Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 August	29 August >

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. czar 13:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Ramgir

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

No demonstration of real notability. Doubtful notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, his two books appear to be self-published, Unbarred held in only one library according to WorldCat which is curious as it has 3 book awards: International Book Awards Readers Favorite, 2016 Northern California Book Festival Honor, 5th Annual Beverly Hills International Book Awards runner up (although none of these have wikiarticles so maybe not:)), Evolve Like a Butterfly is not held by any so WP:AUTHOR is not looking good. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:01, 12 September 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 speedy delete. Essentially a copyvio of their web page -- this really should have been checked before nominating DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisconsin Center for Academically Talented Youth

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

Fails WP:NORG. Also has WP:PROMO undertones. DrStrauss talk 22:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 28 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trouvère Quartet

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

Fails WP:NBAND. DrStrauss talk 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional search links in Japanese: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) The Google News search, in particular, offers some promise, though I'm unfamiliar with Japanese so I don't have a solid opinion at this time. Mz7 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Reinmann

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

WP:BLP1E. Article was created only as a result of subject's criminal record; was not notable prior to that. Article in native Estonian language has been deleted since January 17, 2009. Article is an orphan. Former member of Tallinn City Council. We have no article about that elected body. wbm1058 (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Tallinn is a large and prominent enough city that its councillors might pass WP:NPOL if they could be properly sourced and substanced, there's no content here at all about anything but the criminal charges themselves. And, in fact, all but one of the reference links deadlink back to the publication's front splash page, making it impossible to properly verify whether they cover him in any other context, or just address the criminal allegations. Which makes this a WP:BLP1E, as well as a WP:PERP violation: criminal charges are not in and of themselves grounds for an article, if there's no other substantive claim of notability being made at all. And if even the Estonian Wikipedia can't be arsed to keep an article about an Estonian politician, there's no compelling reason for the English one to do so either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source something better — i.e. less unbalanced — than this. We're an encyclopedia, not a public "name and shame" board for everybody who ever did something illegal. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 29 August 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. So Why 10:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucerne International Music Ensemble

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

There are few independent, reliable sources that confer music group notability available. Content is sparse and if such sources were available I doubt that the article could become more than a mere directory entry. DrStrauss talk 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any media coverage or even any performance schedules. There's actually no indication that I can find suggesting this organization even exists anymore. Fails WP:RS TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Delete because my searching didn't find anything to establish WP:N. Weak because I didn't put as much effort into the searching as it really deserves. Mostly, I wanted to comment about There's actually no indication that I can find suggesting this organization even exists anymore, above. Whether it still exists or not isn't a factor in determining WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I know that - I'm just making the point in context that there's nothing about it now, but also likely nothing to appear any time soon. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:45, 5 September 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 Dennis the Menace and Gnasher#Television and video. Consensus is not to keep the article as a standalone at this point with the lack of sourcing. Redirect to above target; content is in the history for anyone who wishes to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beano's Dennis the Menace and Gnasher Show

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

I can't find sources to establish notability. ~ GB fan 22:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an obscure British BBC TV program, that is likely to be commissioned by the Beeb. Quite a lot of these older children's program don't have listings. They are put on, tried out and if not successful, forgotten about. That doesn't mean notability isn't inherent. There 10,000s of these types of articles floating around WP, and until notability is established. I suggest keep for the moment. scope_creep (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't inherent. We need to establish that this is a notable program. This isn't done by claiming it is "likely to be commissioned by the Beeb" or that there are other articles like this one. It is done by showing there is significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ GB fan 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was created in February 2017. If notability hasn't been proven yet, it won't be. Also just because other similar stuff exists, it doesn't "inherently" mean this should. — Wylie pedia 02:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree there is a problem with sources for this article. For instance my memory might be playing tricks, but I don't recall this being shown on CITV or any terrestrial broadcaster. I do vaguely remember the Beano plugging a Dennis series on the Children's Channel c 1990. The thing is if this series is as the article describes it should be notable in that it is the first TV series to feature this well known comic character. Unfortunately, the only reference I can find other than this article and IMDB comes in a Dennis the Menace collection from c 2012 which mentions there was a puppet series based on the character (which I assume is this one). I don't have the history of the Beano that was produced in 2008 but, it might be worth seeing if there is coverage in it. Dunarc (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously? We don't keep articles around because no one's found sources about them yet. We delete articles because no one's found sources about them yet. If there are other articles kicking around without reliable sources, Scope creep, let us know so we can AfD their sorry asses too! Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't entirely - we do allow tolerance for historical topics that pre-date the web. For example, you'll find very little about Geoff Unwin online, but I know he regularly appeared in (paper based) news columns in the early to mid 1960s. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm struggling to find anything beyond Logan Murray's personal website, but practically every kid's TV show has been bootlegged onto YouTube, and this search brings up a few episodes, proving it's real and meets WP:TVSHOW. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dennis the Menace and Gnasher#Television and video. No significant standalone coverage to suggest this was anything but a below the radar, short lived project, and would better meet the notability goals of the encyclopedia if the content was integrated into the aforementioned main article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, if confirmed - not enough here for an article. Artw (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Deffo not on CITV during this period; nothing comes up in newspaper listings. The Guardian does indeed list the series which I assume this is on the Children's Channel from November 1990. A CBBC series involving the character began in April 1996. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is way to short to convince me that anyone put any effort into making it, since I cant find any sources for it, and others have searched in vain finding no evidence it was shown on TV when the article says, its a fairly obvious candidate for deletion. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 12:53, 12 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PeerWeb

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

Fails website notability guidelines. DrStrauss talk 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable web forum. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 5 September 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 sounds like it might be possible to write a new version of this, but it would need better sourcing and more objective inclusion criteria (which, in turn, would imply a new title). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of the longest gaps between film sequels

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

This list is 100% original research. There are two sources cited in the article: One is the main page for an entertainment site (which may have said something about one of the films in question at some point in the past, but I cannot find anything relevant now. (The source is cited for the note that the entry on the list apparently should not be on the list: "Despite its title, the film is not a sequel to Aashiqui, and the only similarity is that 'both are music-based romantic films'.") The other discusses the Mary Poppins sequel, but does not mention the unusually large gap.

Searching the 'net, I find several sources discussing lengthy gaps between original and sequel (TRON, Blade Runner, Star Wars, etc.), but none claiming to be THE longest gap or a list of the longest gaps.

How do we know Bambi is the champ in this category? We don't. All we know is that someone added it here and no one has proposed anything with a longer gap.

Several of the films currently listed use spin-offs, prequels, made for TV and direct to video films. Several use "unofficial" sequels, such as the Wizard of Oz where the proposed sequel is not related to the original, the the book the second is based on is a sequel to the book the first is based on. Does that make "Raise the Titanic" a sequel to "A Night to Remember"?

With no source for determining what does and does not "count", I am left to wonder why a made for TV miniseries would count but a radio play, book, etc. wouldn't. If a TV show can be a sequel for a film, why isn't "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" a sequel to the original "Star Trek"?

Bottom line: Someone was intrigued by the idea that this article represents, but the sources simply do not exist to support an article. SummerPhD^v2.0 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-delayed sequels are a notable topic.[1][2][3][4][5] A list shouldn't be deleted just because the criteria are arguable or it may be hard to complete; these things can be debated or agreed through talk pages. And if you're worried about "longest" rename to "long". --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You seem to be suggesting that this should be an entirely different article. The current article claims to list the "longest" gaps: a discrete claim. The article you suggest is altogether different, as a casual look at your suggested sources confirms. Your first source, "PAJBA" seems to be a blog: no "about" page, no copyright notice. Its claim of the "longest" gaps jumps all over our list 1, 7, 32, 31, 39, 62, 115, 70...

Your second source puts "The Best Man" first on its list. Ours has it at #162. Next is #132, 136, 96, 70...

Source #3 doesn't claim to list the "longest", giving a list of 6 "long delayed" sequels.

Source #4 is the "most absurd gaps". There third gap in this list of sequels is Star War VI to Star Wars I, a sixth degree prequel.

5 doesn't give a list or claims of the "longest", but is an article about the concept of sequels after decades have passed.

The three of your sources give us a hodgepodge of long delayed sequels that we would probably package in a list format to make it look like a countdown of the longest, similar to if we change List of films considered the worst into List of films that weren't good or wrote List of businesses that made a lot of money.

There might be material to write about Long delayed film sequels, if we can resist the urge to claim we have created a definitive list. To the extent that reliable sources discuss prequels, made for TV and direct to video, we can do the same. We might even find sources tying the distant cousin films. We do not, however, have a verifiable list of the top ten (or 20, or 200...) longest gaps. We also don't have objective, sourced criteria for a list of long delays. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sympathetic to the nom here. This is a loosey-goosey definition very badly compromised by a near-complete lack of sources. Who says that there weren't any "sequels" between Film X and film X2? Define "sequel" -- do we include films in canon? Fan films? Have foreign sources been scoured? Is a "film franchise" a unitary thing, and the sequel has to be made by the rights holder of the first film? No ... I wouldn't even consider keeping such a list without 95%+ of the entries sourced, and it's more like 5%. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The whole thing is too open to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. MarnetteD|Talk 20:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just improve sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.129.128.40 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There don't seem to be reliable sources for a list like this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All it needs is strong criteria and maybe a name change. It appears to now use 10 years as the length. What counts as a "sequel", (Note, the lead does not use the term sequel, but "consecutive installments of a film franchise".) I think the list needs to be parred down. Most of the tv shows removed. If it is film franchise, the "films" should have either had a cinematic release or was shot with the intent to have a release. As for citations, all that is needed is to prove: the two films are in a franchise, there is no other film entry between them, when they were released, and they are films. Z gin der 2017-09-01T07:11:57Z

Comment - List of films produced with the intention to release them in theaters that are part of a franchise with no film in between them with a gap of 10 or more years is the reason we don't have List of United States legislators who are part of a family with a gap of 50 or more years between legislators. While we might have a source saying that Billy Smith is the first member of Congress in his family since his great-great-grandfather in 1840, we don't have sources discussing the topic. It might be worth including in the article about Billy, but we don't have sourced criteria for a list. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing we use a title like that. Many lists and articles are titled slightly wrong because, it a title that will get more searches. I think something along the lines of "List of long gaps between film sequels". Notice wikt:sequel includes the usage of a prequel or other film in a franchise. Z gin der 2017-09-02T02:34:13Z

The point: We do not have any sources discussing films produced with the intention to release them in theaters that are part of a franchise with no film in between them with a gap of 10 or more years. We have a handful of sources discussing "long gaps" between sequels. That their varying criteria are is not explained anywhere is not an invitation for us to create our own. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We only need sources for the dates of the films release, which for most of them is the same place. Z gin der 2017-09-03T11:09:06Z

List of tallest buildings and structures is encyclopedic and backed by reliable sources stating which structures are the tallest. This article currently aspires to mirror that, but fails as the sources simply do not exist. List of tall buildings and structures does not exist because "tall" is a vague, relative term (in my neighborhood 5 stories would be very tall, while it would be tiny in Manhattan). Dumping this article and starting a new List of films with long gaps between sequels echos that problem and invites us to create a topic out of thin air: 5, 10, 15 years? Sequels, prequels, spinoffs, soft-reboots, alternate universes? Theatrical release, direct-to-video, made for TV film/miniseries/series? Take your pick from each list and tell me why that version of the list is encyclopedic while other variations of the list are not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the lists in List of tallest buildings and structures appear to be mostly or completely unsourced. Yes, there is an official body, but the Wikipedia entry goes way beyond the "official" lists. Z gin der 2017-09-08T08:04:14Z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there any thoughts about how this list fits within our policies on lists?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:SYNTH. The concept of "sequel" here is hazy, subjective, and open to interpretation, for example Cinderella II is a direct to video movie with not nearly the same impact as the original Cinderella continues to have. Therefore this list doesn't have much encyclopedic value._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the concept of sequel possible. I think it is. This list needs love not deletion! Zginder 2017-09-08T07:33:17Z
  - I have removed all the direct to video and TV movies from the page. It seems to be the one thing that everyone for deleting and keeping agrees on. Z gin der 2017-09-10T03:05:25Z
Delete As per Zxcvbnm; SYNTH and LISTCRUFT. A simple "list of sequels made over 40 years after the original movie" would be better, but is unlikely to be notable either. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Compiling facts and information is not original research. It is what an encyclopedia is. Z gin der 2017-09-08T07:41:07Z
I came here thinking I would likely vote to keep this, but delete. Possibly merge some discussion of the longest gaps into Sequel, but only if they are well-sourced. bd2412 T 02:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide detail as to your reasoning?Zginder 2017-09-08T07:41:07Z
  - I do not find that the article demonstrates the proposition that the existence of a really long gap between sequels is a notable thing to document. A ten, twelve, fifteen year gap doesn't seem all that noteworthy, and there are no sources provided to explain what is considered to be a "long" gap; many of the entries are at least problematic. Also, is a story with a different set of characters set in the same fictional universe a "sequel"? Is a prequel a sequel? Is Superman Returns, with a completely different cast playing the same characters, properly called a "sequel" to Superman IV? There is no basis presented in reliable sources for delineating a list. bd2412 T 02:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As referenced early in the discussion and in the article lead, the word, "sequel", is not to be taken literally. It is shorthand for any additional film to a franchise except for remakes. I would also like to remind you that just because there are some questionable entries does not make the list deletable. If you have a problem with a listing, then remove it or bring it up on the talk page. Z gin der 2017-09-13T06:50:12Z

As also referenced earlier in the discussion, maybe the word should be taken literally. Or not. Or somewhere in between. Maybe we should include TV series and/or books/comics and/or miniseries and/or direct to video. Since no reliable sources discuss criteria, maybe anything goes. If you think Gravity is a sequel to Speed 2: Cruise Control, maybe we can create criteria that would allow that. You are suggesting we create a topic for which there are no reliable third-party sources. Having thus fully discarded WP:N and WP:V, we might as well create "List of yucky vegetables". - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personally I think some editors are overthinking it, and sources are not required (Its a list, go to the film's page and look at the date), but I do fail to see why this particular list should be included in an encyclopedia. L3X1 (distænt write) 12:50, 13 September 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Dane ^talk 18:27, 31 August 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Dane ^talk 18:33, 31 August 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Korea in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Dane ^talk 18:36, 31 August 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Islands in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:54, 28 August 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#Participation. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#Participation. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries as per my argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest. Richard3120 (talk) 22:53, 28 August 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 Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australia in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest

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

It's a clear case of WP:TOSOON. There no yet any official information, just some talks about intentions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Eurovision Asia Song Contest#List of provisional participating countries. This is surely the same issue as the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries in the Eurovision Asia Song Contest – it's WP:TOOSOON to create an article like this one until any confirmed particpation has been announced. Richard3120 (talk) 22:49, 28 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiavari chair

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

Hi, I want to delete this because there aren't proper sources.Winuserunlimited (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This chair is notable due to how old it is.TH1980 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep You purposefully removed content from the article in an attempt to influence the debate before the nom. I've restored what you've removed because that is absolutely not allowed within an AfD. Notable mass-produced chair with plenty of great sourcing and images (which I suspect you knew removing would influence the debate with 'delete' vote!s because they wouldn't know what the object looks like). Next time you nominate, the content as-is in the article must remain unless it violates copyright. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to deter pointy nominations. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 1 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanja Morell

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

Character supposedly from The Bill TV show that never existed - original page creator seemed to have got confused with character Rowanne Morell who already is mentioned on the character list article. Hence, there are zero sources for this character and any searches simply return copies of this page. Merge not appropriate as character did not exist. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 28 August 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Chiavari

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

Hi, want to delete this page cause it's not relevant. Winuserunlimited (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep dioceses are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bye, that's not how it works. It's a diocese. It's sourced. It's in the heart of the Roman Catholic homeland. We're not deleting this. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory and Mrschimpf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep - Can penalties be considered for people who initiate pointless, poorly justified (to the point of absurdity), and disruptive AFDs? Is there a wikipedia policy for this? XavierItzm (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: The freaking hell? This nom deserves a serious trout slap for (a) nominating an active Roman Catholic Diocese with over a hundred parishes, and (b) on such a bloody specious and illegitimate ground. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nominator is a blocked sock who has repeatedly tried to get this article deleted. Sro23 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. With 139 parishes, it's a decent-sized RCC diocese. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale presented for deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 4 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonino De Lorenzo

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

Not sure they are notable and reads like an ad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant advertising and no clear indication that subject passes the academic notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a place for advertising fad diets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 29 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Browning

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

Delete: as utterly non-notable actress/performer Quis separabit? 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable actress/performer. I have never heard of her nor anything she has been in. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NACTOR: None of her roles were large, and she does not seem to have a significant fan base. Many references in published RS verify that she acted in many films [6], but these are all passing mentions at best and do not satisfy WP:GNG either. FourViolas (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She only had one credited role, and thus lacks notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:49, 28 August 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. Or rather "outcome depends on action on different article". The name issues can be resolved by a move discussion and a merger ought to be discussed on the talk page, but apparently first Battle of Mosul (2016–17) needs to be changed - sometimes that also ought to be discussed on Talk:Battle of Mosul (2016–17) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mosul liberation

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of Battle of Mosul (2016–17); contains little to no useful information which is not already in the main page, and has an implausible title (note that Liberation of Mosul also redirects to the battle page). ansh 666 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 20:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The parent article is huge, at over 600kb and often you will find notable or in-depth aspects of certain articles split off into a dedicated article, if for instance the content being split is notable in its own right. I feel in this instance, the libration of Mosul was quite a significant event in its own right. Given the size of the parent article, my suggestion would be to rename the article relating to this AfD to something more mainstream (perhaps to Liberation of Mosul by deleting that redirect first), then cleanup this article and amend the parent article to offer a summary only. In fact, the Battle of Mosul article even has a message since May suggesting a content split, so it may be counter-productive and somewhat regressive to delete this article rather than at least trying to first develop it further. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the main article comes from the daily action recaps, which are really unnecessary there. If there's anything that should be split off, it would be those, into a "Timeline of..." type article. I don't think the sources distinguish between the battle and liberation enough to justify this separate article, especially considering the majority of those currently in this article are either Iranian propaganda (PressTV) or not even related to the end of the battle (most of them being about the beginning, strangely). ansh 666 22:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe! I created this article hoping that users working on the parent page would soon join in expanding this one too. I for my part primarily used Iranian sources because they are the sources that I often check as an Iranian. The development was undoubtedly a major one both for Iran and Iraq who organized and supplied the main forces on the ground doing the actual fight, as well as the international community that have been dealing with the ISIS threat for years. The article though can be further expanded by additional sources and analysis. The coverage has been significant as a Google result will tell. Ansh is also raising an apparently valid point; whether the sources distinguish between the liberation and the battle enough. Hmmm just telling from the google results, it seems that they do. But if the parent article can be shortened or split off, maybe let's first do that and then decide whether the liberation page should be merged into that, making it one within a standard size. --Expectant of Light (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the very least this needs to be renamed. Liberation is POV-pushing (though one most Wiki readers agree with) - possibly reconstruction is better. A year or year range should also be in the name (as this is NOT the first time Mosul has be conquered (or per POV liberated) - it changed hands in the past, even the recent past)). Do we have an article on the wider reconstruction efforts in Iraq following the loss of territory by the Islamic State? Do we have articles, on the city level, for other cities that were conquered as part of a campaign? I don't think we have one for Battle of Stalingrad which is much more significant. We do have articles on the country/region level for post-WWII occupations - but not city level I believe. The size problem in Battle of Mosul (2016–17) should be fixed there (and is underway) - it currently goes into a level of detail inappropriate for an 8 month campaign.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 29 August 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. (WP:SNOW close). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Diocese of Chiavari

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

Hi, want to delete this page cause it's not relevant. Winuserunlimited (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep dioceses are notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bye, that's not how it works. It's a diocese. It's sourced. It's in the heart of the Roman Catholic homeland. We're not deleting this. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory and Mrschimpf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Keep - Can penalties be considered for people who initiate pointless, poorly justified (to the point of absurdity), and disruptive AFDs? Is there a wikipedia policy for this? XavierItzm (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep: The freaking hell? This nom deserves a serious trout slap for (a) nominating an active Roman Catholic Diocese with over a hundred parishes, and (b) on such a bloody specious and illegitimate ground. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nominator is a blocked sock who has repeatedly tried to get this article deleted. Sro23 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. With 139 parishes, it's a decent-sized RCC diocese. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 18:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid rationale presented for deletion. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PlatinumWealth

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

There's just really nothing that I'm finding to suggest that this is a notable website. A new search returns 148 results, but nearly all of them are to moneyweb.co.za, so much so that when you exclude them from results you are left with exactly two ([7], [8]). Turns out, both of those show up because the site is mentioned in the comments section, and not in the article at all.

