sufficient to make an article of it. But that is my opinion. I wonder what the administrators think of it.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources here to demonstrate notability. It might be marginal but its there; how about this article in Vice that has some significant coverage [18]? 2016 might have been too soon, but it doesn't seem like it is too soon any more. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Linked that specific article in the nom as a passing mention czar 16:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it more than a passing mention IMO. The article isn't just about him, true, but mentions him 6 times in total and of those discussed in the article, he gets the most coverage. Again, as I said, it is marginal, but it is there. Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I don't see the point in deleting articles like these (marginally notable bios where a fanbase really, really, wants an article). If we don't have an article there will be constant creations of poor quality submissions that will either end up at AfD or if the page is create-protected will end up wasting loads of time over at AfC. Also you can end up in a situation like over at Paul Joseph Watson where the page was deleted numerous times, create protected, and then even after the subject did get significant coverage, the article languished as a draft because of creation protection. Better to have a short stub on the topic that is decently written and can be improved. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP policy is to delete articles on topics that haven't received significant coverage. All fans can do in that model is lobby for more coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog of sensational headlines. czar 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I said 'marginally notable' not non-notable. To be clear I believe there is significant coverage here, but it is not overwhelmingly obvious. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- coverage are passing mentions or otherwise not suitable for meeting SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a collection of fan pages. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; What about these episodes on The Rubin Report where Carl has been interviewed at depth multiple times by Dave Rubin? episode 21 and episode 58. ~~These seem to easily satisfy the reliability criteria on their own as in-depth coverage of the topic.~~ Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added these sources to the article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent of the subject, and are not sufficient for establishing notability, per WP:BASIC. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a fair point. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a well known person: [19](Gizmodo) [20] (Huffington Post) [21] (Breitbart). These sources havn't been mentioned yet, and all mention the subject in decent detail. I think he passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unlike fellow Youtuber Paul Joseph Watson, who has received significant coverage for the Sweden/Tim Pool offer, Sargon doesn't seem to be notable yet, even though he has a dedicated fanbase that is growing. But fanbase or number of followers don't establish notability, and most of the coverage in RS are indeed passing mentions, with only some blog entries discussing him in more detail. And per Grayfell, an interview in The Rubin Report doesn't establish notability. κατάστασ η 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [[22]} this source from the huffington post AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above reasonings. --Aleccat 03:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PeterTheFourth. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at [[23]} this source from the huffington post AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already used as a source with "The Good Men Project". GamerPro64 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --NoGhost (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is up with all the votes from newish contributors? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politically charged or contentious AfDs are just like that, they tend to pull a bunch of people out of the woodwork (both for and against). The argument for deletion of this article really depends on how you define 'passing mentions' (is an article that is 1/3 about the subject a 'passing mention'?--IMO it is not). To say that this subject is not notable also requires completely dismissing Heat Street coverage. Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about 'Heat Street'. People who are voting delete seem to be dismissing Heat Street as an unreliable source, despite a body of evidence that indicates that Heat Street issues retractions [24] (issuing retractions is a sign of a reliable source). 2: that they are taken seriously as a journalistic source by the white house and other news outlets: [25], [26], [27], [28]. as well as being taken seriously as a journalistic source by Factcheck.org [29].