And it turns out that of the moneyweb sites, looks like most/all of those are also showing up because of a registered account named PlatinumWealth.co.za which apparently regularly comments on content there.

It's promotional, but long enough that there's probably something in there conceivably savable, and it makes a claim of significance, but... just doesn't appear to be notable at this time. TimothyJosephWood 19:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator: Promotional with no signs of significant coverage. The fact that the owner is registering using his website name to comment profusely elsewhere indicates that they are trying to increase their visibility; this article is no doubt another step toward that goal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJW. The subject fails WP:N on both of its points: it doesn't have substantial independent coverage, and it is excluded from being included in Wikipedia per WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 28 August 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unmesh Joshi

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

Fails biographical notability guidelines. Notability isn't inherited and his biggest "claim to fame" is his father. DrStrauss talk 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability and GNG. Quis separabit? 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG but at the same time I would not be opposed as to redirecting the page to Manohar Joshi as a plausible search term. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited Spiderone 09:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasoon PrahaladaN

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

Non-notable businessman. No in-depth coverage. Google search shows the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is just another version of Prasoon Prahaladan that has already been deleted three times per CSD A7. Time for an SPI and a couple of blocks? Mduvekot (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth. If it's been deleted repeatedly and there's little likelihood that it can be a viable article, then the article needs to be salted. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not meeting notability requirements. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 03:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pages should also be salted due to repeated creation: Prasoon PrahaladaN as well as Prasoon Prahaladan. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 03:30, 4 September 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. Some participants herein have also opined for a potential merge, which can be discussed on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keel effect

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

Dicdef, only one source, unlikely to be expanded. Full of buzzwords and techincal terms, doesn't seem notable. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Stated to be an aeronautical term but it is definitely not in use in mainstream aeronautical literature. This article was initiated nearly a decade ago but has since been abandoned in a poor state. Dolphin (t) 22:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article may have been in an imperfect state since 2007, but this discussion on StackExchange demonstrates that it has been useful to others. It gets 600 visits a month, which is not bad for such a specialised topic. The effect is real, non-trivial, of interest to a wider audience - [9], [10], and the information can be verified in reliable sources. The current wording may be a little technical, but we don't require every article to accessible to general audience. A quick search shows that the term is commonly used by aviators. Rentier (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has potential to be expanded beyond being a DICDEF. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: ^{[citation needed]}. Where is the proof that this is a notable topic? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: It is a specialist aviation topic, so you won't find it in general news. Some specialist publications use it as a term, some have more detail, I would compare this to a mathematical topic. See.^[1]^[2]^[3] Note also that this topic is referred to as 'pendulum effect' or pendulum 'stability'

^ Flying Magazine. 1945. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^ Hitchens, Frank (2015). The Encyclopedia of Aerodynamics. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781785383250. Retrieved 7 September 2017.
^ Senson, Ben; Ritter, Jasen (2011). Aerospace Engineering: From the Ground Up. Cengage Learning. ISBN 1435447530. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

Keep - This is an aeronautics engineering topic. WP:NOT#DICDEF does not apply. ~Kvng (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: So being a topic means WP:NOTDICDEF doesn't apply? That makes sense. How is this a notable thing? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [11] ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been an aeronautical engineer and pilot for close to four decades and I've never heard of it. It's probably notable in naval architecture, but it isn't in aeronautics. Dolphin (t) 01:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does show up in a lot of books written for pilots. ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This is a basic topic in the the design of lateral stability of an aircraft. It is also called the pendulum effect. See for instance, training materials describing lateral stability for an FAA test, a a flight tutorial, and all the aviation manuals Kvng pointed out. It is often discussed along with dihedral or anhedral configurations, so it would also be fine to merge into Dihedral (aeronautics)#Vertical position of the center of mass. --Mark viking (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mark viking I have created a Pendulum effect redirect. 15:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the section highlighted by Mark viking. I lean towards merge. Burninthruthesky (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As stated above, a merge would likely be best, but if not accomplished I suppose it wouldn't hurt to keep - that is, with proper upkeep. This article seems to have been left for dead, but I can see it having its uses in some medium! Bryan C. W. (talk) 19:28, 7 September 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adjoint filter

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

Unsourced since fucking forever, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette before participating in any more deletion discussions. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fucking~~ merge to ~~fucking~~ Hermitian adjoint. Since Xor'easter found some ~~fucking~~ sources, this seems at least mildly ~~fucking~~ notable, but not overly so on its own; it seems like just a special ~~fucking~~ case of the ~~fucking~~ adjoint operator on $\ell ^{2}$ . --Deacon ~~Fucking~~ Vorbis (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now sourced. Thanks XOR'easter. ~Kvng (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced and meetings guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 18:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS in the article and in a GScholar search show this concept exists in the signal processing and control theory literature. There is enough sourcing for a reasonable stub. Merging to Hermitian adjoint would also be fine. But deletion of verifiable content should be avoided per WP:ATD. --Mark viking (talk) 11:21, 4 September 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) TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Seelinger Trites

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

Fails biographical notability standards. Just being a professor does not make somebody notable, neither does publishing a few books. DrStrauss talk 19:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep given what the current CV Says: "Distinguished Professor", "simply a professor" would not apply based on WP:PROF's statements. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: That's like saying "award winning" makes someone automatically notable. I won a spelling bee in the second grade, so I'm award winning, so I'm notable. What the hell are you even on to think that just randomly slapping an adjective before your name makes you pass muster as notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is all the more true since a CV is not an indepdent, reliable source. It is a document intentionally created by the subject to boost their academic employability and their reputation. As I mentioned below, if this was a named chair it would have value, but being "distinguished" is just an adjective with no meaning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response would be the same as TenPoundHammer's. I could upload a CV saying I'm a professor and I'm notable per the current version of WP:PROF. Independent, reliable sources are more important. DrStrauss talk 21:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, you couldn't. Unless you have an academic website at an accredited university. While you could in theory do so then, if you did so there without actually being one it would be career suicide and if you didn't have tenure you could be sure your appointment would not be continued at best, and at worst the provost of other relevant chief academic officer would fire you instantly. If you had tenure a disclipinary hearing could reasonably be opened against you by the provost. Publicly falsifying credentials is a MASSIVE deal and is pretty much the only thing in North American academics that is guaranteed to land an academic out of a job. There is absolutely zero possibility that this woman is not a distinguished professor. Your comment above displays ignorance of how academia in North America works. These titles matter. A lot. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being British then, they don't appear to be as important here. Edit: also, you still haven't addressed the point that the "distinguished" bit is not from an independent source. Whether it would be career suicide or not is irrelevant and we shouldn't just throw away WP:IRS for the sake of preserving a hagiography. Edit: putting "distinguished" in front of someone's name does not make one distinguished, it just means she has reached a certain level of post-nominals. Surely we should judge her work by its fruits and the impact it has had on her field of study which amounts to very little. DrStrauss talk 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss: an official press release from the university verifies that she holds the academic rank of distinguished professor [12]. That is independent of her in that it is the official communications arm of her employer verifying that she holds the academic rank of Distinguished Professor. If this was a business person, it wouldn't count towards the GNG because it was a connected source, but the GNG does not apply to academics: we simply need verification that they meet one of the criteria of PROF. For verification of rank, their faculty listing is normally enough for the reasons pointed out above, but now we also have verification from an arm of the organization independent of her. Re: your last point, see David Eppstein's comment below. That someone holds a distinguished professorship is proof that she actually has had a major impact in her field. At my alma mater we had waiting lists for academics to get one of the few distinguished chairs available because of funding concerns. These aren't just handed out like candy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Distinguished Professor" at a research university is notability according to WP:PROF. Unlike what TPH seems to think, it's a formal title, not a random adjective, and indicates she is an authority in her field. I added the necessary information to support WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Four important books, one held in over a thousand libraries. We'll still need to track down the book reviews which will prove NAAUTHOR, , but that's routine. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability for authors is not passed by having your work widely held. It is passed by having your work reviewed by sources that are reliable and selectively only review works they feel are of significance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Being a "distinguished professor" does not meet any of our guidelines for academic notability. Being a "distinguished professor" is not the same as holding a "named chair", which she clearly does not. So she can not pass on those guidelines. Here contributions to the field of English-langauge literature are not significant enough to meet prong 1 of academic notability. She meets no academic notability criteria, and so is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is also an appaling failure of GNG. World Cat listing of works is not a sign of notability. Notability as an author derives from indepth reviews of works by the subject. Everything else is works so closely connected with the subject that they are in no way 3rd party independent reliable secondary sources. We cannot have articles built from a subjects CV, websites and directory listings, we need more substantial sources than this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you have confused the GNG with WP:PROF. We only need to show that the person is an authority in the field, or holds a distinguished or named professorship in a major university(or any the other specific alternatives) ; Are you aware that these two guidelines are alternatives, not that the specialized guideline is only a presumption? I don't see why you even mention GNG, when that is not the applicable guideline. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert and DGG: maybe, but bear in mind the proposal at WT:PROF. Still a proposal I know, but fingers crossed xD DrStrauss talk 21:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm minded of the people who do handsprings over someone being a "Vice President" at a bank, not knowing that banks give out "Associate/Assistant/Deputy/Executive VP" titles to all middle-managers, pretty much like cupcakes at the company picnic. No doubt there are colleges who paste "Esteemed and Exalted Distinguished Professor" titles too, in lieu of higher salaries and plush furnishings in their offices. Does the subject meet the GNG, NAUTHOR or PROF? No. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at research universities, where it is actually quite difficult to get. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important comment: @SwisterTwister and DGG: please note that there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline...supersedes GNG per this well-attended RfC. DrStrauss talk 21:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense. each guideline can and does specify the relationship. The RfC you mention dealt with NSPORTS, and its conclusion has been repeatedly challenged in individual AfDs. About 2/3 of them have followed the RfC, and 1/3 have not. The consensus on a RfC or anything else is not what is said there, but what is done in consequence. Some RfCs are consistently adopted without dissent. Others are not. We make the rules in WP, and we can make them however we please within basic policy. We can then interpret them however the consensus wishes to, and make whatever exceptions the consensus accepts. (The net result for me is that sports AfDs are so entirely frustrating that I no longer participate, because it is impossible to tell what rules will be used.) The role of the closer is to interpret the discussion, paying attention to policy-based arguments. WP:N is not policy, but a guideline, and attempts to elevate it to a policy have been repeatedly rejected. The GNG is one part of the WP:N guideline, and it says specifically that it is the general rule, not the ultimate rule. The history of AfDs is the history of interpretations and exception and disputes. By now, about a quarter million of them. This is not a rational way to go forward. Fortunately, the people working on AfDs have had a pretty clear idea of how to do better. (Its a little like NSCHOOLS--the RfC said a number of confusing things, and has essentially been ignored at AfD. 99% of the decisions have gone on just as before. Dr.S, what is your basis here--an objection in principle to having different rules, or a dislike for the results? In either case, you're mistaken. A diversity of practices in an intrinsic and desirable characteristic of WP, and the results are determined as they ought to be by the consensus of individuals. I point out that even so, academics are drastically under-represented, and what we need to do is to expand our coverage. You talk as if policy constrained us. It does not. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that RfC was on NSPORT, and what you are saying it did would change the text of WP:N itself, which makes no distinction between SNGs and the GNG. Some of the SNGs make themselves subordinate to the GNG, but PROF does not and the explicit text of N makes it clear that it doesn't have to (see point 1 of the notability test in the summary). There is no backdoor way to change the totality of our most significant sub-policy guideline, and people need to remember that the GNG is only one part of N.
Re: this case: she holds the academic rank of a distinguished professor at a research university. If she did have to meet WP:GNG, which she doesn't, she inevitably would: you don't get those ranks without there being immense scholarship written about or citing your work. There will be exceptionally credible book reviews about her and peer reviewed papers debating with her thoughts and analyzing them, while discussing her directly. This nomination is based off not knowing how research universities in North America operate. She is a clear pass of PROF, and if I had access to more databases than I currently do I could present a very compelling case for GNG. Part of the reason we have PROF is that the average Wikipedia user doesn't have access to the material needed to assess notability based on coverage so it is a objective test to see what people we know are notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourcing supports this and it meets all of the applicable guidelines. -- Dane ^talk 18:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ Sourcing supports nothing beyond the fact that the person exists and has had some books published. This is par for the course for all professors, especially in English-language literature. We have nothing that amounts to even passing coverage of her or her work from any source that is not in some way vested in building up her reputation. While the amount she influences her university webpage is hard to say (it is often a very lot), it is still driven by a desire to build a positive reputation and not the type of 3rd-party source all articles, especially BLP articles, need to be based on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question At first glance I don't see that she meets the notability criteria for professors or the general notability guideline. However, she did win the Children's Literature Association Book Award in 2002. I think that should help with notability, but I don't know if it's enough. I added the award and source to her article, but I hope someone will check and make sure I did it correctly--and correct it if I didn't.Sandals1 (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep It looks like she's notable as an author.Sandals1 (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Contrary to what several uninformed participants above state, "distinguished professor" is a specific job title that clearly and explicitly passes WP:PROF#C5. At my university, it is reserved for faculty with a very high level of accomplishment; for instance, for scientists, it is roughly at the level of being in the National Academy of Sciences (and well past the level needed to pass #C1 or #C3 via lesser society fellowships). It's more difficult to assess that level in the humanities but I think we can safely assume that Trites' campus did so. And although the article could use significant improvement, I expect that if that effort were made then it would uncover many reviews of her books, enough to also pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Along with some other improvements, I have added ten reliably published and in-depth book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- PS It looks like Illinois State names at most one or (rarely) two distinguished professors per year [13]. Given a faculty size of 1200 and a rough estimate of a career span of 20 years/faculty member, that would mean only one in sixty of their professors could hope to ever achieve this title. Not exactly "like candy". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although GS citations are not outstanding (albeit in a very low cited field), library holdings of her books give a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements. Meets PROF (likely) and AUTHOR (definitely). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 6 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sckoropad Twins

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Little coverage in independent, reliable sources. DrStrauss talk 19:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability is not established, and several of the references/links provided are either dead or 404. PK T(alk) 19:30, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They'd probably qualify for an article if it could be properly sourced — but nearly all of the sources here are primary, and the two that are actually reliable source coverage about them in media independent of them don't represent enough coverage to get them over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 1 September 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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea D'Angelo

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Little independent coverage, having published a few books confers no notability. DrStrauss talk 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable author.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently important Italian science fiction. Also in the French WP. and I givethem considerable respect for notability. Has the nom made a proper search in Italian review sources? DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: yep. DrStrauss talk 21:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

interesting. I interpret that result as meeting the GNG. It looks like substantial coverage to me, as appropriate for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of Andrea D'Angelo in those Italian sources. They all refer to different people with the same name (a council politician in Civitavecchia, a football patron, a lawyer...).--Alienautic (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. No 3rd party sources are present in the article, and my searches have not been successful. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Α Guy into Bοοks™ § (Message) - 08:06, 10 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Fayza

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this does is state that he exists and reference the fact to his own staff profile on the website of his own employer. This is not how a person gets a Wikipedia article: he needs to be the subject of media coverage in reliable sources independent of his paycheque provider. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps TOOSOON. Newimpartial (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 18:37, 31 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venetia Kapernekas

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

Fails artistic notability guidelines. The article has promotional undertones and refers largely to self-published sources. DrStrauss talk 18:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an artist, but an art dealer. Although she is not insignificant in the New York's art scene, the sources available on the net are mostly announcents on events happening in her gallery. The New York Art Beat website has a small piece on her, and there is wide coverage on the press of the settlement between her, and her ex-lover, art collector Udo Brandhorst, heir to the Henkel AG & Company (see for example the article of the New York Post). But it seems that this happens mostly because of Brandhorst; he is the famous guy. To conclude, I am for delete. ——Chalk19 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 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. Clearly there is a verify divisive view over to whether or not this person is notable, so it's best to close this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Biscoe

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Local councillor. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Personage is main subject in multiple independent news reports over 25+ year period. Personage is also active in groups/organisations/charities/council(s) (yes two councils) which have attracted more independent news coverage. this is not counting ample primary sources. NB. WP:OFFLINE may apply to some older sources. see article talk page. A Guy into Books (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject appears to be one of 123 on the Cornwall Council, and most of these other councillors will also have similar, routine political coverage of their opinions and positions in reliable new reports. WP:POLITICIAN exists because not all elected officials are notable for simply doing their jobs, but I'll wait to see if anyone posts a "claim to fame" that rises above this. -Location (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NPOL. Local political figure with the usual amount of routine coverage. Nothing exceptional or in-depth to demonstrate notability. The sources discussed on the article talkpage are primary sources such as his profile on the Cornwall Council website, his own website or sources such as local blogs - not independent, reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Posting another comment to say that ITV and The Guardian are considered national independent reliable sources. [[14]] and [[15]] also please note http://www.cornwalllive.com/ is not a 'local blog', but a regional news outlet. total ignorance in the article of his music career should probably be dealt with also since several books cover him on this topic. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ITV and Guardian articles are about a bridge, his opinion as a local councillor is quoted within them. That does not add up to notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note there is a KW article for this person also. https://kw.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Biscoe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 12:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a local councilor clearly fails the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bard of Cornish Gorsedh, this indicates he and his work have been recognised as significant by a major cultural organisation in his area of work. DuncanHill (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to reflect this, it seems that his primary career was as a Bard, and that he only went into politics later. A Guy into Books (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article sees significant improvement before close. Nothing here constitutes an automatic presumption of notability just because he exists, if the sourcing present in the article isn't sufficient to get him over WP:GNG — and while it's true that an article can be deemed to pass GNG if adequate sources exist even if the article isn't up to scratch yet, it's not enough to just say that adequate sources exist: one has to show hard evidence that adequate sources exist, such as the actual hard results of an actual search. And even if this does get deleted, that doesn't constitute a permanent ban on his ever being allowed to have an article — if somebody can write and source something better than this, they are allowed to try again. But we can't keep an entirely primary sourced version just because somebody asserts that stronger sources exist somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article was rewritten at this point

This article has now been considerably improved, with new references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguyintobooks (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really hasn't been improved. I see far too many references which are to primary sources, Blogspot blogs and/or glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of things that aren't him, and not even close to enough that are to reliable source coverage that has him as its subject. Bearcat (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there are at least three WP:RS sources about him, which is enough for WP:GNG. Most the other comment here refer to WP:NPOL which i can't see being relevant here. A Guy into Books (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, three sources aren't enough for GNG if you're shooting for "notable because media coverage of him exists" rather than "notable because he passes a subject-specific inclusion criterion". If three sources were all it took to pass GNG, we'd have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, teenagers who tried out for their high school football team six months after having a toe amputated, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one day. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources will definitively pass GNG in most discussions I have come across, I think its fairly clear NPOL is not the main guideline here. Also we have articles about a l l o f t h o s e t h i n g s. (ok not really, but you get the point). A Guy into Books (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only way three sources can be enough to pass GNG by themselves is if they're supporting passage of a must-include criterion like being an MP or winning an Oscar. If you're going for "notable just because media coverage exists", then no, three sources aren't enough to get there. Three sources quite regularly do exist for lots of people or things that still don't qualify for a Wikipedia article, such as the examples I gave in the preceding comment — hell, three sources exist about me — so three sources aren't enough for GNG if they're not verifying passage of any SNGs. And I was talking about high school athletes, not professional ones, and I meant the woman, not the pig — so your examples don't contradict my point at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lmao you checked the links ok can you please explain to me what it takes for a living person to pass GNG. because I have no clue what your standard of proof is, mine is just 3 RS/V/O sources. Consider subject is Published author of (11?) books, bard of the Gorsedh, musician, local councillor, unitary authority councillor, and portfolio holder (boss) of transport in cornwall, responsible for 50m a year budget, trustee on the board of the Royal Cornwall museum, trustee of 3 charities, chairman of 2 charity boards, also is a representative of the Cornish Constitutional Convention. Is considered locally to be a primary figure in the Cornish Idenity debate and is one of the few people who actually speak cornish. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard. Neither of which have been shown as true here yet. And most of what you asked me to consider isn't notability claims at all: local authority councillor is not a notability claim; being trustee or chairman of a charity board is not a notability claim; and on and so forth — those are all things that hundreds of thousands of people in the world, probably into the millions if you consider people who used to hold those roles but don't still because they're retired or dead, so they aren't notability freebies in the absence of quite a lot more reliable source coverage than the woman with the pig got. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Published bards, recognised by their peers, should be seen as Notable. The council work belongs here, but it's an irrelevance for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Further to Bearcat's comments. I have decided that the correct subject-specific inclusion standard this personage is notable under is WP:COMPOSER. which is due to his bardic work and subsequent recognition by the Gorsedh. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that A Guy into Books has aimed the article towards Biscoe's career as a Bard, this now does pass WP:COMPOSER. Zangar (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting for further discussion, particularly with regards to whether the new sources rise above non routine coverage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have overhauled the sources and added some new ones related to his bardic career. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 11:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot of good work on the article, but I do not see the level of coverage to meet WP:COMPOSER or WP:GNG. There are many sources on this - probably too many - but many are not reliable sources, or are primary sources. Being a bard does not make you inherently notable. You commenting on this page so many times can also misleadingly read like different people commenting, and you cannot have multiple keep votes - I have struck your second vote. Please only continue to comment here if you have something new to say. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose since you nominated this for deletion that would be your opinion, you do have a record to maintain and all. My point is that this article is well sourced, with at least one secondary sources to back up each use of a primary source, and by my count, 5 good sources that show WP:GNG, Wikipedia should rightfully be stringent in keeping cruft out, but this undoubtedly meets all the relevant guidelines, especially WP:GNG. As far as my comments are concerned, this was closed as keep and then mysteriously reopened, obviously I am going to comment. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you citing WP:COMPOSER and ignoring WP:AUTHOR? He's an invited member of the Cornish Gorsedd. For a bard, that is how you get recognised as a bard. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He could probably meet WP:AUTHOR, he has published a lot of books, some of which are listed in the article already, I just don't know the precedent for bards, they are a sort of author/poet/musician combo which is hard to place. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have had a major disagreement with Boleyn elsewhere over this Afd. However during that I noticed that notwithstanding the comments made by others here, this person actually does meet WP:NPOL #1. as he held a 'provincewide office' as Portfolio Holder for Transport in Cornwall. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 22:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall is a county, not a province or state. NPOL #1 does not include offices held at the county level of government, and England's lack of any level of government between the counties and Westminster does not reify the counties into states or provinces for the purposes of NPOL #1 — whether there are provinces/states or not, county offices are still evaluated under NPOL #2 and only NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, everywhere outside London is 'the provinces' by British definition. And with the exception of Northern Ireland, which is electively a single province (often known as 'The province'), every administrative section of the UK is its own province. I realise you are probably American (actually I just checked, you are Canadian, but same difference for this comparison), where counties are pretty insignificant, but here in the UK that is not the case, what you consider as a county, we call a parish, what you call a state, we call a county. As a point of fact province is the same as county when filling out addresses and internet forms. people sending me mail from Spain for example will fill in the province as Devon, this is standard correct procedure. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason a county is "equivalent" to a state or province in filling out a mailing address is because the county is the only division that exists for that purpose in England, precisely because no equivalent to states or provinces is in place to supplant them. It does not constitute evidence that English counties are politically equivalent to states or provinces for the purposes of getting from NPOL #2 to NPOL #1 — Wikipedians from England are the ones who spearheaded the consensus that county councils are not a level of government that confers an automatic NPOL pass on every councillor. And no, the North American equivalent to a UK parish would be called a township, not a county — a county here is the same thing as a county there.Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt 'any councillor', this is a (former) member of the 10 member executive cabinet group [16], theres 113 councillors below him.

I'm going back to arguing WP:GNG and author/composer is sufficient. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 21:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of the county council's executive/cabinet still isn't an automatic notability boost over any other county councillor, because it's still a local office that has to be weighed under NPOL #2 rather than NPOL #1 — so it still depends on sourcing that work well enough to get him past GNG for it, not on any automatic inclusion rights. If you want to switch to arguing notability under a creative criterion rather than a political one, that's fine — I have nothing to say about that, since I'm not well-equipped to properly assess creative notability in many cases for a British writer or musician whose audience hasn't crossed The Pond like Radiohead's or Zadie Smith's. My issue in this subthread had to do with the claim that a county council seat could be reified into a provincial or state legislature for the purposes of NPOL, because it can't. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on a bit. Can someone who has not commented before take a look and give a viewpoint? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:NPOL overall fails WP:BIO and does not meet WP:AUTHOR for published books. --EC Racing (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bards are important Abrasapuentes (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As rewritten, the article overcomes the original criticism. Comment: I'm surprised to read that Aguyintobooks is being told not to comment here when his every response is challenged. I don't see how the user is supposed to remain silent and have that viewed as acquiescence. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying he can't comment. However, if his comment includes a misunderstanding of what our notability standards entail, or a misrepresentation of how the subject does or doesn't pass them, nobody is obligated to let that misapprehension go unresponded to either. Freedom of speech does not offer an exemption from being responded to by other people who are also exercising their own freedom of speech. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But clearly not everyone shares your interpretation of NPOL, even on the policy board I can't see anyone to agree that sources related to political activity are discounted when considering notability, nor do I agree that a biography has to pass a subject specific criterion to be encyclopedic relevant when the general notability criteria clearly applies when they do not pass such subject specific guideline.

To quote your comment earlier "My standard is that the person either (a) has a strong claim to passing a subject-specific inclusion standard, or (b) can show that he got quite a lot more reliable source coverage (i.e. quite a bit more than just two, three or four pieces of it) than the woman a mile down the road from my parents got for finding the pig in her yard" - this is obviously your opinion, possibly based on your own interpretation of something written in the ~2250 pages of policy we seem to have. Now my standard is the GNG of - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which means at least two sources where the subject is mentioned with enough detail that the person be identified without recourse to research, and the sources not be written by the subject or relation thereof. - there are about 8-9 good sources, 15 if you include the ones about his late political activity. There are more sources offline but that is beside the point because I cannot be asked to manually trawl miles of microfiche.

There is absolutely no way I agree with your assessment of the notability guideline, nor have I noticed your interpretation being used in any context except Corpdepth, where it is admirable. I am not going to suggest you have confused them, so I am strongly disagreeing they work in the same way and calling you a deletionist. I am putting way to much effort into arguing this so I am well glad its about to be closed and I can get on with something else. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth could always show two pieces of local media coverage — so if your "two sources" interpretation were all it took to get a county councillor over GNG, then every county councillor in existence would always pass GNG and our consensus that county councillors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles would be inherently disembowelled. So no, to get a county councillor past GNG does take a lot more than just two or three pieces of local coverage. I am not wrong about this, nor am I applying any variant personal standards that differ so much as one iota from established consensus in this domain of activity: at the county level of office, we require evidence that the person is more notable than the norm, by virtue of being able to show a lot more and wider coverage than county councillors can always simply be expected to have in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was of course referring to the coverage by national media as well. I cannot understand the bias against this grouping "Every single county councillor who has ever existed in every county on earth" is ~56,000 people, as councils were only invented in the 19th century in England and around the 1960-1980's in much of the world. Their equivalents in China and Indian (where the exist) are not elected in the same way and do not get news coverage, seemingly a western preoccupation. NPOL does not put forward what you say, it infact specifically states quite the contrary; "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".", and from the common outcomes policy, which also does not support your interpretation "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics". Therefore I must still disagree with you, even though I am confident he passes by his other accomplishments, notably the bardic work, before his political career that he seemingly only started after retirement. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 20:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree does not meet WP:NPOL. Poorly referenced including a list of every reference they appear to have even been tangentially referenced in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I regretfully concur that this does not meet WP:NPOL and the level of available sources does not reach WP:GNG either, the list of references show a valiant attempt to show what there is, yet it is unfortunately not significant coverage of this man. MartinJones (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just posting the references removed by Doc James and brigade just before their comments here after sticking an edit war template on my talk page after two reverts (really?). I am not saying they are completely biased, but anyway here are references they removed:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27]^[28]^[29]^[30]^[31]^[32]^[33] --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 20:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This ONE is particularly interesting in that it contains nothing. That is correct, nothing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats hardly my fault, it had content at one point. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure what this massive list of "refs" is supposed to be not a single one of them satisfies GNG and certainly isn't independent reliable coverage. And neither does anything else I can find. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well clearly you didn't look very hard, not at the article even, also you forgot to sign.^[34] --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I read both the article and the massive refspam list here - none of it includes coverage. Perhaps you can point out the specific sources that feature in-depth coverage?CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ok:

Subject is a bard of the Gorsedh Kernow, which in itself is enough to pass criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE. His work as a menstrel in the Kernewek tradition has received significant critical attention and therefore meets criterion 4 of WP:CREATIVE.

(will add more) --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 22:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doc James, Bearcat, and Chrissymad. Fails NPOL. The great things about the subject notability guidelines is that they give us a lens through witch to view the GNG: if they have coverage that would be expected for their level in their chosen field, but do not meet the subject guideline, it is unlikely that they will meet our standards for the GNG, because the coverage will have been deemed run of the mill. That is the case here. An appeal to the GNG from an SNG is possible, but I don't see there being enough in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: yes I thinks its established he fails NPOL, what about the rest? --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) -

I'm not convinced by your above arguments in that regard. Considering the CREATIVE 1 claim is dubious: the overwhleming majority of people listed at Gorsedh_Kernow#Lists_of_Cornish_bards_and_venues are not articles. That suggests that the Wikipedia community hasn't generally recognized it as meeting that criterion. There is zero evidence he also meets CREATIVE 4: if you can provide peer reviewed work concerning him or provide in-depth reviews and commentary from highly reliable sources, I might be convinced to change my mind, but none of what has been presented gets near that standard from what I can see. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly reliable"? Well that puts him out of the picture. :) Druids, Bards and other esteemed old bearded people are not known for their highly reliable work. I doubt any sane mainstream reviewer would even bother, in fact the Indepedant had this to say. Its a matter of some national pride to only publish commentary on bardic work in Cornish. eg. Viajor Gans Geryow eus rydhses gans y brentin gonis... etc (from a commentary by Skogyn Pryv) In short you can take what you will from it. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CREATIVE 4 requires significant critical coverage of their work. That means analysis and reviews that engage with the text, not simply press coverage. In response to your comment above re: CREATIVE 1, the Wikipedia community does not seem to share your opinion that this title is generally sufficient for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say that Wikipedians haven't considered it before, I mean all the comments on bards above^ are pretty positive. There is no way obscure publications written in a dead language spoken only 1000 people could be considered press coverage, or really any form of popular culture, the whole cultural tradition only survives because the EU think it is nationally important to support this minority ethnic group and therefore gives it funding. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically the entire argument above is mostly irrelevant back and forth about policies that don't really apply, what matters is that crition 1 of WP:CREATIVE 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. This is definitely passed, as stated by myself and five others here, the fact no one can look beyond the politics is neither here nor there, you can discount every single reference and he would still be notable according to the subject specific guidelines. Its not really possible at the moment to write as much about this person as is perhaps going to be written eventually, mostly due to sources being on microfiche and in other languages, nevertheless there is a sufficient amount of verifiable information already included to make a start class article. --- Α Guy Into Books™ § (Message) - 21:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Councillor details - Bert Biscoe". 30 August 2017.
^ "Bert Biscoe: Working for the future of Truro and Cornwall on the Cornwall County Council". www.bertbiscoe.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe - SaveTruro". www.savetruro.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe - Voices of Cornwall". voicesofcornwall.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe".
^ "bert biscoe - Business Cornwall". www.businesscornwall.co.uk.
^ http://www.cornwalllive.com/comment-bert-biscoe/story-20906203-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://www.cornwalllive.com/city-s-heritage-constant-threat-says-bert/story-11386148-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Hear Bert Biscoe's song Wilwaukee - Cornwall Today". www.cornwalltoday.co.uk.
^ "Bert Biscoe - Isonomia". Isonomia.
^ "Bert Biscoe and a piece of very important and very rare memorabilia". queenincornwall.blogspot.co.uk. 2010-11-18.
^ "Bert Biscoe, and the Mayor of Launceston: opening 'A Space to Write' - The Charles Causley Festival".
^ "Bert Biscoe Vote Independent". ElectionLeaflets.org.
^ "Meditations Carn Brea Poems Pictures by Bert Biscoe Cliff Jones - AbeBooks". www.abebooks.co.uk.
^ http://www.cornishassembly.org/OpenLetterToSarahNewtonMP27viii12.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ Tregarthen, John Coulson (30 August 2017). John Penrose: A Romance of the Land's End. Cornwall Editions Ltd. ISBN 9781904880028 – via Google Books.
^ "WATCH: Protests over new Truro bus gate". 2017-03-16.
^ "Cllr Bert Biscoe gave a most interesting and enlightening talk. - West Cornwall HealthWatch". westcornwallhealthwatch.com.
^ "A response from Bert Biscoe". mebyonkernow.blogspot.co.uk.
^ "Trustees - Royal Cornwall Museum".
^ "Welcome to Cornwall Association of Primary Heads".
^ http://www.cornwalllive.com/Parking-crisis-Truro-makes-life-just-hell/story-20511752-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Tintagel Castle Merlin carving sparks 'Disneyfication' row". BBC News. 18 March 2016 – via www.bbc.co.uk.
^ "Local residents complain after 'Disneyfication' of King Arthur site".
^ "A bridge too far: The controversial plans to transform Tintagel".
^ Goskar, Tehmina (21 February 2013). "Cornish heritage is a man's game".
^ "Poetry: Trura - Cornish Story". cornishstory.com.
^ "Councillor Contact Details - Truro City Council". www.truro.gov.uk.
^ "Truro Civic Society". trurocivicsociety.com.
^ Metro.co.uk, Oliver Wheaton for (22 November 2015). "Council spends £30,000 on bus lane, it causes chaos, they're forced to scrap it".
^ "Brainiac 5 interview". www.psychedelicbabymag.com. 2014-05-02.
^ Morris, Steven (18 March 2016). "'This is not Disneyland, it's Cornwall': the battle of Tintagel Castle" – via The Guardian.
^ Council, Cornwall. "St Mary's Church spire moved back to Truro Cathedral - Cornwall Council". www.cormacltd.co.uk.
^ "Poets lead Cornish revolt against 'English imperialism'". The Independent. 18 May 1997. Retrieved 26 September 2017.