Heatstreet alone has enough coverage of Benjamin to easily establish GNG [30], [31]. and there seems to be a body of evidence to establish that Heatstreet has a reputation as a reliable source among other reliable sources. Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sargon of Akkad has been covered by sources other than Heat Street such as The Los Angeles Times and Daily Dot (which are already included in the article). Sargon also had a passing mention in Crave Online where he interviewed wth Jontron. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I honestly don't believe there's any real reason to delete the article. Even if the articles are in passing of Sargon, there's still information about him that can be used. Granted it'll end up as a weak article but still shows notability about the YouTuber. GamerPro64 05:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage of the subject that is between passing mentions and substantial coverage, including ones that put him as one of the most prominent members of the right-wing Youtuber movement, that WP:BASIC is met. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He gets enough views on his youtube videos to merit a celebrated status. netcowboy 04:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that netcowboy has made very few edits and this is his first edit since 2008. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - He is a notable and influential youtuber who has been referenced by multiple media sources and politicians.Andres rojas22 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres rojas22: Sorry- which politicians have referenced him? PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Phillips (politician)Andres rojas22 (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andres rojas22: When and where? Would you be able to provide proof? Which additional politician(s) do you suppose referenced him (given that you used the plural form)? PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is what Andres rojas22 is referring to. however, Jess Philips does not mention him by name in the article, but does refer to his actions, and the tweets she received from others as a result of his comment "I wouldn't even rape you." This particular article by Phillips doesn't contribute to Benjamin's notability (though the coverage of the same incident in the Sunday Times does). Insert CleverPhrase Here 00:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Benjamin himself talked about this article in this video. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It is too soon for an article that would cover Benjamin encyclopedically. I am not convinced that the depth of coverage is substantial enough for a BLP, given that it consists almost exclusively of short opinion pieces and trivial mentions. Most of these are already included in the article itself or are discussed above, and I found no other substantial coverage after a thorough search. The opinion pieces (like the articles in the Los Angeles Times, telesur, and the Huffington Post, which is republished at the Good Men Project) comprise the most substantial portion of this article's sourcing, and while they are useful additions to an article in representing the spectrum of opinion, they are rarely reliable for statements of fact. I am extremely skeptical of counting Heat Street as an RS–it does not make any attempt to distinguish its mostly satirical opinion commentary (e.g. "American Values Under Attack: Link Is Transgender for 10 Minutes in New ‘Zelda’ Game", "Why Tracer Being Gay Is Offensive to Otherkin Like Me") from actual journalism. User:Insertcleverphrasehere proposed that it is taken seriously as a journalistic source by several outlets, but this seems to be largely a misrepresentation of their positions: the articles all indicate the media "takes Heat Street seriously" in the sense that they were important to the administration's wiretapping story, but they do not characterize its work as serious journalism; even the most avid followers of Mensch's reporting described in the articles, like Spayd, couch their praise with "I have no idea whether it's true or not". This indicates, if anything, a poor reputation; as mentioned by Czar before, the lack of a written editorial policy only furthers this. Other available sourcing is far too trivial (see one-sentence mention in Salon, the one-sentence scattered, brief, mentions on Buzzfeed News, a few short sentences in The Daily Dot, a tangential mention in VICE which devotes a short paragraph to the Jess Phillips incident and little more, etc.) The most substantial piece of journalism, this Times article, is much better contextualized in the Jess Phillips article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have inserted this from Inside Higher Ed, which is not enough for a Wikipedia-article in itself, but combined with all other references, I think it contributes to establish the notability of mr. Benjamin.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There is enough coverage on him in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. REEEEEbbon Salminen(talk) 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – very high profile on YouTube (> 150 million views) and set to get bigger. Cited by numerous bloggers as an influence. Jprw (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear closer, a link in which the subject himself expounds on the inaccuracies and incompleteness of the article. After well-attended AfD, it should be an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic. czar 18:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the inaccuracies he described were minor (and have been fixed), and he concluded by saying that the article was a fair representation of him, including both criticism and counterpoints. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the inaccuracies mentioned by Benjamin were: a) year of birth and b) the year Sargon became active on Youtube. Both have been fixed. For the rest, mr. Benjamin said, in the description of his video: “And...it's not bad. Way better than the GamerGate one,” and in the vid itself: “There is nothing I object to,(4:49)” I fail to grasp how this could be “an indication that the sourcing does not exist to do justice to the topic.”Jeff5102 (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Clearly notable per N, being a known public figure with millions of views and news mentions. Although I can already see the wave after wave of inevitable edit-warring... -- Director (talk) 15:43, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiuddin Ahmed

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

The sources cited are his obituary, a similar short piece on an anniversary of his death, and a couple duplicative passing mentions. There is also a book, but no indication that it covers him. It is used only to support the name change of a student group.