Admin closer please.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pranay Narayan

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

Appears to fail biographical notability guidelines. Little meaningful coverage in independent, reliable sources. I tried to cut down the promotional tone in one paragraph but there may not be much content left if continued. We must be mindful of the biographies of living persons policy and as much of the personal life section is poorly referenced it must be deleted. Possibly fails actor notability guidelines too. Also note that this has been deleted before per WP:A7 and WP:G11. DrStrauss talk 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find any additional coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond a passing mention, and very few such passing mentions, too. There's no indication that he meets the notability criteria. Huon (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 28 August 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 List of Looking episodes. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Now

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

Article about an individual television episode, serving primarily as a plot summary and not demonstrating any significant real-world context for why it would require a standalone article separately from the existing List of Looking episodes. As always, every TV show that exists does not automatically get to spin off a separate article about each individual episode -- we use episode lists for this purpose, and only create dedicated articles about individual episodes in rarefied special cases, on the order of Ellen's "The Puppy Episode", that can show genuine context for why they need more than just a basic plot summary in an episode list. But what we've got here for real world context is "the episode was released to general acclaim", the end, and what we've got here for sourcing is not really coverage of the episode itself, but brief mentions of the episode in general overviews of the series, a non-notable YouTuber's recap video, and the cast and crew's own self-published audio commentary on the DVD boxset. These are not sources that properly establish that this episode needs a standalone article separately from the already-existing episode list. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I disagree. There are many Wikipedia articles about specific episodes, and there are sources for this one, too:

I'd prefer to see this article developed, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot recaps aren't enough to establish the standalone notability of an individual episode either — especially for a show that aired in the 2010s, when every single show that exists at all will be getting recapped on some pop culture website somewhere. Yes, there are "many" Wikipedia articles about specific episodes — namely, certain specific episodes that have notable real world context, qualifying them for special treatment different from the way we handle most television episodes. What's required for a television episode to qualify for its own dedicated article to be spun off from the episode is real-world context, along the lines of "The Puppy Episode" getting extensively covered as the single most important watershed moment in the entire history of LGBT representation on TV. (Wanna guess how many other episodes of Ellen besides "Puppy" actually have standalone articles separately from the episode list? Free hint: you'll be wrong if you guess any number greater than zero.) Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well even if a standalone article is not appropriate at this time, we should just redirect to List of Looking episodes and not delete this page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The series it was connected to lasted two seasons and under HBO terms, didn't do well. This is a low-quality "current-day Family Guy episode type-what-I-see"-level recap which is poor in every manner; the plot, the 'production' section (nobody cares if an actor is making his first appearance on cable), and reception ('general acclaim' is a dreadful description of critical reaction). Nate • (chatter) 02:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alonso Duralde is a respected film critic, and has written for many publications. The Young Turks are definitely notable; What the Flick is aired through their channel. I would also like to point Mrschimpf towards our civility policy—labelling other contributors' work as "poor", "dreadful", etc. is not helpful. Gertanis (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I apologize if I offended you, but the writing for a plot summary must be well-sourced and read well, and this did not to me; there's parentheticals identifying actors, which distracts from the summary (you've got the cast list in the main article, so readers can easily reference that), along with too many blue links for obvious items such as condos, LA and bachelor parties. "Many scenes were re-shot for the episode, as they were considered too sad." is a line I should not be reading in a Wikipedia article; why is it considered 'too sad'? Can you use better wording? Just on that alone I can re-write it as 'The original cut of the episode was considered too depressing to audiences, and scenes were re-shot in order to lighten the mood'. Why is Mr. Alvarez being on cable for the first time so important? It's an HBO show; that should be good enough, and you don't really need to point that out (as it was most of the cast's first time on cable or HBO). And 'general acclaim' is too vague to describe critical reaction; that could vary as much as 'there are issues with the show that keep it from being great', 'it was an OK show' to 'this was fine'. As for your sourcing, Duralde is a film critic; we usually look for television critics because they work the field all the time, where film critics are grading on a curve because they have different expectations for a television series than a film. TYT (like it or not) is also known more as a political show, with their arts criticism as on the side. Generally, we also prefer to have a written review to source; readers looking for more generally don't want to have to sit through a video (or here also, audio commentary for the episode from those involved in the work, which is a disallowed WP:PRIMARYSOURCE). Nate • (chatter) 21:15, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first article I've created of this kind, so maybe you should be a bit more polite. Unnecessary blue links and parentheticals are easily removed, and constitute no solid reason for deletion. Mr. Duralde is indeed a film critic, but not exclusively. He writes/speaks of both mediums, which is becoming more and more common, as they both pertain to the moving image. Primary sources are not disallowed on WP; autobiographies are often used in articles, for straightforward statements. Also, Ellen is a talkshow, not a narrative feature. You mention Family Guy: that show has WP articles for almost every episode, even some GAs. So why no articles for Looking? Gertanis (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, what gets an individual television episode into Wikipedia is not the mere fact that it's possible to source a plot summary to episode recaps and critical reviews of the series — what's required is real-world context for why the episode has its own independent importance as a separate topic from the series as a whole. You haven't shown any of that, however — you've just sourced a plot summary.

Also, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the fact that some other unrelated show has separate articles for most or all of its episodes does not automatically mean every other show gets that too. It's possible that those other articles should be deleted too and it's just that nobody's tackled them yet, or it's possible that there are contextual reasons that you're missing as to why the two shows aren't actually equivalent in terms of episode notability or sourceability. (For example, the sheer depth of Star Trek fandom, the show's incalculable influence on pop culture and its gigantic body of literature all mean that it's possible to reliably source genuine real-world context, beyond just a plot summary, for virtually every episode of that series — yet it's not possible to do the same for the shortlived Canadian knockoff The Starlost, where the best we could ever actually do is just a plot summary.)

And incidentally, you need to familiarize yourself with the difference between Ellen, the 1990s sitcom that was actually raised as an example in this discussion, and The Ellen DeGeneres Show. They're two different shows; the 1990s one that had a historically important episode called "The Puppy Episode" was not a talk show, but a narrative sitcom. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not able to find coverage about this episode aside than the aforementioned expected coverage by virtue of it being the pilot of an HBO series. I agree that in this day and age pretty much every show is going to be covered in some form by some pop culture podcast or web site, but that does not make the episode worthy of its own article. Had this show made more of an impact on the cultural zeitgeist, my vote would be different. I don't think a redirect is warranted either. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder why, per WP:ATD-R, redirecting to List of Looking episodes is unwarranted? Ready to be persuaded for sure. — fortunavelut luna 09:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about focusing efforts where they would be more useful, and managing expectations. For the former, once it becomes standard policy to create redirects for every episode of every show, people will go out and do just that for their favorite shows. So rather than beef up plot summaries, for example, we'll just have more redirects. As far as managing expectations, some of these redirects may show up on disambiguation pages and even in articles as Wiki-links, yet clicking on them might cause disappointment when the occasional reader expects an episode's article as advertised, but lands on the series page instead. In this specific case, the lack of sources that prevent my support of a standalone article also suggests to me that there's not much that will trigger a search for this episode by title anyway, making all of this moot. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Looking episodes, as suggested above. I'm not seeing a lot of sources about why this episode itself is important enough to merit its own article, but I see no reason to not have the episode title go somewhere. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The remarkable unlikelihood that anybody would ever actually expect it to exist and search for it, coupled with the fact that in that remarkably unlikely event the episode list would still come up in the search results anyway? Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 18 September 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 08:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Octavius Black

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

Not notable. Article sources only discuss the companies he's worked for, not the man himself. Article is basically just a CV. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Has not had any discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources are acceptable, they're not only about his companies.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] There are significant coverage. The article can be re-written and it's not a reason for deletion. There don't seem to be any copyvio too. — Za wl 18:08, 24 September 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Istanbul Bosphorus

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

This article, Conrad Istanbul Bosphorus, seems to be here simply to promote the hotel and largely includes contributions from a paid editor, User:Valgetova. Leutha (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created without the {{afd2}} template and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Leutha: For future nominations please fully follow the procedures as WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope they didn't pay that editor much because article is pure PROMO; it makes no claim to notability and provides no reliable, secondary sourcing. Delete what appears to be a non-notable ordinary, large, modern hotel. A quick earch didn't turn up anything but routine coverage, but if somebody finds solid sourcing to support notability, feel free to flag me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of passing either the general or the specific notability guidelines, since all the independent coverage apparently available is either passing mentions or booking sites. No indication that this is any more notable than an average urban hotel. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 3 September 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 speedy delete under WP:G11. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 05:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeddah Hilton Hotel

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

This article seems to be here simply to promote the hotel and includes contributions from a paid editor, User:Valgetova. Leutha (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created without the {{afd2}} template and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Leutha: For future nominations please fully follow the procedures as WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite concerns about the nomination. The page was created by Ammar shaker and Valgetova's contributions seem limited to a requested move from Jeddah Hilton to Jeddah Hilton Hotel and and EL to the hotel's website, hardly significant contributions by a paid editor. That said, the page does not provide an evidence of complying with the general notability guideline and I can find only routine coverage about the hotel. The subject appears to lack significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising; the article is 100% promotional. I'll request a G11 -- let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 11 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gagik Manoukian

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

This was deleted once previously as WP:G12, and there are still some probably considerable close paraphrasing issues, but it's a bit hard to tell because it looks like the author has altered the particular wording so that verbatim searches don't tell much.

There are serious tone issues anyway, although it's arguably poorly written vaguely promotional English, rather than well written obviously promotional English. And I sympathize.

Web searches don't return very much of anything at all. Unless some of these claimed collections are permanent and important or some of this persons works is renouned and widely covered in a way that is at least non-obvious to me, I don't think there much to expect the subject passes WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. TimothyJosephWood 17:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I explained to the editor who created the article: I'm concerned about the notability of the subject and his exhibition record. I don't recognize any of the exhibition venues, except one, Allingawier (I'm from the Netherlands). Allingawier is a tiny village that has approximately 60-80 inhabitants (it depends on how you count) but it definitely has no castle. Naturally, this makes me wonder about the other venues; a "personal exhibition in /Berlin/Prague/Oslo"? Unless there are independent, reliable sources that allow us to verify these claims, I'm afraid we're going to have to dismiss them and conclude that the subject fails our notability criteria. Mduvekot (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither the references that are provided nor the hits on a Google search indicate a notable artist. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication the subject comes close to passing the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above.

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erol Kahraman

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both NHOCKEY and WP:NFOOTY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication of wider GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. This seems to be a start in terms of indicating GNG but is very local and insufficient on its own. Fenix down (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:18, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turko-Tatar

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

All of the coverage appears to be on websites such as WordReference or Dictionary.com, thereby failing WP:NOTDICT. If the outcome of the debate is to delete, I'm more than happy to adapt it for use on Wikitionary. DrStrauss talk 17:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any other sources when I searched in the usual places. Nomader (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not more than a dictionary definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 29 August 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. So Why 11:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cryonic Temple

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

(Also by implication the associated album articles: Into the Glorious Battle, Chapter I (Cryonic Temple album), Blood, Guts & Glory, In Thy Power, Immortal (Cryonic Temple album))

They're apparently signed to a record label with... an article... but it's a reference-less list of acts, so it's doubtful that the label is itself notable. All of the album articles are themselves basically reference-less lists.

News searches for the bast returns a handful of results, most of which are either patently non-reliable or extremely niche metal sites. None of the members seems to be independently notable that I can tell. They... at least claim to have put out enough stuff that it arguably avoids A7, but just sticking around for a long time and putting out records doesn't notability make.

None of the non-English versions are any better, and that there is no Swedish article for a Swedish band, when there are articles in English, Spanish, Polish and Scots doesn't bode well. TimothyJosephWood 16:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reference for albums are being changed to be other sources than the current record label. Cryonic Temple has performed on Swedens biggest festival Peace and Love several times as well as Swedens biggest metalfestival including Sweden Rock Festival. Also performed twice Sabaton Open Air and in Germany Headbangers open Air. Also toured in Scandinavia and soon going to Italy.

Cryonic Temple songs has over 3 millions views/streams on youtube, Spotify as well other sites and have been featured on radio all over the world such as in USA, South america and various countries Europe such as Spain, Sweden, Germany.

Most Famous songs are Eternal Flames of Metal with over 533.000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVUnY6_Rt6M

Beastslayer over 133.000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMWgmOG6nQU A Soldiers Tale over 151.000 views on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxbyeUBck8

A Soliders Tale on Spotify with over 270.600 streams Eternal Flames of Metal on spotify over 263.000 streams as wellother songs on Spotify.

Also reached billboard list at with their new album "Into the glorious Battle" Was number 13 on Germany itunes list in april 2017.

All 5 albums has international releases and been released worldwide and reviews can be found in bigger as well as smaller magazines. Seems as some pages were set up by fans and are now being completed as well as references are being added.

From Cryonic Temple Facebookpage: Cryonic Temple was founded in 1996 and the musicstyle is melodic Heavy / Power Metal. Cryonic Temple was together with Orphan Gypsy and Sabaton founders of the new Power Metal wave in Dalarna in early 2000's. Cryonic Temple has through the years performed at festivals suchs as Sweden Rock Festival, HeadBangers Open Air (Germany), Peace And Love, Gothenburg Metal Festival, Motala Metal Festival, 2000 Decibel. Cryonic Temple has also toured with Burning Point (Finland) and Tragedian (Germany) in connection with the release of the album " Immortal". Cryonic Temple has been an opening act for Uriah Heep, Saxon,Tad Morose, Lion's Share, Amaranthe, Civil War and Paul Dianno (ex. Iron Maiden).

Five CDs has been released worldwide: Chapter I (2002, Underground Symphony) Blood, Guts and Glory (2003, Limb) In Thy Power (2005, Limb) Immortal (2008, MetalHeaven)

NEW ALBUM!!! Into the Glorious Battle (2017, Scarlet Records

Written by FreewheelerCT — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreewheelerCT (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FreewheelerCT. If you can provide reference to the types of magazine reviews and things that you mention, that would be helpful in trying to gauge the notability of the subject. Unfortunately, lots and lots of views on social media and streaming services is often a sign that an artist may have sources available about them and their work, they don't really count for much as far as being sources in-and-of-themselves. TimothyJosephWood 17:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all; not finding anything relevant and reliably sourced on Google Books or Google News. bd2412 T 18:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a fan page; no indications of meeting WP:NBAND or other notability guidelines. Youtube views do not count (and they are not high enough to presume notability). Such content belongs on the band's facebook page. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 September 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 and redirect to MTV Video Music Awards. So Why 10:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vmas

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

This article has been on Wikipedia for ten years and literally nothing has been added to it since its creation. I would be for redirecting this article to MTV Video Music Awards rather than deleting it, however, if consensus agrees. JE98 (talk) 15:53, 28 August 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 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main site is 404 and there are zero references. No evidence that there was any significant coverage, or even existence, previously. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fine with a redirect per nom. Else Delete. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May have been a hoax network. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:10, 6 September 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. WP:SNOW. Despite that though, I think Johnpacklambert's point at the end is a good one. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary_Null

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

I am an Attorney representing Gary Null in his attempt to have his Wikipedia page removed. Gary Null's Wikipedia page should be deleted because it breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, which requires verifiability, i.e. that the information comes from reliable sources. On Gary Null's page, Reference #3 for the statement "He is an ADIS denialist and anti-vaccinationist" results in a 404-error page and thus not be considered a reliable source. Further, Gary Null's page is decidedly negative, which goes against Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View. Donickma (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donickma (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Nom is correct regarding the "salon" link, but it just needs correcting. The decidedly negative tone is just a reflection of Null and his relationship to the mainstream scientific view. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable (just) person. Reason given for deletion is spurious. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets all of our relevant notability guidelines. I've replaced the dead Salon link with an archived version from Wayback. Softlavender (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the Salon link which seems to have been the main objection to the page has been corrected, and the subject's notability is well established. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet guidelines. Artw (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BLPFRINGE. (The neutrality of this article has also been discussed multiple times at WP:BLPN.) -Location (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC) edited to include parenthetical comment 23:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Neutral" is not the same as making everybody look good. ApLundell (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet notability criteria and AfD is not the right venue to propose corrections. The article does not appear to be an attack page considering the sources and tone. NPOV does not mean that the article should be promotional; it is about reflecting in due weight what reliable sources report. —Paleo Neonate – 01:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WP:SNOW. A quote from Jimbo Wales: "What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.". Off-line sources (e.g. books) can be reliable, and dead links should not be removed (and fixing them is usually quite simple). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the proposer of this AfD has attempted to rewrite history on a technicality which has since been fixed, and has an obvious conflict of interest in making their client look good when countless reliable sources paint him in a different light. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called balance. Anything else is pandering. Facts is facts, even in Trump's America. Famous _dog (c) 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he is a notable person and appears to meet the guidelines.--ClrView (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article's subject is notable; an editor has addressed the dead link mentioned by the OP by replacing it with an copy curated in the Wayback Machine/Internet Archive. The source in question meets wikipedia criteria for a reliable source, thus the statement in question is verifiable. WP:NPOV does not require our articles to avoid discussing controversies surrounding living persons or to withhold opinions expressed by others regarding living persons or their acts or statements - just that they be presented neutrally. WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP require that we take care that statements made about living persons are verifiable and reliably sourced. The statements regarding the subject of this article all can be verified by the reader to be based on reliable sources. loupgarous (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relatively detailed and well-sourced article on a minor fringe writer. Meets notability criteria. I found contradictions between the Lead and the body of the article, but I think I fixed them. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In answer to OP's statement "Gary Null's page is decidedly negative, which goes against Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View", WP:BLP says "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." We did that. Any negative inferences drawn about the subject are solely owing to the subject's own contentious statements and reactions to those statements reported in reliable sources for information. It's no more POV for us to include that information in an article than it is for us to report on other WP:FRINGE theories and their reception by outside commentators. loupgarous (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete suject is not notable enough that there is any reason to have an article on the subject against his wish. Having this article against a clear desire not to on the part of this marginally notable person is a violation of the spirit of BLP rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 4 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mduvekot (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Jeong

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

Largely unsourced biography of a Korean poet. The article in Korean Wikipedia is noticeably shorter. It would be possible to trim this article down to the size of its Korean counterpart, were it not that that article is entirely unsourced. The only source with a link is an article by the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources, please review. Koreanlit (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 28 August 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 snow keep. To be fair, the version I nominated was rubbish but users have since improved it but it's clear that this nomination should be withdrawn. Thanks in particular to Nomader who did much of the improvement. (non-admin closure) DrStrauss talk 16:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XVideos

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

TL;DR: delete per WP:NWEB, WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG.

For the benefit of doubt, all the links that I provide to back up my argument are safe-for-work.

I am approaching this nomination with some caution because I may be tarred and feathered if not. Yes, this article is the most-viewed stub per the weekly ORES ratings. Yes, it’s ranked 50 on Alexa’s list of most popular websites. Does it meet our criteria for inclusion? I would say not.

This and this are the only coverage the website has received in independent, reliable sources. The first one fails single-event notability standards, because it’s just about a firefighter falling to his death whilst trying to remove pornographic images from the website from a hoarding and the second one is about someone wanting pornographic videos to include the Indian National Anthem which isn’t subject to in-depth, meaningful coverage. The petition by the proposer for this measure got 66 signatures so cannot be construed as notable in itself.

The only policy-based counter-argument against this nomination is per the web content notability guidelines. However, such an argument would be misplaced an incorrect because nowhere in these guidelines does it say that being the 50th most-visited website confers any notability at all. The other argument would be “but it’s popular, look at the ORES statistics”. Well, people may visit the article a lot but it is nothing than a mere directory entry which says it’s a website which provides pornography which the reader could probably guess from looking at their website. In other words, it’s not really an article.

DrStrauss talk 15:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sure there's a guideline somewhere that indicates "most visited websites in the world" are presumed notable. Maybe the lack of coverage could be the result of it being a pornographic site. I haven't gone through yet but I'll see if I can work something out and decide my vote — Za wl 15:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I've not come across such a guideline. There is WP:ALEXA but that is more a rule-of-thumb test which is applied to articles with content worth saving. And Pornhub, for example, is a pornographic site with significant media coverage. DrStrauss talk 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, this is definitely going to be one of the more interesting keep !votes that I've ever done. Per WP:PORN's sources section, XVideos is covered in a number of reliable sources that cover the industry (note that they're specifically reliable for adult industry news, NOT just general RS's-- I could see an oppose coming down saying that the sites themselves aren't reliable, but consensus so far has established them as such). I've listed a number of reliable sources below:
- From AVN: [24], [25], [26]
- From XBiz: [27], [28]
- I don't think there's any other rationale for deleting this article that I can see, and I therefore !vote keep. Just a note here as well that AVN and XBiz are probably not SFW for anyone reviewing sources. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note here on the links I gave-- almost all of them have to do with legal stuff. There's a few articles that I found as well that mention it as "world-famous" or "one of the largest" sites but it's always a side-mention. I specifically chose these sources to address the notes brought up by DrStrauss. Nomader (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If anything numbers 4 and 5 could just be used as citations on cybersquatting. XVideos isn't the main topic of either of them per se, just an example. As for 1, 2 and 3, they do constitute coverage but the only coverage they give is to numerous lawsuits brought against the company, and their inclusion without significant other coverage would violate the undue weight principle. DrStrauss talk 17:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. There's also coverage from these sources as well though ([29], [30]), the first one describing it as "currently the largest adult site" in 2012 and the other one expanding on another article from AVN. There's also the book Pink 2.0: Encoding Queer Cinema on the Internet which discusses Xvideos at length and was published by the Indiana University Press ([31]). I don't think it's going to win any awards for 'best article of the year', but I think that XVideos definitely meets WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding to this list-- The Economist also did a write-up on the state of the porn industry and talked about an attempted acquisition of XVideos by Mindgeek ([32]). It's a somewhat passing mention but it should be usable to flesh out the article. Nomader (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Searches for XVideo at Google Scholar yields about 325 results & about 92,300 results at Google News. "Just How Big Are Porn Sites?". extremetech.com. stated in 2012 that "Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit."

Why are we even debating notability at this point when it is clear that this article needs to be expanded beyond stub status? Because I often edit from a work computer (those Google searches done on a break from my personal notebook, BTW), I stay away from any sources for this article. Many of the edits over the history, when not vandalizing it or reverting vandalism, seem to keep trimming it down, hence one reason why it is so paltry. It is clear to me that the problem here is not a dearth of sources or notability, but the lack of editing dedicated to this topic.

Peaceray (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're debating notability because I have written a lengthy and detailed rationale which challenges the article's encyclopedic notability. Neither WP:NWEB nor WP:GNG say simple page views or search engine hits confer notability. Your keep !vote appears to be on the grounds that there are lots of hits or page views and doesn't analyse them in-depth. Sorry if this sounds crotchety, it's not intended to be. DrStrauss talk 21:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your rational & disagree with its conclusion. There is more to XVideos in potential sources than just the Alexa ranking. Again I return to the quote that I posted: "Xvideos, the largest porn site on the web with 4.4 billion page views per month, is three times the size of CNN or ESPN, and twice the size of Reddit." I fail to see what is unnotable about being the world's largest porn site when it is considerably larger than either CNN, ESPN, or Reddit, & ranked in the top 50 websites.

Regarding your statement about the two sources appearing in independent media, well, the one about the firefighter falling to his death seems to be negative cherry picking. Having just provided an independent source not in your set of two, I am highly skeptical that one cannot find substantially more in the >300 results from Google Scholar & >92,000 results from Google News. Coverage may not be great for XVideos, but I am sure that someone with time & unfettered access can eventually find plenty. Peaceray (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and recommend the nom review WP:BEFORE next time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stub needs to be expanded, not deleted. Looking through some of the press, it looks like the Indian government even targeted it by name in a censorship run. AlfredRennie (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable + arguments above. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 23:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlfredRennie and a flawed nomination that cites a one event rule which applies to biographies not organizations or websites, and then inexplicably cites another event which shows coverage of more than one event. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just created a history section and added a lot of sources in. I think this is becoming WP:SNOWBALL. Nomader (talk) 04:23, 31 August 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. The only keep !vote is a single interview and Google search results without explaining, where significant coverage exists. So Why 15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Milito

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

I can't find why she's notable. She happens to have been married to a mafia member - who isn't notable enough to already have his own page. The article claims the book she wrote to be a bestseller - can't find any evidence of this (references don't conform this, nor own research) Ryanharmany (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, no reliable source coverage. Jdcomix (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she was interview by CNN here and mentioned by popular websites link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mankind120 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 28 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MC Jessy

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

Non-notable comedian lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 28 August 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 the arguments raised for deletion vs redirection are stronger - this article describes a group of people so anyone searching for it would probably not be searching for relations on a national level. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Australians

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

fails WP:GNG. there is no inherent notability of ethnic groups in a country articles. the Mongolian community represents 0.005% of Australia's population . one of the sources provided looks totally unreliable. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reason to have this as an article, as it has basically no useful information. Elliot321 (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia–Mongolia relations. Plausible search term. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia–Mongolia relations per Ivar. This content is largely already there, and I agree that this isn't a particularly large or otherwise noteworthy population group. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is about an expatriate group, where as relations articles are normally about diplomatic relations. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good point. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no inherent notability for a group based on ethnic origin. A redirect to Australia–Mongolia relations would be off-topic, as this is about a group of residents, not about the diplomatic relations between the two countries. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. A small group who have not been the subject of significant coverage. If we want to note their population size somewhere, then Mongolian diaspora and Asian Australians could appropriately report the 1,235 figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 8 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panayiotis Kalorkoti

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

On the surface, the list of external links might suggest that this subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, many of the links are just to catalogue entries. There appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources here. There is a small amount of local news coverage, but I haven't been able to find much else. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. On the one hand, the three exhibition reviews in local newspapers meet WP:ARTIST standard 3. On the other hand, the article is plainly WP:PROMOTION driven by an SPA. I don't think Mr Kalorkoti is encyclopedic quite yet. Matt's talk 02:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:21, 28 August 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. The consensus is clearly to keep this article as an Institute of Higher Education (per the uncited WP:UNI/AG, presumably). (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Siddhartha Institute of Business Management

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

This article asserts that Sri Siddhartha Institute of Business Management is affiliated to Tumkur University. A search within that University's website yields only (at page 80 in the pdf file) a mention of this purported Business School offering a Master of Social Work, a degree that would appears to me rather different from degrees that would ordinarily awarded by a business school.

Turning to http://ssibm.edu.in: it appears to me that is a business, albeit one run by a religious organization. This business appears to fail the WP:CORPDEPTH test for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. Shirt58 (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the nom claims the institute does not exist or is fraudulent, per consensus higher education institutes are inherently notable. --Muhandes (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 04:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - individual institutes are not considered automatically notable; alternately merge. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a misunderstanding of its status. In India, affiliated colleges are entirely separate institutions, not sub-divisions of the university to which they are affiliated. This is not an institute of Tumkur University as we in the West would understand it; it is an independent college that happens to be affiliated to Tumkur University. Much the same as the colleges of the University of London used to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its existence has been WP:Verified by here and here. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 30 August 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 in one form or another. It's clear that there is no consensus to delete the nominated pages but also none what to merge where exactly. Fortunately, this is not a question that has to be answered at AFD. So Why 12:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concision

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

This is basically a matter of WP:NOT#DICT, with a little bit of WP:NOTHOWTO as well. There really isn't anything more that the page can say, beyond the definition and advice about writing style (although essays in Wikipedia space about concise writing are certainly policy-compliant). Pages about more specific concepts involving this word already exist. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating/bundling the following related page because because the subject is very similar, as are the reasons for deletion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wiktionary This seems like a pretty clear cut case of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". CJK09 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Concision and Succinctness as these cover the same topic. There is some overlap with Plain language, so it's also conceivable to treat these two topics in one place. – Uanfala 21:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that merging both pages into Plain language could be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another possible merge target is Verbosity. It might be the opposite concept, but it's on the same dimension. – Uanfala 22:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we go that way, I think that Plain language would be the better target. Actually, though, I could imagine merging all four pages. In so doing, there could be a genuinely encyclopedic page covering the history of some ideas, instead of a few dictionary entries. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merging with Verbosity will be straightforward, but I would caution against rushing to merge into Plain language unless a decent amount of literature has been consulted and a text can be written that integrates the two topics. – Uanfala 22:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you mean that it would be tricky to merge Verbosity into Plain language, or that it would be tricky to merge any of these pages into it? If the former, it would be simple to leave Verbosity out of it. But if it's the latter, I'm concerned about what the merged page would be called, without creating an Easter egg situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; I like the idea of merging in Succinctness. I would move this to Conciseness, which happens to be (internally) one of the criteria for article titles at Wikipedia:Article titles. The fact that a concept is abstract and difficult to write does not lift it from the category of things that can and should be included in an encyclopedia. The concept of conciseness, beyond the mere dictionary definition, is important in philosophy, law, and literature. It is one reason things like word limits for academic essays and court filings exist at all. bd2412 T 02:23, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have added some materials about teaching students conciseness at various levels of education, and that fact that it is claimed that conciseness is not as highly regarded in certain cultures. bd2412 T 03:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You named Conciseness as the merge target. Currently, that is a redirect to Concision. If we go with a simple merge of Succinctness into it, would the Concision pagename be more appropriate? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Conciseness" appears slightly more common, at least per Google hits. I am, of course, biased due to my work on the conciseness portion of title policy. bd2412 T 17:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been thinking about the ideas about merging. I'm not entirely convinced that doing so would be preferable to deletion, because, for example, when referring to physical size, we treat such words as huge, big, little, and tiny as DAB pages rather than regular pages, and there does not seem to me to be that much that can be said about concision and succinctness as standalone ideas within society, as opposed to as words. (One can address the application to law, for example, in Legal writing, and the application to pagenames in Wikipedia space.) But I'm open to persuasion, and I'm open to merging if that ends up being the consensus. So if there seems to be strong support for merging, I'm quite willing to withdraw this AfD early. However, there is not yet anything remotely like consensus about what would get merged into what, and I would prefer to see an emerging consensus about that before considering whether to end the AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut feeling is with bd2412's suggestion for using Conciseness as the article title for the merged Concision and Succinctness. I don't think the AfD should be closed early as it's a tricky topic and it could do with more input. – Uanfala 21:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Tryptofish:: big, huge, little, and tiny are adjectives, while concision (or conciseness, or succinctness) is a noun, a thing. A comparable concept, I think, is Size - which was a disambiguation page for a very long time, until I turned it into an article on the concept of size. That, of course, was after my proposal to do this was met with skepticism that an article could be written on a concept as abstract as size. bd2412 T 01:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a good point. It looks to me like my own skepticism here is a minority view. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep by moving succinctness into concision. The reason for keeping? Well, all the idioms, metaphors, word-blends, abbreviations and similes in the English language encouraging conciseness as well as its widespread discussion on various lexicological forums, as well as its opposite (verbiosity) suggests the topic is notable. 92.6.189.188 (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Succinctness at Conciseness per Uanfala and BD2412. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Succinctness page is grossly incomplete and incorporates database and programming language. Concision is strictly grammatical writing for documents. Verbose writing (documents) is not poor programming (cryptic). Merging these two is illogical; writing and programming are different animals. Keep concision (which it can be greatly improved to incorporate the KISS method, reference business/administrative writing compared to descriptive writing), and make a separate page for proper programming or database design. Thanks. --DigitalIQ (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)— DigitalIQ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- These issues go beyond my knowledge areas. My impression is that there are separate pages for the programming aspects, and that the proposed merge page should only be about the more general concept, but maybe I'm wrong. Do other editors believe that these are good reasons to change to a different course of action? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the merge page should eliminate programming/database; i.e. not include it with document writing. Cryptic programming gets the job done, but it is highly inefficient. It can make the code run slow with extraneous commands. Cryptic programming is the closest equivalent of verbose document writing, so verbose should not be used to describe cryptic/overbloated code. The two are unique, and should not be merged. This is just my opinion. KISS (Keep it simple, stupid or silly) is more a saying than method. It is taught in business writing classes to eliminate verbose writing (i.e. waste). Descriptive (novel writing to describe characters, and so forth) vs. business/proposal (concise) writing. Cheers. --DigitalIQ (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Edit (8/28/17): Maybe Concision can be merged with the page on Academic Writing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_writing --DigitalIQ (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 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. So Why 14:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riya Deepsi

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

The page does not meet wikipedia's notibility. It contain information from unlear source Ruhi55 (talk) 15:17, 14 August 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 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- The actress has done some notable work, there is also possibility that she will do more notable work in future. The actress has gain notability through her serial MB and become one of the known actress. ABCDE22 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Coverage in the press: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/riya-deepsi-to-enter-bharat-ka-veer-putra-maharana-pratap/ http://www.nettv4u.com/celebrity/hindi/tv-actress/riya-deepsi Same person? https://www.youpak.com/watch?v=16eqA9QzJac Ross-c (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- Just one article from a leading newspaper can't make a person notable. She did few show and none of her role was notable in those show except Gandhari. So the article should be deleted.Ruhi55 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 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. Time to put this discussion out of its misery. I am explicitly not closing this based on the argument of advocacy; while the article text was inappropriate in that direction such things can be fixed easily enough and are not reasons for deletion. Nor has it been deleted because the original author is a paid editor who is explicitly complying with the terms of use. However, there has also been a fair bit of ink used discussing the sources, but there seems to be a consensus formed that the references provided are either exceedingly local in nature, of dubious independence from the subject, or primary sources. While not universally accepted, this argument has not been rebutted and is the strongest view presented here.

I will restore this to anyone's user space upon request if they want to go ahead and try to salvage some content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation

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

Non-notable non-profit organizations that reads like an ad: it is excluded by both points of WP:N, as it fails WP:NOT since the article solely exists to promote the subject, and it also fails the general notability guideline. The sourcing that exists in the article is almost all from the org or a related website. Google News search reveals only connected sources (PR or org personnel interviews) or local coverage that typically doesn't rise to the level we expect for companies. All of these concerns make deletion the most appropriate response under policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello, I would like to address the concerns about the Rainbow Housing page, so that it is not deleted.
First, the article does not solely exist to promote the subject, but rather provide factually correct information that has been published in credible sources. As mentioned in the entry, Rainbow Housing is a non-profit entity, so there is is not a commercial motivation behind this organization. The article avoids puffery and it is not written to read like an advertisement since it is not intended to “promote or sell a product, service or idea.”
Second, in terms of notability guidelines, the article does include citations to reliable news sources that establish there has been significant coverage of the organization from multiple publications. While the organization’s website is used as a source of information, the 12 other outlets cited in the article provide factual details. The news articles used in the citation include content written by independent reporters. I added more citations and sources the the article today, 8/14/17.
When conducting a google news search for “Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation,” the first page of results does not yield any PR press releases. The search results include an article published by one of the U.S.’s largest daily major newspapers (Houston Chronicle), an online real-estate trade magazine (Commercial Property Executive), and an established national magazine (Affordable Housing Finance). In terms of Wikipedia’s policy on notability, I did not see any criteria related to what can be found in a Google News search. I do not see the connection between deleting a Wikipedia page based on your Google search, but please direct me to the appropriate Wikipedia guideline, since I found no mention of Google News Search in WP:N and WP:NOT.
However, I do know that the notability guidelines state that “notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.”
Perhaps notable news sources not already being used in citations can also be found outside of conducting only a Google News search. Since their is a concern for the sources currently being used, below is a brief overview of the outlets cited in the Wikipedia article. Upon reviewing these, it is clear that many of these citations come from trusted sources that are used for other published Wikipedia entries.
- The Houston Chronicle “is the largest daily newspaper in Houston, Texas, United States. As of April 2016, it is the third-largest newspaper by Sunday circulation in the United States.” The Chronicle is also one of the largest newspapers in the state of Texas.
- Affordable Housing Finance is a national magazine published by Hanley Wood, a real estate media firm that “is one of the ten largest business-to-business media companies in the United States, with the largest analytics and editorially driven Construction Industry Database of more than 2.5 billion records.”
- Next City “is a national urban affairs magazine and non-profit organization based in Philadelphia.” (Next City Wikipedia page)
- Arizona Business Magazine is the Arizona’s “leading monthly Business magazine. Published by AZ Big Media, the magazine covers a wide range of topics focusing on the Arizona business scene, and is aimed at high-level corporate executives and business owners.”
- Bisnow Media is “a multi-platform digital media company that produces news and live events...covering 27 metropolitan markets across the U.S., Canada and the U.K. with a subscriber base of over 600,000, Bisnow is one of the largest producers of commercial real estate news and events.” (BisNow Wikipedia page)
- Multi-Housing News is a real-estate magazine headquartered in New York that “became an online real estate magazine in July 2012.”
- How Housing Matters is an online resource which conducts housing-related research projects. It was created by the Urban Institute, “a Washington D.C.-based think tank that carries out economic and social policy research.”
- Shelterforce an independent, non-academic publication, that has been used as a citation in other Wikipedia pages, such as Gary Winkel and Susan Saegert.
- In addition to large, established outlets, a number of smaller trade outlets are cited as well. They include the following. National Real-Estate Investor is a national magazine that had reported on real estate-related news for 50+ years. Commercial Property Executive is an online trade magazine with a focus on reporting about commercial real estate business across the U.S. Connect Media is an online commercial real estate news source.