From these sources we learn that he was acting president of a student political group. On its own, that is not enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. We also learn that he was arrested for actively participating in the 1952 Language Movement, took part in the 1962 education movement, and fought for Bangladesh's independence during the Liberation War of 1971. Participating in those events would not be unusual for someone of his age at the time. There is very little detail about the form of his participation, other than that in one case he was at the forefront of a procession.

Mohiuddin Ahmed is a common name, which complicates searches. Several were active in the 1960s and 1970s, among them politicians, diplomats, military officers, and others, but I found nothing to connect them to this student leader. The article asserts that he joined the National Awami Party (NAP), but cites no source. If a source could be produced to show that this Mohiuddin Ahmed was important in a registered political party, I might be persuaded to change my recommendation.

I'm sympathetic to the fact that the peak of his career was in the pre-internet age, but there are enough newspaper databases and books online that I could find information about other Mohiuddin Ahmeds of the period, and about people who were definitely leading figures, but nothing about him until after his death, and nothing more than what the article cites. Searching by his "popularly known as" Bengali name returned no reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Weak delete - the best I can do is say that Muhith 2008 says that a Mohiuddin Ahmed who was a leftist student leader went on a hungers trike with Sheikh Mujib (a founding father of Bangladesh) while in jail in 1952, and the two became friends. I don't think it is a leap to say this is the same Mohiuddin as the subject of this article. The connection to Sheikh Mujib, I think, is evidence that this Mohiuddin is the same who is mentioned as a leader in the NAP in google books snippet results (see https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=%28"Mohiuddin+Ahmad"+OR+"Mohiuddin+Ahmed"%29+"National+Awami+Party"). Coupled with the 12th anniversary of his death being memorialized (UNB story from 2012), I think this person makes a suitable inclusion in wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts. Do you have the book you cited, or were you working from Google's snippet view? Be cautious about connecting Mohiuddin Ahmeds. A Mohiuddin Ahmed from Mathbaria, an Awami League leader, joined Mujib in Pirojpur in 1956.[32] A Mohiuddin Ahmed, a member of Mujib's Awami League, was elected Member of Parliament in 1973 from constituency Pabna-5.[33] A Mohiuddin Ahmed was a minister in Mujib's government after Mujib dissolved all political parties and formed BAKSAL.[34] A Mohiuddin Ahmed, a Language Movement veteran and 1971 Liberation War organiser, died on 12 April 1997.[35] And because of the nature of politics at the time, being a leftist student leader is not a good disambiguator.
- Something to be aware of is that Joyshurjo, the creator of the Wikipedia article, also created articles about Mohiuddin 's wife (Raihan Akhter Banu Roni) and their son (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziauddin Ahmed (Joy)). It's a good bet that Joyshurjo has a family connection, and would have known of and mentioned anything as significant as Mohiuddin being an intimate of Mujib's, a Member of Parliament, or a cabinet minister. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could have guessed, even if I hadn't noticed, that the creator of the page would likely have a personal connection with the subject of the page. I didn't notice just how many Mohiuddin Ahmed's there are, three in the list of members of Bangladesh's first parliament. Given that many Language Movement members were arrested and imprisoned at that time, and there are certainly a number of people with this name involved in Bangladeshi politics, I guess I can't be so sure that this Mohiuddin was the one whom Sheikh Mujib met in prison. I've removed that addition from the page and changed my !vote. Sometimes a page like this will be coupled with a facebook page or something like that that can have more information. A search of likely terms in English and Bengali (my Hindu is bad, my Bengali non-existant, but I can read a name with enough time/help) doesn't seem to find anything. Nor does using google's similar image search [36]). Also, I didn't remember, but now do note that the celebration of the 12th anniversary of an individual's death is somewhat special, I think, so that announcement may be more passing than it seems. I would, of course, consider changing my !vote again. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find in-depth sourcing to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 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 redirect to Republic of Serbian Krajina. There's consensus not to have an article. There's no clear consensus where to redirect or whether to merge what where to, but this can be figured out through the editorial process subsequently. Sandstein 11:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Republic of Serbian Krajina