Therefore, I do not think deletion is appropriate in this case. HannahVerg (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)HannahVerg[reply]

That is quite a lot to process, but I'll try: first, the Houston Chronicle mention is fairly trivial: a smaller part of the larger article and a quote from a staffer. Even if it was more substantial, it was in the paper's local section, which is not as valuable as coverage in regional or national sections. The Next City Source is an op-ed by an employee of the NGO (see WP:SPIP). Trade publications and business journals are rarely considered to be reliable sources sufficient for notability on Wikipedia: they tend to reprint press releases and whatever they are told by the organization in question, and that seems to be the case for most of the things here. The language in the article clearly shows a promotional intent and tone as well, so in addition to the the lack of sourcing available that meets our standards, it would be excluded by WP:NOTPROMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also, just noting for future readers HannahVerg has declared in compliance with the terms of use that she has been paid to edit this article. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article content is neutral in tone and supported by credible news content from reliable trade and GCM media outlets with varied geographic reach. This article presents factual information regarding a valid non-profit organization. ctonih25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toniharrison25 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC) Struck vote per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toniharrison25 TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I would like to clarify that I was not paid by this organization to create the article. I merely disclosed my employer to provide transparency on how I became aware of Rainbow Housing, not to declare that I was paid to edit this article. I will edit my talk page accordingly to avoid future confusion. I also edited the page to reduce "promotional intent and tone." In terms of trade publications, I could not find and Wikipedia policy stating that these types of publications are not credible. HannahVerg (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. ThanksHannahVerg (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC), J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've cleaned it up a bit and fixed some references. I searched newspapers.com and their housing units are all over the country. It seems likely there are local news articles and TV news segments that exist out there - see WP:NPOSSIBLE. I also added an article from the Albuquerque Journal about its partnership with a San Francisco company to make housing units more ecofriendly etc. I think it needs to be less promotional and more encyclopedic in its tone, but it's not that bad compared with the truly horrific promo puff pieces on here. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The local stuff wouldn't get it anywhere near the GNG even under NPOSSIBLE. Quite literally every local non-profit in the United Statss would be eligible if we held them to local only coverage. Re: spam. Yes, they aren't for profit but this is just as horrific a promo piece as many of the businesses I've seen on here. Combine that with the COI issues with both of the !votss above and deletion is the clear best option under policy here TonyBallioni (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Local newspapers/television do not fail as reliable sources. That is only when the subject of the Wikipedia article has only coverage local sources, the point of which is to prevent people creating Wikipedia articles about their town's beloved 85-year-old librarian using the 10 articles about her in their town's newspaper. There are SIX NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS in the United States. That's it. The subject of this Wikipedia article is the organization itself, which is based in Phoenix. Therefore, the article in The Albuquerque Journal (the largest newspaper in New Mexico) about the organization working on a project in Albuquerque attests to the organization's notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes: and we even hold the local sections of those six national papers to a much lower value than we do the rest of their coverage. It tends to be of significantly lower quality and cursory in coverage than stories of regional or national importance. The fact that the only sourcing that can be found here is local makes a very strong case that the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hello, this is the creator of the page. Yes, the organization has received local coverage, but this is coverage that spans across the nation since Rainbow Housing has a national reach. The citations come from a variety of sources. There is also coverage from large national trade magazines, such as Affordable Housing Finance and Bisnow Media, so the sourcing is not only local. I have not been able to locate any Wikipedia policy that states trade magazines are not credible sources. Local coverage does not mean lower quality coverage. There are reporters who have received Pulitzer Prizes for local coverage, such as Lisa Falkenberg and Raquel Rutledge. HannahVerg (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:ADVOCACY with no encyclopedically relevant content. The sources are either WP:SPIP or passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NORG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per K.e.coffman. The majority of the sources are not independent (either directly with org's website or written by their staff). Others are just passing mentions. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage. MB 15:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know this has been here for a long time, but I'm in a quandry how to close it. So, I'm going to make my standard offer to the people arguing to keep. Could you list here the TWO OR THREE best sources, which discuss this from the point of view of WP:ORGDEPTH. Specifically, are there sources which talk about the organization itself, rather than mentioning it in the context of some project or event which the organization was involved with? Please limit it to just two or three; if you're willing to put in the effort to filter it down to a small number, I'm willing to put in the effort to read them. But, I'm not going to wade through a long list in the hopes something there clicks. There's no hard requirement that the sources need to be in national media, but the larger the audience scope, the stronger the source, so bear that in mind when selecting the best sources to review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Keep~~ In response to RoySmith (talk). Below please see a listing of 3 best sources in the Wikipedia article.
- 1. Albuquerque Journal: This 2008 coverage is specifically about Rainbow Housing's work. One main focus of the article is Rainbow's partnership with NRG Energy. This is reference #24 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article: ^[1]
- 2. Connect Media Commercial Real Estate: This article is a Q&A with the director of Rainbow. The content focuses on how Rainbow's housing model works. Connect Media is an online commercial real estate news source. This is reference #21 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article: ^[2]
- 3. Commercial Executive Magazine: This article's focus is that Rainbow Housing was selected as a service provider for a new Section 811 development in Arizona. Commercial Property Executive is an online trade magazine with a focus on reporting about commercial real estate business across the U.S. This is reference #21 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. This is reference #3 on the Rainbow Wikipedia page. Link to article: ^[3]

References

Thank for taking the time to review. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional sourcing. HannahVerg (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: just a note for the closing admin that this user has already !voted above. Second, of the three sources, only the first qualifies as anything near a reliable source. The 2nd is an interview, so it is WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't meet GNG. The second is a press release style article in a trade publication that is now excluded as counting toward notability by WP:ORGIND. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: please find a better argument for keep, or it may end up as a delete close next week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails the significant coverage requirement for WP:ORG. When asked above to provide the 3 best reliable sources, the article creator listed only one (The Albuquerque Joournal) which might meet the standard for significant coverage by an independent reliable source. The second ref is about affordable housing in general, not about this organization. The third ref is clearly a press release. Given that these are the "best" references presented after a month of searching, the page fails WP notability criteria at this time. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom but especially per User:CactusWriter. This may be a wonderful organization but that's not the question here. Is it notable enough for an encyclopedic article? No. Ifnord (talk) 16:32, 22 September 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 Mount Forest, Ontario. So Why 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Forest United Church

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Insignificant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [was "redirect or merge" --do ncr am 02:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)], probably to Mount Forest, Ontario. The present article includes, without source: "Built in 1873, the Mount Forest United Church is an important part of the local history of Mount Forest, Ontario, and continues to be one of the most historical, and recognizable landmarks of the area." It seems to me to be a decent attempt to assert and explain notability relating to the populated place. However, the church is apparently not listed on any historic registry and its specific historic importance is not adequately explained to justify a separate article now. We should prefer to find Alternatives to deletion and redirecting to the populated place article (which currently mentions the church in just one sentence) is a good one. --do ncr am 19:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is an appropriate solution for churches of only local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 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. So Why 12:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich DiSilvio

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

Bio of a non-notable individual. Article has had lots of puffery added and deleted recently, but there have never been references to reliable sources and my searches find nothing of substance. He exists, he's written a few books and done some music and literature cover art but I'm not seeing anything which makes him pass WP:BIO. Has had a WP:PROD removed. Neiltonks (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I worked my way through the entire history of the article to find nothing the was properly sourced that could support the notability of the subject. There is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, so it faikls WP:GNG and none of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE are met. This is not an artist who has has won significant critical attention. A Google news search yielded: No results found for "Rich DiSilvio". Mduvekot (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You all seem to be missing a critical point. He is not just an artist (who worked on projects for many music celebrities and even produced a collector plate & mug series for Lincoln Center). Nor is he just an author (who happened to win an international gold award and received acclaim from PhDs for his nonfiction work), since he also conceived of and developed the first interactive software for autism in 1999. In all my searches I have not come across anyone who developed such a product before him. Newsday, a reliable news source, mentioned this release in 1999, and a PhD from Rutgers gave a testimonial to the significance of this new software as well. That the PhD’s testimonial is posted on the software’s website I guess that becomes invalid too. But just because every bit of information of the past or present is not readily online via Google, or like this testimony, is not posted on a totally independent site, does not negate the reality or significance of this achievement, or his artwork on high profile music albums or book covers, or his award-winning literary achievement, which is notable, when competing against thousands of writers from several countries. So I’ll leave it at that. DVed (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable Sources do not need to be on the internet (though, of course, that makes things easier). So, you are free to add references, even if there is not a web site to support it. Robman94 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in article/ A search turns up only a few very minor mentions. Fails diverse reliable sources requirement. One minor source, interestingly, is in "How to Promote Your Music Successfully on the Internet: 2011 Edition". In it, Da Silvio is mentioned as a person who specializes in "visual promotions"... "including web design, cover art and multi-media". Not notable.104.163.140.99 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been gutted before being hauled to AfD. Assess THIS earlier version, not the one line stub that remains. No opinion about inclusion-worthiness. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any sources that match WP:RS. Nomader (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note here, I reviewed the version that Carrite mentioned here, but unfortunately the sources there don't meet muster either. They're all promos and links to Amazon-- which don't meet WP:GNG. Nomader (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a low-profile individual. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:05, 6 September 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) 05:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Straschnov

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

Not independently notable - mentioned only in relation to Bubble (programming language) and the available coverage doesn't provide a sufficient basis for a biographical article. Rentier (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage. No book coverage. Only 26 Google news hits - and they do not look like in-depth coverage of Straschnov (I admit I ignored hits in Chinese).Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added some sources to make the article stronger (i'm pretty new to this so learning) Manu239 (talk) 02:01pm, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

— Manu239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not independently notable from the company; significant RS coverage not found. The article is mostly promotional, as in:

"Emmanuel often speaks publicly about Bubble!" Etc.

Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, it is not meant to be a comprehensive listing of business people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:07, 4 September 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 Ceres, Fife. Content remains in the history for merging. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fife Folk Museum

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

fails WP:ORG. museums are not inherently notable. 2 gnews hits are in the very local news. LibStar (talk) 04:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added text and several references relating to the museum and its buildings, but appreciate that these may still fall short of substantial coverage. An alternative to deletion could be merge and redirect to Ceres, Fife? AllyD (talk) 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate your efforts regardless of the outcome of this AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merger to Ceres, Fife would seem a very good idea, as there is some useful information here, if there is consensus that the museum is not notable enough to have an article of its own. Dunarc (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Ceres, Fife. Despite the heroic efforts of AllyD I don't think the range of references is significant enough to justify a separate article. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Ceres, Fife § The village per WP:ATD-M/WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as proposed, always a good option for attractions tied to populated areas. bd2412 T 03:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a newspaper search for the last 10 years and added more references including some coverage in other Scottish papers (it also has coverage in various guidebooks), as well as referencing most of the facts tagged as needing references. I don't have access to older newspapers but it seems likely more coverage exists. Also, the building is Category A listed which is normally considered strong evidence of notability. A merge wouldn't be terrible (although it might unbalance the target), and the existing sources aren't all the strongest, but I think considering all these points, it meets guidelines for a keep. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Museums are inherently notable, or at least in practice we keep them, because they are public attractions and coverage about them in reputable travel guides exists and so does other coverage. Articles on obscure private museums not open to the public may not be needed, but that's not this. wp:BEFORE not performed? --do ncr am 04:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums are not inherently notable. listing in travel guides is hardly a case for notability especially when attractions often ask to be included in travel guides. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unpleasant, but LibStar is committed to wp:BLUDGEONing, in particular they are committed to commenting upon every comment/vote that I make. To continue quoting from the poem:

He stays so close beside me, he's a coward you can see;

I'd think shame to stick to nursie as that shadow sticks to me!

--do ncr am 15:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hardly. it's a clear refute of your clearly erroneous claim that museums are inherently notable. you do your AfD argument a disservice by deliberately lying. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While public museums may not be "inherently" notable, as claimed above, I would say they are generally notable except where reliable sources don't exist. This isn't the case here; the article is supported by multiple non-trivial sources. The Scotsman, Herald and Courier are all respected regional broadsheet newspapers. Also, as well as the museum, the building itself is likely to be considered notable on account of its listed status, and again there are sources to support this, such as Historic Scotland. While its notability could legitimately be called into question based on the state of the article when the nomination was made, I think it is now much more clearly established. Jellyman (talk) 08:58, 29 August 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjuman-e-Tarraqui-e-Khowar

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

No such coverage in WP:RS. Seems to clearly fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 11:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. — TheMagnificentist 12:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the primary organization for promotion of Khowar language, active in publishing for decades, several book mentions. "...September 1990 the 2nd lnternational Hindu Kush I Cultural Conference was held in Chitral under the auspices of the Anjuman-e-Taraqqi Khowar Chitral. Renowned scholars from U.K., U.S.A., ltaly, Norway, Denmark, West Germany...", "...there is an active group of indigenous writers and local historians associated with the Anjuman-e-Taraqqi Khowar, several of whom delivered papers in the Khowar language of Chitral.", "The second International Hindukush Cultural Conference was held at Chitral in 1990 and it was organised entirely by the local efforts of the Anjuman-i-Taraqqi-i- Khowar. The conference was attended by over fifty scholars including historians", "3rd International Hindukush Cultural Conference: August 26th to 30th, 1995 at Chitral (Hosted by Anjuman-e-Taraqqi Khowar, Chitral)." --Soman (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Soman. See: DAWN, DAWN, ET, The News & this. Do you even perform WP:Before nominating? - Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:51, 29 August 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khushboo Purohit

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources listed in the article are passing mentions or routine coverage. Created by Special:Contributions/Piyushpriyank with a history of creating articles on nn subjects. An article under the same name has been deleted twice, in 2009 and in 2014. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -sufficient citations to establish notability. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:46, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep notable. Bisharch (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

— Bisharch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980

Note Please include a signature with five tildes, possibly using small font, when making sockstrikes; both to provide attribution, and to provide a timestamp for the discussion to show when the post was stricken.
The diff for the sockstrike is here, and was posted at 2017-09-16T06:12:51‎. Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: As per this diff, this editor is "unrelated", but the editor is also blocked. Please sort this out. Unscintillating (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment -- I do not find the sources listed in the article as sufficient for notability. They include:

"Khushboo Purohit, Remo and Prince Gupta of Lux 'Dance India Dance' during a photoshoot in Ahmedabad - Photogallery"
"Reporters Gossips: Khushboo Purohit aka Trisha to exit the show"

These are trivial mentions; there's not indication that the subject meets WP:NACTOR either. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

User:K.e.coffman, If you have evidence that this topic was in a beauty pageant, why are you not revealing the source of information? Otherwise, why are you listing it with Beauty pageants? Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have evidence that the subject was in a beauty pageant. However, I consider reality TV competitions to be sort of pageants. Seeing that this AfD has had low participation and is on its third relist, I added it there. However, it appears to be confusing, I will remove it from the list at Deletion Sorting - Beauty Pageants. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am looking up more information about her and will comment later with my findings.--DreamLinker (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep She has some notability. Verified the Times of India article. Page requires editing.Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

— Shashi 1980 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. see also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980

Delete as the sources hardly provide any coverage about her. She participated in a dance reality show called Dance India Dance, but there are many such reality shows in Indian tv these days. Simply participating doesn't make one notable. The claims in the article that she acted in "numerous films" is slightly misleading. Her roles are quite minor and in some cases related to simply dancing in one music video. I would also like to mention that the sources are all Times groups (Times of India, Indiatimes) related and is limited to very short gossip articles. Here are some important points about the sources as well as about the person in general.
1. Ref 1 is not a reliable news source, but one of the many gossip websites online. These websites are often worse than tabloids and publish content without verification, often posting all sorts of rumours.
2. Ref 2 is just one tabloid image and a one line description. Indiatimes is part of the TOI group.
3. Ref 3 is a similar Indiatimes tabloid "news" (usually generated from anonymous sources). If you read the article, it is very short and that too only one sentence is devoted to her. A news article wouldn't end with "We wish luck to Khushboo for her Bollywood debut."
4. Ref 4 Once again a similar Indiatimes tabloid news with one sentence mention of her. The role in the movie is restricted to dancing in the music video.
5. It is surprising that there is no significant coverage about her in Hindustan Times and the Hindu, both major English dailies in India. A notable actor would usually have significant coverage in all three newspapers. Clearly, this is not the case here.
6. I am also quite surprised that so many new accounts are voting on this afd right after the account has been created, such as "Shashi 1980" and "Bisarch". Neither do I understand the rational of "Barbara (WVS)" who says sufficient citations to establish notability, despite the citations being really low quality.
7. She is upcoming actor who has had a few minor roles and I wish her all the best. But at this point of time she is not yet notable.--DreamLinker (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I've stricken votes by two now indef blocked accounts; pls see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shashi 1980. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she meets WP:GNG, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 16 September 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 Gangarampur#Parks. Clear consensus not to have a freestanding article on this topic. Redirects are cheap. bd2412 T 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kalitala Children Park

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

Does not pass GNG or any other notability guideline. It is a local children's park, with the only reference being the yellow pages ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 02:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG; no more notable than any children's playground/park Spiderone 10:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gangarampur#Parks - that section should include text such is found in this article, rather than simply a list of wikilinks.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Spiderone. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above comment.Egaoblai (talk) 08:26, 13 September 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 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaina Taub

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress, performer, entertainer. Maybe just too soon Quis separabit? 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At first glance of the provided sources I was certain they would be the usual name checks in cast listings, trivial promos, etc. However, once I actually opened the links, I see she has received third party, non-trivial write-ups in both the New York Times and the from organization that runs the Tonys/OBIE awards -- two of the best measures for a Broadway performers notability. Being singled out in The Hollywood Reporter reviews is borderline trivial, and The Intervalny as a source is a non-factor. A google search reveals additional run-of-the-mill type coverage and listings not cited in the article. So call it a weak keep if you want, but I think there is just enough that she passes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 11 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Herzenberg

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

Biography of an academic and politician, whose most substantive claim of notability is that his election to a smalltown city council in 1987 made him the first openly gay elected official in his state. We do not, however, automatically accept everybody as notable who can merely claim to have been the first member of an underrepresented minority group to hold an otherwise non-notable political office -- it would count for something if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG off the media coverage he received for the fact, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to be reliably sourced. Of the three sources being cited here, however, one is an unpublished private e-mail from his sister and the other two are his contributor profiles in the back matter of an academic journal. And while there's a linkfarm of other "sources" present in the external links section, most of those are blogs rather than reliable sources -- the only one that even starts to build a case for GNG is an obituary in the local newspaper. But it's a deadlink, and obituaries of local figures would be routinely expected to exist in the local newspaper, so that source doesn't make him pass GNG all by itself. All of which means there just isn't enough valid sourcing here to make him notable. (Also there's a probable conflict of interest here, as the creator's username corresponds to the name of one of Herzenberg's council colleagues.) Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG; reads like resume. Maybe refund to article creator for a re-do.Quis separabit? 15:14, 28 August 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Mironova

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

This is an unsourced biography of a ballet teacher that fails WP:BIO. Its editing history shows there have been a number of SPAs involved in editing it, and a sister article (Victoria International Ballet Academy) that was redirected to this one in March 2014. This appears to be a vanity article, or one set up to promote the ballet academy. Note that Category:Vaganova method teachers should also be deleted, as this article is the only entry in that category. Mind matrix 14:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have notified Vladimirdemine (talk · contribs) and Canadian Ballet Lover (talk · contribs), the two most prominent SPA editors of that article, though neither has edited since 2013. Mind matrix 15:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mind matrix 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Mind matrix 15:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 28 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of town council members of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