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

The page contains information redundant from Republic of Serbian Krajina and Flag of Serbs of Croatia. May be merged with one of the articles or deleted. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see anything relevant that is not already in the linked articles. --T*U (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Republic of Serbian Krajina There is minimal content here, but whatever does exist should be merged and redirected to the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 17:59, 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) 04:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flag of Serbs of Croatia. People searching for this would be looking for information on the flag, not the political entity. It's very easy to navigate from the flag article to the political entity article anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Serbian flags. Flag of Serbs of Croatia is not the best target, as the use and particularly the background of these flags are quite different. GregorB (talk) 15:44, 22 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 redirect to Airport_West,_Victoria#Commerce. Clear consensus to not keep as a standalone, the only question is delete vs redirect. Deletes win the headcount, but redirect makes sense per WP:ATD so going with that. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Airport West

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews reveals run of the mill coverage. the centre is relatively small sized for an Australian centre. 2 of the 3 sources in the article are primary. those arguing for keep should not use the weak argument or how about other Westfields?. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Airport West, Victoria § Commerce per WP:ATD-R. After a few brief searches, not finding enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, this is a valid search term, and the redirect target already has some content about this shopping centre. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar. Non notable mall, and being a Westfield mall does not assume notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per User:Northamerica1000. Nothing but the usual run of the mill commercial pages coverage, and not so much detail it can't be adequately covered in the locality article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 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) 04:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is awkward. The article is now (by coincidence) also being discussed a part of a class at the batch nom Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Innaloo (2nd nomination). Whether that discussion now supersedes this one, or vice versa, or something else... I'm not sure how this should be handled. "Ignore that other discussion" would be defensible, but so so would "close this as moot and see what that other discussion decides". Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot due to this being resolved in the broader discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no. That discussion has been closed as an inappropriate AfD. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the bulk nomination as it was out of process. I don't see any barrier to this nomination proceeding. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. insufficient evidence of notability -- in practice the level at which we usually keep is 100,000 sq meters, and this is only half that DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marly Sarney

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

AfDing this as WP:NOTINHERITED since I have a feeling a speedy will be contested. TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 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) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The spouse of a nation's executive are usually kept. In addition, the Portuguese Wikipedia entry is much more complete and includes numerous references. --Enos733 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly, there is no way WP:CSD would ever be appropriate in this case. SPEEDY is for cases where an article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". WP:A7 states "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". Can anyone imagine nominating Michelle Obama for speedy deletion? Keep per the above. AusLondonder (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I see refs during a cursory search.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please note that WP:NOTINHERITED contains the proviso that it "does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." The article definitely needs improvement, so it should be flagged for needing additional references, but per above commenters there is evidence out there that stronger sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 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 redirect to Family Guy (season 15)#Episodes. Arguments such as "there is a Wikipedia article for every episode of the series" fall into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is a not a valid argument at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cop and a Half-wit

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

Could be a redirect to the series, but no indication of stand-alone notability regarding this particular episode. Was a redirect, which was reversed, but almost solely consists of a plot summary. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the article needs work, but there is a Wikipedia article for every episode of the series. There's no need to delete this page when 1) the article can be improved and 2) a redirect would be the most appropriate course of action IF a standalone article were deemed inappropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. I am agreeing with Another Believer on this one. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The parent structure Category:Family Guy episodes includes 300-odd articles. This is an episode that aired two days ago and every reason exists to assume that this article will be expanded and sourced to match the hundreds of other such episode articles. Alansohn (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see why we have to have an article for every single episode of a show. The articles for this and the previous season lack a significant amount of independent reviews/coverage and are basically just plot summaries with one or two reviews mentioned. If enough meaningful content can be added like Road to the North Pole, it can be re-created.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 22:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15)#Episodes. Most every one of these episode articles have only plots. This isn't a case of "wait and see" for expansion. Articles should be researched before creation, especially episode articles which have become plot dumps of late. — Wylie pedia 16:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 15)#Episodes per CAWylie, or delete. Individual episodes are subject to the same notability guidelines that everything else is. There is no reason for us to have hundreds of articles on each individual episode of Family Guy, unless there has been significant critical or media coverage of an episode for some reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Wyliepedia. We need to start looking at FG articles much more closely as the show gets older and new episode articles have now now declined into 'type what I see' plotline reviews that the most rudimentary recap site would reject, a cite to the plot from Fox PR, followed by an episode grade from some random site (usually IGN, a gaming site, and even that's now getting the dreaded 'expand section' tag for newer episodes, meaning we're it for a synopsis on the web outside of fansites, which should not be where we are). Nate • (chatter) 14:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It is a plot-only episode summary. There is nothing that shows this specific episode has any independent notability, as the only sources are generally just plot synopsis that do not go into any non-plot discussion. The fact that there are articles are other FG articles is meaningless if this particular one does not meet the notability standards. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are folks actually searching for sources before commenting on the lack of sources? We should not merge/delete this article if has potential to grow, just because the article is currently incomplete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't answer for anybody else, but I did, and, as I said, could find nothing but plot synopsis. I have yet to find any reviews on the episode from any notable sources, nor any information saying anything meaningful about the development of this particular episode. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did (and have for most of these articles that have come to AfD); We've got under 60 G-hits under the episode title + review; without the 'review' appendage we have this article as #3, then Family Guy wiki and its IMDb entry, then TV.com before we decline to 'buy this episode', 'watch on Fox or Hulu.com' or 'stream this episode illegally and obliterate your PC through spyware' links. There is no there there; it's an average episode of an animated sitcom. The reason this lethargy still exists is that in the past multiple TV sites were hiring people to recap anything with a 22-minute plot on a screen so sources are plentiful, but since 2015 when AV Club decided to cull down to high-hit reviews and other sites did the same, these episodes somehow still get articles because of the past, even though it's just IGN and some site called 'BubbleBlabbers' reviewing it at this point in just 'acknowledge and move on' style. Enough is enough; this isn't going to grow, become a classic episode or be mentioned again beyond season reviews. This isn't the Wikipedia of 2007 and its time to be more judicious about what shows deserve episode articles or not at this point. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I like Family Guy, but see no reason why every episode should have an article, especially if they are simply going to be all plot as most of the current season 15 episode articles are. Dunarc (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 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 keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Jones II

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

Unprodded without rationale. Fails WP:NCOLLATH, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 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) 04:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 1,000 yard rusher and Rose Bowl championship as a sophomore for USC in 2016. Going into his junior year in the fall of 2017. Passes WP:GNG by having received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. See, e.g., (1) this, (2) this, and (3) this from Los Angeles Times, (4) this and (5) this from ESPN.com, (6) this from The Oklahoman, (7) this from McKinney Courier-Gazette, (8) this, (9) this, and (10) this from Los Angeles Daily News, and (11) this from the Orange County Register. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. RCFrance (talk) 23:02, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Per concerns herein about the article needing copy editing, I have added the {{cleanup afd}} template atop the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Markandeya

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

Non Notable run of the mill advocate Uncletomwood (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a lot of puffery and irrelevancies which are enough to obscure actual claims to notability. This includes involvement in some major human rights cases before the Supreme Court of India, backed up by references in WP:RS. That seems notable under the WP:GNG and likewise fits under Bearian's Attorney notability essay.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim down. Thanks for the note, Eggishorn. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should be the one thanking you for that essay. It is a valuable resource. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I trimmed it some. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject with lots of citations to support this notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:00, 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) 04:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DailyER