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

As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alderpersons of Carrboro, North Carolina, comprehensive historical lists of town or city councillors in individual cities simply aren't a thing we do on here. A person wouldn't pass WP:NPOL for this role in and of itself, so it's mostly a list of non-notable people because normally the only way a person would actually have an article to link to is if they went on to hold office at the state or federal levels. And even places like New York City, where the city councillors are considered to pass NPOL because the city is so large and internationally prominent, still don't actually have lists like this. No prejudice against creation of an article about the city council itself, if one can be substanced and sourced, but a list of the past city councillors all the way back to the 1800s just isn't a thing we need. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the individuals don't pass WP:NPOL in their own right, then their notability cannot inherited either from these types of list articles. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How does this pass WP:LIST? Bearian (talk) 02:01, 1 September 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^(T) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Church

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

Can't find any non-local coverage to indicate they pass WP:GNG. Local politician who does not pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article moved from Warren Church to Warren Church (politician) by me, during AFD. I believe/hope this should cause no confusion. --do ncr am 23:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Both Warren Church (politician) and the dab page Warren Church now have AfD tags, but this AfD entry is clearly about the politician so I removed the tag from the dab page (in the hope my action doesn't screw up this AfD!). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't think that will cause any problem, but a bot had added the AFD tag there and may do so again. If so the AFD tag there needs to be removed after this AFD about the politician is completed. --do ncr am 14:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline case. The 5, regionally-elected county supervisors are the executive authority for Monterey County, which with a pop. ~ 450,000 is sort of like a city council in a mid-size city without a Mayor. Most Monterey country supervisors are not bluelinked. One area where he may be notable is in his land use regulation and park-creating efforts in Monterey County - one of the most treasured scenic regions in the U.S. (Big Sur). Claims that he took a leading role in creating parks for local use, County's first park, and the county Parks Department appear to be valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The operative issue is the 250,000 population of Monterey County at the time, not its present population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Population understates the importance of Monterey County; it is important for its rugged coastline and campgrounds/beaches/parks and more, is known by many millions who have driven California Route 1(?) in order to see the scenery. Carmel is a rich, expensive place which must spill out; the development pressures must be huge. What goes on in Monterey is more newsworthy than elsewhere. A pioneering preservationist and county supervisor there is simply a lot more important than they would be somewhere else. --do ncr am 21:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County supervisor is not a level of office that constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass in and of itself — it's a level of office where an article might be acceptable if it could be sourced well enough to get him past WP:GNG, but it's not a role that entitles him to an article just because he existed. Of the 39 sources cited here, however, close to half are primary sources (reports and meeting minutes from the county's own internal records, raw tables of election results, etc.) that cannot assist notability — and of the ones that represent reliable source coverage in media, even a large proportion of those are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him, or even entirely tangential to him (frex, reference #30 links to an article which verifies stuff about the Humble Oil refinery fight but completely fails to even mention Warren Church's name in conjunction with it.) All of which leaves us with very few sources that are both reliable and substantively about Warren Church — and every last one of those few sources represents the purely routine level of purely local coverage that would simply be expected to exist for any county councillor. So the sourcing shown here does not constitute evidence that he belongs in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable county level politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Warren Church received significant independent coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources. I have reviewed the notability guide and can find no mention that he needs “non-local coverage” I could not find any mention of a requirement that the sources be geographically distant from one another. I have been asking around to other editors, and no one has heard of that requirement. Only the guidelines on WP:GNG.

Articles do not need to be about the subject, “Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” WP:SIGCOV. As Warren Church received his notability pre-Internet, all the sources are newspaper articles. I have reviewed many and they pass the “more than a trivial mention” requirement. Bearcat, you say that half of the 39 sources are to reports and meeting minutes, which is what I had to use to prove elements of the article, mainly the Committees area. They were not used to prove notability which is what is being challenged in this AfD. Citation #30 is the only online article that exists on Humble Oil. I used it as an element of the Humble Oil section, it was not used to prove notability.

Notability is not temporary WP: NTEMP. His contributions were decades ago, prior to the Internet’s existence. The sources I have used prove that during the years he was active he was notable.

Warren Church is an important part of local land use history in Monterey County. Multiple notable sources have acknowledged him as the father of the Monterey County parks system. These sources state this in different publications, and over many years. Warren Church has coverage for a significant period of time, starting at the beginning of his political career, through his 12 years as a supervisor; “sustained coverage is an indicator of notability.” WP:SUSTAINED.1stCoastal (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you say that you had to use reports and meeting minutes to prove elements of the article — but if you had to source things that way because there was no media coverage for them, then by definition those things aren't notable enough to be addressed in the article at all. If the media didn't care enough to report those things, then neither do we.

Secondly, "an important part of local land use history in Monterey County" is not a notability criterion. To get a person into Wikipedia on a claim like that, the coverage of the claim would have to nationalize into sources on the order of The New York Times or The Washington Post, and purely local coverage in Monterey County's own local media wouldn't cut it. Yes, we most certainly do require the coverage to go beyond the purely local in many cases — for instance, we don't keep smalltown municipal councillors just because local sourcing exists; we don't keep county supervisors just because local sourcing exists; we don't keep standalone non-chain restaurants or retail stores or other small businesses just because local sourcing exists; and on and so forth.

The simple reality is that every town or city or county that has a public parks system will always have its own local person who can be described and locally sourced as the "father" or "mother" of the system (as well as its own "father" or "mother" of the library system, and on and so forth) — so what's needed is not just local verification that he did the same things as every other "parent" of a local parks system, but evidence that he's somehow a special case over and above most of the others. What's needed isn't a reason why readers in Monterey County might be interested, but evidence that readers on the other side of the world need to care more about the father of Monterey County's park system than they do about the founder of their own local park system who doesn't have an article. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Warren Church is not notable for being the occupant of an office that "came with a typewriter and $300 a month for incidentals" but rather for someone who, if chosen as the topic for a mid-semester "someone who could serve as a role model for public service" report by a 7th grader, Wikipedia could be a proper and valuable source. Also, Warren Church's "'12 years is as long as anyone should consecutively hold any one elective or appointive position... New ideas are necessary..." is quoteworthy, especially because "he did not miss a single board meeting... 558 consecutive regular board meetings and 100 or more special meetings." Trink24 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my "keep." From his Obituary, he's not such a role model for a 7th grader:

"Mr. Church ended his own life on Saturday at the age of 87 under the state’s relatively new End of Life Option Act after years of failing health and no hope of recovery"
China did population control; his "The Overburdened Ark" on population control - too many foreigners? Trink24 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards are based on sourceability, not whether 12 year olds might pick him as an essay topic. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note to closer - neither of the above "keep" !votes are based on policy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This person died on Saturday (after the initial listing) [33]; re-listing in case any of the obituary coverage shows new notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Power~enwiki (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Monterey Herald obituary which someone added to the article is substantial. It is fairly natural and common that articles get created about notable persons when they are dying or have just died, when the absence of an article is pretty salient. Some editing down of the article to report on his life in a more summary fashion would be appropriate. --do ncr am 21:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An obituary in the local newspaper is routine, not notability-establishing, coverage, because it would simply be expected to exist. Get back to us when he's obituaried in The New York Times, not just the Monterey Herald. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most deceased persons don't get any obituary written by a newspaper as a news obituary (as opposed to family-written paid obituaries, or no obituary at all), which this appears to be. I am not saying everyone getting such an obituary is Wikipedia-notable, but IMO this one's content is substantial. You have made it clear you think otherwise, we can just agree to disagree. --do ncr am 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not every deceased person has their death automatically treated as news. But every deceased person who held a role that made them locally prominent — every mayor, every city councillor, every county councillor, every school board trustee, etc. — most certainly does get obituaried in the local newspaper. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This source "25 who got us here" of 2013 in "Monterey County Now" provides profiles for 3 then-current Monterey County Supervisors: Lou Calcagno, Jane Parker, and Simon Salinas who probably deserve articles. It doesn't speak to Warren Church's notability directly, but I think that more coverage of these supervisors is warranted. --do ncr am 23:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are good sources showing he served on several regional boards. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on his notability being sufficiently established from local sources at a pre-internet time. WP:NTEMP Sequitur99 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is more than well sourced and the arguments here is favour of keep are impassioned and logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 September 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) 05:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Billgard

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

Fails General Notability and Reliable sources Zazzysa (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The awards have flashy titles, but with out any WP:RS, delete if not speedy delete A7 — IVORK _Discuss 14:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And did a quick search, none of the "awards" have turned up any relevant results. Are people starting to make up whatever achievements that sound flashy? -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely unsourced, doing a quick search and unable to find anything in relevance. -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. 🖉←} 04:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete sourceless bio of a living person, actually worse since the person is under age 18 (under age 13, making the violations of the privacy of a minor worse). No clear evidence that this is not a hoax.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 29 August 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 with the option to redirect if anyone wants to. Hut 8.5 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alison James

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

Prod removed without reason. Concern was Obscure actress. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG

I concur hence the nom Gbawden (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The actress appears to have received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. She played only one significant role, which is insufficient to pass WP:NACTOR. Rentier (talk) 21:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tiffany Pratt the fictional character portrayed by the actress. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
leaning to Delete - one role in a soap is just not enough to be notable. Redirect is possible, but, though I'm sure others would disagree with me, I'd likely be in favor of deleting the article on the character as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending further editing. I've just noticed that James is her maiden name and under her married name of Alison Raine she has had more of a career: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0416265/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm MurielMary (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant find reasonable and valid references about this article.Mr.ref (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no SIGCOV found, and one role falls short of notability for the actor. A redirect is unnecessary, as there's no usable article history to preserve. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, actor known for only one role. The purpose of a redirect is to help people find articles, so the page history is irrelevant. (And even if Tiffany Pratt is deleted, there may be an alternative target.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 11 September 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 for deletion per this company not meeting Wikipedia's notability standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kostoulas

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

fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. The sources are simply directory listing or a bio for a person that works for another recycling company that lists his previous work for Kostoulas. Domdeparis (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. A purely promotional article, devoid of any reliable third-party sources. I had been adding COI and Notability tags, but were constantly removed by Kostoulas' promoters. Some IPs and users are promoting Kostoulas company in Greek WP, English WP, and Commons (cf. user's W220greece global contributions, and his/her Greek public logs). There were several attempts to create a Greek article on Kostoulas, but all articles were eventually deleted for lacking notability; cf. Κωστούλας, Κωστούλας ΑΕΒΕ, and Kostoulas Recycling (3 times!). →34kor34 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The page was created with the purpose of this particular historical company entering the wikipedia. Unfortunately for some reason. Instead of helping to correct the page, I get from 1-2 users of wikipedia requests to delete the page. I wish the page wont be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.220.24 (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2017(UTC)— 94.66.220.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The reason that the page is being regularly deleted is that it doesn't meet the criteria. Not all companies are considered notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a directory of every company that exists. If you want the page to stay then read the notability criteria in WP:ORG and try and find the sources to prove that it meets these criteria. I looked and couldn't find them. Domdeparis (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I and other users have suspected is proved to be true: user W220greece has been using multiple IPs (cf. contib. of 94.66.220.39, obviously the same person behind 94.66.220.24)/accounts to promote Kostoulas in en-WP and el-WP, and for reverting other users placing tags (vandalism) as well. →34kor34 (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, as said before, the lack of reliable sources and notability sinks it. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:25, 4 September 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. Let's try to sort this out using regular editing, which may include merging, and if not, we can revisit the possibility of deletion at a later time. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  08:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bardon Park (Western Australia)

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

Non-notable park. Sure there's information on it but no actual proof of notability. Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability etc. — IVORK _Discuss 13:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched but could find no references suggesting that this is a recognized tourist attraction or otherwise more than an attractive but run of the mill city park in the Maylands neighborhood of Perth's Bayswater suburb. It's not even mentioned in our articles about Maylands and Bayswater, although some other parks are. As such, notability is not established under the guideline at WP:NGEO or otherwise. (Note: there's a more notable Bardon Park in Leicestershire.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community group https://www.facebook.com/bardonpark/ User:stevenebsary —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC) As the Bardon Park area is significant to Noongar Culture and history with the natural springs in the wetlands also its links to Derbarl Yerrigan (Swan River) http://www.bom.gov.au/iwk/calendars/nyoongar.shtml#djilba[reply]

Section substituted in from User_talk:Stevenebsary#Sourcing_relevant_info — IVORK _Discuss 07:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day mate,
You are doing good work on the article in terms of getting it to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. However unfortunately I do believe the deletion nomination I placed will succeed due to the fact it is just one run of the mill park of many across Perth. Wikipedia being an online encyclopedia can only include articles that are particularly note-worthy. Just because something exists does not automatically qualify it as such. The criteria for notability is laid out in WP:NGEO. If it is deleted, I hope you still have the desire to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. — IVORK _Discuss 06:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of sourcing relevant info on the park.User:Stevenebsary

It's not about information to prove it exists, I was a resident of Perth for 20 years, it's about proving that it is worthy of an article. That it is relevant to people outside of the local surrounds / city / state / country. — IVORK _Discuss 06:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://library.dbca.wa.gov.au/enwiki/static/FullTextFiles/052287.003.pdf

Yep, again. This merely states it exists, not that it is particularly notable above any of the other parks that exist across the world. — IVORK _Discuss 07:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, a wildlife sanctuary is important. It has indigenous history https://parks.dpaw.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/downloads/parks/Indigenous%20history%20of%20the%20Swan%20and%20Canning%20rivers.pdf

I'm not sure 30 people camping there in the 1930-60s alone gives it relevance. This is the only mention of the park in the article. DPAW doesn't even list it on the "park finder" on their website, I'd say it'd be pretty hard to find an example of a park with a waterfront that isn't also "a wildlife sanctuary". There is however an article on the Swan River (Western Australia). — IVORK _Discuss 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous art installation https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=692968497568450&id=677400495791917

Tourist attraction park playground https://www.weekendnotes.com/bardon-park/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenebsary (talk • contribs) 08:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very reluctantly. There just does not seem to be anywhere near enough to establish notability at this time. It is mentioned in WA Parliamentary debate though. As much as I do not like to see the first article by a WP:NEWBIE get deleted, especially given that there seems to be so much good faith here, and having had such trouble myself when I first started, there just does not seem to be enough here for anything remotely core or in-depth or specific to the park. If the indigenous aspect can be built up, I might be convinced to change my mind. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the sv site version related here? This all started due to facebooks import from that source, causing incorrect data there for the place (well in the wrong language). Unfortunately facebook is terrible at places in many ways. Will that version still exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenebsary (talk • contribs) 13:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined not to encroach into foreign language Wikipedias. From what I can tell with the assistance of a translator extension, that article was created by an automated bot. Being that was the case, and no such thing for article creation exists on the English Wikipedia, what I know of their guidelines clearly isn't enough for me to propose deletion. Most foreign language Wikipedias act independently of one another, as even the guidelines after all are all just one big agreed-upon consensus between editors. I am not familiar with the history of that article or the bot that seemingly created it. — IVORK _Discuss 14:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The Swedish Wikipedia article mentioned above is at sv:Bardon Park (park i Australien, Western Australia). The same bot that created that article also created one for sv:Bardon Park (park i Australien, New South Wales). That's a real neighborhood park in Coogee, New South Wales [34], but I don't see anything in either of these Swedish articles that suggests that either of these parks is notable under English Wikipedia standards. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Maylands, Western Australia. There's really no need to delete all of this newbie's work.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, to revisit in six months or one year. Or at worst merge, possibly into Maylands, Western Australia. Or move to List of parks in Western Australia and develop. Quite small municipal/urban parks in the United States are "Kept" at AFD fairly frequently. Coverage of parks in Western Australia could be developed by creating a list-article, with a table row for each one. I note there is not a List of parks in Australia (currently a redlink) or even an international List of parks (currently a redlink), though there is a List of national parks and List of national parks in Australia. --do ncr am 17:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note there are sources about community involvement in the park, from relatively local news sources and blogs, but I think these add up and suffice. For example:

blog review/description of the park
I added that "Nearby residents concerned about the park incorporated the Bardon Park Riverside Restoration Group to address weeds in 2016. The park has been managed by the City of Bayswater since 2006." based on |title=Residents to tackle Bardon Park weeds themselves, of 11 October 2016
I added that: "A nature playground was developed for $175,000 and opened in March 2016. The playground features a rock garden which illustrates 'the six Noongar seasons of Birak - the first summer, Bunuru - the second summer, Djeran - autumn, Makuru - the first rains, Djilba - the second rains and Kambarang - flowering.'", based on the City of Bayswater's facebook posting about it: [35].