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

Usually college media needs years to work up notability. This one is nine years old and almost all the references are passing mentions. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 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) 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes V, NPOV, NOR, has decent coverage in the Lincoln Journal Star, would not really fit at the Daily Nebraskan or UNL articles so no good merge destination. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lee, Melissa (2007-12-05). "Students eager to start satire newspaper". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
2. Dunker, Chris (2015-03-29). "UNL students will keep funding satirical newspaper". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
3. Lee, Melissa (2007-12-13). "UNL board OKs satire newspaper". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
4. Mertes, Micah (2009-08-18). "Omaha concert to benefit UNL's DailyER Nebraskan". Lincoln Journal Star. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
5. Klein, Jamie (2007-11-14). "Students aim to put comic spin on news in new publication". The Daily Nebraskan. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The DailyER to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Appears to meet WP:GNG per the sources listed above by Cunard. Unfortunately, I cannot access most of the sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 5 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Security Group

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

No significant independent sources. Most (all ?) are own web-site and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is listed twice - here and 2 steps down... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails SIGCOV. Advertorial, with strongly suspected COI from creator and the 2 IPs, all of which have only edited this article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded the article early last month as "not notable", and that still holds true due to the lack of independent and reliable sources. Schwede 66 08:53, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine School Sultanate of Oman

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

Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Wholly uncited original research. A bit of the promotional material was deleted back in November, but then more was added after that. Way too much commentary and NPOV material. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 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) 04:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over. Comment. This might be notable (and perhaps unique) as a Filipino school in Oman, but the article needs to state its sources. That's a lot of text with not a single citation. I think it's up to JCGDIMAIWAT (and anyone who wants to help) to find references, otherwise it must be deleted by WP policy WP:OR. ~~My delete vote is because~~ it's been over a week with no progress on WP:V. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. Does have a source. Quality of the article is irrelevant to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this "source"? It seems to me that the article needs to be completely rewritten with "reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented" per WP:OR. This requires someone willing to expend the time and effort. I looked for info online, found very little, so more research is required for WP:V. Verifiability doesn't merely mean that the school probably exists, it "means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." As is, the article fails core content policies. I've added the references that I found, but I can't tell if the school is notable with this small amount of verifiable information. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is not cleanup! We do not bring articles here if they need to be rewritten, only if they are not on notable topics. As for sourcing, the school's website is a source, so claiming it is unsourced is completely untrue. It may be poorly sourced, but that is not the same thing. There is obviously enough here for a stub, even if the rest of the article needs to be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unsourced. If someone wants to put the work in and can demonstrate that this school has been the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then I could support recreation, but this isn't the place for original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I cited some of the information, and removed a section that seemed entirely unverifiable and non-notable original research. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. afairly good article , with enough sources to show both existence and importance. We almost always keep secondary schools with a real existence, and there is no reason why this one should be an exception DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caution and comment: please note that Google warns that the school website address listed in the article has been hacked. If the article is kept (as it probably should be), appropriate edits should be made. Sources about this school can be found on HighBeam (which collects some years of the Times of Oman and some other ~~UAE~~ regional newspapers) and GNews. "Philippine School celebrates 20th anniversary in style" has substantial content about the school's history and is already cited. Other news coverage more typical for high schools includes "Philippine School Oman Girls Clinch Muscat Secondary Schools League Volleyball Title", "His Majesty Sultan Qaboos' Official Website in Filipino","‘I Love the Sultan Campaign’ at Philippine School in Oman", etc.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos. Clearly meets GNG whatever your opinion of secondary schools is. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 4 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. 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[37]. 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 [38] (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 [39], [40], [41], [42]. 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,[43] and the "new queen of the breakup album",[44], Mai has released multiple EPs[45] and has appeared repeatedly on Billboard top charts: #20 on Billboard R&B Albums,[46] #8 on Billboard Heatseekser charts,[47] #38 on Billboard top R&B/Hip Hop albums,[48] and others. Here's her Billboard biography,[49] and some other significant coverages:[50][51][52][53]. 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 [54] 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. [55] 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

AfDs for this article:

(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 [56] and the fact they do not appear on the league's page here [57]. 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.

^ Gentlemen, It's Time We Had a Serious Talk; by Rich Penney; 1 June 2016;Telesur

[1] Gentlemen, It's Time We Had a Serious Talk; by Rich Penney; 1 June 2016;Telesur

[1]