I think this stuff adds up. What is needed is some helpful development, not eradication of good faith new contributor's work. --do ncr am 17:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. we have normally kept all substantial city parks as geographic features, and the references are good enough for that. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, re sources discussed throughout this afd, a "Parks" section in the Maylands, Western Australia article would also be useful. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I'm not sure that this is a "substantial city park", to quote DDG. If this were Central Park or Hyde Park then definitely, but I'm not convinced this is anything more than an ordinary suburban park, and none of the sources shown or arguments presented have convinced me otherwise. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep - This seems to have been covered in multiple reliable sources. Although there aren't too many, I think that there are enough to verify the contents of the article. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 20:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a small city park with no indication of notability. I was easily convinced by reading this from one of the sources in the article: "would have to be one of the prettiest, albeit least-known of our riverside parklands. Relatively small in size, ..." It has some grass, a playground, some picnic tables (as do thousands of others). Just a WP:MILL park. MB 02:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not sure this strictly meets GNG, but normally with geographical features we just need their existence to be proven, which in this article it has. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:06, 30 September 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. So Why 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quilly (rapper)

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No awards or charted songs. Trivial mention in online sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability and doesn't pass music. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I should note I had created the article over a year ago, although I haven't made any edits in the past year. Subject meets WP:GNG, and was recently on Hot 97, one of the leading hiphop radio stations [36]; He has also been on Power 99's "Cosmic Kev Show" several times over the years [37]. His online print coverage may be considered 'trivial' but his coverage on radio media (aforementioned) is notable and satisfies points #11 and #12 of WP:MUSICBIO. –DA1 (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify listed his track "Real One" among the most popular Philadelphia rap songs as reported by Patch Media on July 2015 [38]. The song continues to be played on several stations across the country, based on Mediabase charts [39], pertaining to point #11 of WP:MUSICBIO. The song was also featured on the score to the 2015 film Brotherly Love (citation: film credits) [40]. –DA1 (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -#11 and #12 require significant national play. Nothing shows that to be the case.--Rpclod (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: What about the other references? The track "Real Ones" came out in 2015, and is still listed in playlists for a number of radio stations. Its rotation 2 years earlier was much more significant. Nontheless, Hot 97 is a notable source. XXL [41] and HotNewHipHop [42] have covered him as well. I don't see how that does not satisfy point #1. None of these are self-published, and notable sources (with their own Wikipedia articles to boot). –DA1 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Hot 97 nor HotNewHipHop qualify as reliable sources. XXL is very irregularly published and its editorial oversight is questionable. Even if it is deemed reliable, notability would depend on the articles' content. Insert links to the XXL articles as references in the Wikipedia article if you think the XXL articles support notability.--Rpclod (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: Why are we conflating Reliablity with WP:Notability? The former pertains to claims being made. The latter is about whether something is notable for an article. If Quilly was on Hot 97, and we can see his video/audio on it, how is its reliability in dispute? Same for the other outlets; no unverifiable claims are being made. Only the question of whether subject is notable. The sources in question are simply coverage of his music. –DA1 (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be reliable before it provides any indication of notability. Here the sources referenced are not reliable and hence no notability is supported.--Rpclod (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: So which Hip hop outlets are considered reliable? There are a lot of articles on Wikipedia citing these alleged unreliable outlets. Including their reviews. And I really don't understand on which basis you're saying Hot 97 cannot be used as a source — to cite an appearance on Hot 97. DA1 (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Identifying reliable sources.--Rpclod (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: According to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, AllHipHop and XXL are listed as recommended sources. –DA1 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Note that biographies of living persons are held to a higher standard than most other articles. Assuming that these qualify as "high quality" sources, verifiable cites to significant coverage in those sources is still required.--Rpclod (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow more discussion on the sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 20:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 13:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MassiveYR ♠ 12:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable rapper. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:40, 5 September 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. So Why 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Lloyd-Jones

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

Non-notable person. Lack of reliable sources that are significant and independent of the topic. Fails WP:GNG - TheMagnificentist 06:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article fits notability criteria under creative professionals item 3 "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Article references multiple reliable sources including Sydney Morning Herald and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. DarkyT (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DarkyT: Meeting a subject-specific guideline criteria does not necessarily mean the article must be kept. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The SMH and ABC sources are not significant, they're about an event with trivial mentions of Jake Lloyd-Jones. - TheMagnificentist 11:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Does not strictly meet sufficient WP:NEXIST for GNG. However, does have some somewhat important contributions to social comment and societal education, and is I believe sufficiently interesting to a wide range of people to have an encyclopedic entry. This is one case where GNG perhaps should be relaxed a little. The Awards section should be trimmed/removed to the awards directly relevant to the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure I properly understand what the issue is with this article User:TheMagnificentist? The guy is notable enough that we learned about his work at university so what's the basis for saying he's not notable enough? Subject of the article has created or co-created quite a few documentaries and other TV programs including some very notable ones like The Chaser which is very famous here in Australia. The references you say are just trivial mentions prove that the information in the article is true so I don't really understand the problem? The Notability guidelines say "People can be notable if they meet any of the following guidelines. Failure to meet these standards is not proof that a subject should not be included." However this does meet the guidelines anyway. Item 3 says in full "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. This work has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length movie" Well reference 4 proves a feature length documentary was made about his work. Hope that will be enough for you. DarkyT (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:NB: I've found two radio programs which refer to using this wikipedia article in their research about this film maker so it is of interest to people I think Skruins and Co Breakfast Show and The Andy Social Podcast at omny.fm

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last time for the road
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:32, 28 August 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 BMC Software. (non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Control-M

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

The content of the page is outdated and inaccurate, the external links and references are outdated and not working, and the concept itself is not significant enough to warrant an article. Wattssw (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:although subject may be important but The content of the page is outdated of external links and referencesMr.ref (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are short news in InfoWorld and Computerworld magazines, but I can´t find more substantial coverage. Hard to judge, price of this application was in 10.000s USD... it must have been notable for someone (to pay such price). Current parent company has its Wikipedia article, maybe few words about Control-M there and cheap redirect would be the best solution. Pavlor (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent company. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent, merge anything useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 5 September 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. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Shen-Tien Chi

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

This individual does not meet notability requirements as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (people). The one reference, Beijing Review, is routine coverage - there is insufficient significant coverage to establish notability. This page is essentially unchanged from the draft Draft:Luke Shen-Tien Chi, which was turned down several times at Articles for Creation. Creation of the article after the draft was declined is a subversion of the AFC process. There is a likely COI here as well, as the article creator is a single-purpose account promoting this individual and his work. See also the related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spokenology: You and Me. Slideshow Bob (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is quite easy when someone quickly look at one article, and defined to delete it. I truly believe Wikipedia is not like that. I think Wikipedia look at the person as a whole being. If we really want to proof is someone notability. The guidelines can never fulfill. In what we have here today a very special case. That we Wikipedia can not truly place, Luke Shen-Tien Chi in to the form. Because he did something that is not in the norm of our present time. I sincerely hope that we all can come and show some love in this place. To protect the progress creation of this moving world. :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike7682 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nominator, Only created to try and make person and ideas notable. Should be notable before Wikipedia article created, not try to gain notoriety by creating Wikipedia article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete not complicated; could have been speedied but this is stronger. recommend salting. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is Spokenology? If his claim to fame is this, then it should have its own Wikipedia page. Mike7682 I would concentrate on that area first, build a full-page for Spokenology in your sandbox, when you think you are done, then please submit for review. In time, if Spokenology has a lot of media sources then possibly Luke Shen-Tien Chi will by default as the creator of it.Sgerbic (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was pinged by the page's creator to weigh in on this and I have to agree that the subject fails WP:BLP. I notice the page's OP also created a page for a text book about Spokenology written by the subject of this article. Seem like WP:PROMO to me, especially considering Spokenology does not already have an established WP page. Comatmebro (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination: no sources, Google search here asks if I mean "splenology," then finds no hits except to blogs. This still might turn into a worthy topic, but it needs to be explained and referenced just what Spokenology is.ch (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you misspelled the word Spokenology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.5.225 (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: It looks like the source of the nobility has been deleted. That source should be fix and display in the right way for article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.169.116.26 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: No need to remove article. Just fix the problems! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.13.150 (talk) 01:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: His Chinese news shows nobility. Deleting some of his news information is unacceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.4.190 (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: By his name, he is know for his work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.224.24.88 (talk) 01:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: China's spokenologist, We love U! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.77.150 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays:Just shows how people outside asia dont look at news! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.167.136.91 (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: I try to fix some parts of the article. But it still needs more work. The guy is the real deal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.5.225 (talk) 02:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Creator Mike7682 has been blocked, and the multiple IPs voting "stays" are likely the same user evading the block. -Zanhe (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone clear my message here. I made some edits. Just salting some pennies.

Delete per my comments on the original draft. Vaguely promotional article about a non-notable person promoting a non-notable neologism. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: If wiki is free. Why editors feels like in prison? No wonder I drop out long time ago.

Do Not Remove: Show some respected for others work!

Keeper': This editor looks like a fighter! Press on!

Keep': I have never see any page got so much harassment before. Give this edit justice!

Stays:I totally agree.

Keep' I couldn't believe how they treat editor very disgraceful here.

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. Favonian (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spokenology: You and Me

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

This book does not meet notability requirements as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Only one of the 'Notes' is independent and most of the 'References' are not about the book itself. This page is essentially unchanged from the draft Draft:Spokenology: You and Me, which was turned down at Articles for Creation. Creation of the article after the draft was declined is a subversion of the AFC process. There is a likely COI here as well, as the article creator is a single-purpose account promoting one individual and his work. See also the related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Shen-Tien Chi. Slideshow Bob (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is quite easy when someone quickly look at one article, and defined to delete it. I truly believe Wikipedia is not like that. I think Wikipedia look at the person as a whole being. If we really want to proof is someone notability. The guidelines can never fulfill. In what we have here today a very special case. That we Wikipedia can not truly place, Luke Shen-Tien Chi in to the form. Because he did something that is not in the norm of our present time. I sincerely hope that we all can come and show some love in this place. To protect the progress creation of this moving world. :] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike7682 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nominator, Only created to try and make idea and person notable. Should be notable before Wikipedia article created, not try to gain notoriety by creating Wikipedia article. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OP's justification for keeping this page was copy/pasted from Luke Shen-Tien Chi deletion discussion, or vise versa. Seems like a WP:PROMO push for a non-notable subject. Comatmebro (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Stays: The source part needs fix for article. No need to delete! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.169.116.26 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

'Stays: Rejection would clearly be a mistake. Just fix the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.13.150 (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

'Stays: Not necessary for deletion. The search information on him is true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.100.4.190 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

'Stays: He is quite well known by his work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.224.24.88 (talk) 01:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Stays: China's spokenologist, We love U! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.119.77.150 (talk) 05:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: No no. Remove this article would be a great lost for wiki! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.136.5.138 (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get more "stays" with exclamation points! Timmyshin (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable book. Creator Mike7682 has been blocked, and the multiple IPs voting "stays" are likely the same user evading the block. -Zanhe (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatz up? I thought i place note here.

Delete - Vaguely promotional article about a book that has not adequately been covered in reliable sources. This should have stayed at WP:AfC, at the very least. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stays: I wonder where all the good editors go. Not here. Stop sweating him!

Do Not Remove: Show some respected for others work!

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 G11'd. by Alex Shih ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reuven Mosheev

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

I have done "Due diligence" - in Wikipedia terms, WP:BEFORE - about this article, and I have found nothing that would persuade me that Mr Mosheevmeets the WP:ANYBIO test. With respect to VK (social networking) it would appear to me that Mr Mosheev's links appear tenuous at best. Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Self promotional fluff piece.PRehse (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been Speedy Delete (CSD A7), but since an AfD has started, it must now sit for a week waiting for the AfD to close. Loopy30 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fails WP:BIO - (at least the AFD will allow Speedy G4 if it is recreated) - Arjayay (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verified claim of significance for A7 or rs coverage fails WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Page has now been deleted by Alex Shih (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) on 05:58, 3 September 2017. Loopy30 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 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^(T) 18:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Burvall

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

WP:BLP1E -- no notability beyond that Lombardanian (talk) 11:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say in your edit summary "The article Amy Burvall should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. She lacks notability, and be page appears to be maintained by an associate who resists any changes.)"? If so 1) I am not associated with her in any way 2) Is this AFD a form of revenge for reverting you? Are you 209.117.61.226? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason given for deletion is invalid. This is not an BLP1E case as the article and the sources make clear. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions that do not establish true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Educators' Videos Become YouTube Sensations"

"Amy Burvall & Herb Mahelona: History rock stars"

"Amy Burvall's history lessons set to pop songs are a smash hit on the web"

"Historyteachers videos in the classroom: interview with Amy Burvall"

The others are about her too as she is the main figure in the project. How are these "passing mentions"? Did you even look at the sources John? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comeback defending this deletion rationale because there can be no comeback. These are clearly multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published sources of presumed reliability — the essence of a GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources of significance. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Must heed WP:NPF here. Even then, subject's internet videos don't seem to have spurred anything notable (per WP's definition of significance) or enduring. 158.59.127.132 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in several reliable sources, including The Washington Post and The Sydney Morning Herald. Edwardx (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG (not WP:PROF). Along with the newspaper stories currently cited as sources there are several potential book sources from later dates, demonstrating continuing interest in the story [43] [44] [45]. If there were a parent topic we could redirect to, this might be a case for BIO1E, but there isn't — her videos are the topic, and making the title of the article be her name instead of something more cumbersome like Amy Burvall history videos is a reasonable editorial choice, backed up by an appropriate level of personal detail about Burvall. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the delete !votes here are frankly nonsensical. There are multiple articles in reliable sources that are solely about Burvall and her videos [46][47][48][49] – how can that not be significant coverage? I can appreciate the WP:BLP1E concerns, so perhaps rename to History for Music Lovers, but as David says that makes no difference to the actual content. – Joe (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am very dubious of her notability, but I do not know enough to feel qualified to vote. I am not doubting veracity, merely notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This individual has be the subject of multiple instances of substantial, independently published coverage in sources of presumed reliability and therefore passes the General Notability Guideline. See the footnotes for those, no need to search for more on the web. Allegations of BLP-1E are misplaced; this exception to GNG is for something exceptional not actually dealing with an achievement or meaningful activity of the subject — such as, for example, winning the lottery or appearing on a live television show and farting loudly. Such single incidents generate masses of news coverage which are to be disregarded; as opposed to someone who is known for one thing, such as being an expert on the reproduction of mako sharks or being the inventor of the traffic light or — yes — being the creator of historically rewritten song videos. This is something completely different. Note the word EVENT in "BLP-1E." Carrite (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per GNG. Adequate sourcing to establish notability. Montanabw^(talk) 18:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- meets WP:GNG per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 19 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tribetoy

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

Pretty much no references that would fulfill WP:NCORP. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any depth of coverage (WP:CORPDEPTH) to establish notability and justify a Wikipedia article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP/CORPDEPTH per nom. The only sources I find are casual mentions in relation to their product, the video game Chu's Dynasty. Note that both articles were created by "Trueping". Tara Rueping is listed as a key person on the corp article. -- ferret (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SPIP, no indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:26, 4 September 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) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chu's Dynasty

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

A search could not turn up any particularly significant refs to make it pass WP:GNG. The IndieGames.com article of a paragraph is the biggest mention there is, which is still pretty small, and there are no reviews (Destructoid one is a community blog not the actual site). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- My search of sources indicated the same. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 1 September 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) 02:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Undead Syndrome

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, a search found no reliable refs beyond a single article in Siliconera. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple announcement articles for XBLA release, but nothing substantial. Delete. --Izno (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. So Why 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after sorting into more categories
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 14:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 16:09, 10 September 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) 05:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Most Addicting Sheep Game

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

Article was PROD'd but removed, yet references added are still insufficient to meet WP:GNG and it seems to not have met notability ever since it was created 6 years ago. A search showed no significant refs beyond the one single blog article from Microsoft. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 28 August 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred White (musician)

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

No demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of his band Earth, Wind & Fire. The existing sources on the article are about the band but with trivial mentions of him. As an individual musician, he fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - TheMagnificentist 18:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 18:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No individual notability established. May redirect to EWF article as alternative to deletion. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 19:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG in his own right. Definitely notable as a member of the group, so a redirect to their page would be okay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page meets WP:NMG, WP:NMUSIC, WP:NM specifically:Section 1.of (under Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself) and passes WP:GNG

With a review of internet searches and independent music sources, the data clearly indicates that Fred White was a sought after studio and touring musician prior to joining EWF; from Chicago to MoWest (Motown), but you have to do the due diligence to properly document this.

Interestingly enough, Fred White is the only member of the 'Classic 9' line-up that deletion and or redirection is trying to be established. That's a tad bit bizarre.

We can all see that no one has updated this page in several years but thankfully, it is currently being updated on Wiki as well as the Allmusic.com and Artist Direct websites to properly reflect the true and complete documented musical history of this artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntielandra (talk • contribs) 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by Auntielandra, plus a book search name checks him all over the place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the article was expanded after being nominated for deletion, which included the addition of more sources to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that we know he was a prolific session musician. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Za wl 09:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see multiple sources covering him in detail. He may be mentioned all over the place but that's not enough. Also it's misleading to say he received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2016, that award was given to Earth, Wind & Fire. The other claim to fame, that he received "a gold record as a 16 year old for his work with Donny Hathaway on his Live album" doesn't appear to be mentioned in the source given.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:16, 28 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Hudson

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

Zero coverage from secondary sources or evidence of notability. Blackguard 07:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 08:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not establish any notability, also I had previously placed a speedy delete tag on this article User:RockingSummer removed it without providing a reason. MassiveYR ♠ 08:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, no secondary sources, maybe others can come up with more sources? --ClrView (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a short piece by The Sun[50], but that's all I found while trying to source a previous incarnation of this article.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:51, 29 August 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. If anyone needs the text from this article to merge something, please leave me a message. So Why 14:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoophilia and health

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

This entire article is a synth. None of the references seem to contain any information regarding the sexual transmission of these infections being transmitted to humans to animals or animals to humans by any type of sexual contact. Perhaps a merge with Zoonosis may be appropriate. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you decide to do, try to retain the information, a fair bit of which comes from medical studies. I don't object to a merge with zoonosis. The information offers a useful public service by collecting data from a variety of sources. Ratel (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the exact same information is contained in the Zoonosis article. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to check myself, Barbara, so I leave it in your capable hands. That table took a lot of work .... can it be saved? Ratel (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that I do a 'merge' without consensus or discussion? The last time I tried that it turned out poorly and the article I tried to merge was retained with no references at all to support its content. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I just think you won't get a lot of comments here is all. Not sure what the procedure is if few comments come in. Ratel (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I will do if consensus doesn't happen here. I will be bold, and in good faith I will try to work on the article to improve it to the point where it stands on its own with good referencing. I will go over every reference that appears in the article. If sex with animals is not covered in the source I will delete the reference and its contents. So far, I have not found any reference that describes sex with animals in this article. There are less than 30 watchers of this page which may explain the lack of participation here. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the article contains several references to studies that describe the practice, such as PMID 12091035, PMID 1083973, PMID 4737141, (the lack of abstracts simply means you have to do a bit of footwork to get the text), so I'm not sure why you claim that you have not found any appropriate reference in the article. In addition, a good editor woould try to work in the following refs: PMID 22023719, PMID 19733331, PMID 28763709. More details can be found on page 267 of Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices [51] where you'll find a much of the article's content confirmed, namely that numerous zoonoses are transmitted by zoophilia practices. If you do not feel up to this task, perhaps leave it to other editors who want to build the encyclopedia. Ratel (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references you have found are not about diseases. These few, and dated publications do not meet the referencing guidelines for Project Medicine WP:MEDRS which requires high-quality medical references for infections and injuries. For example, see Feline zoonosis which I wrote. The article is about infections you can get from cats. Well-cited and up-to-date. The references you suggest as appropriate are about injuries. One of the articles uses the term bestiality. Another article states you can't get penis cancer from having sex with an animal. Guess I'm not a good editor...admittedly I am slightly familiar with abstracts. All those references listed above could be used in Zoophilia. But I can't find any information about how sexual activity between a person and an animal results in infections being transmitted between them. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the title is Zoophilia and Health. Health encompasses injuries. If you're going to require MEDRS review studies, there is no data, which is not surprising. Ratel (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following your logic, should we have an article entitled Metal sticks and health based on this? We could have pretty much anything and health, there are always articles to be found about anything that affects health. --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. So Why 07:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When you strip out the list of diseases that could be contracted, without significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating how each one is notably a problem in zoophilic situations, you're left with a very short article that belongs as a section in Zoophilia.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise solution would be to use a quote from the section on zoophilia-zoonoses from page 267 of Forensic and Medico-legal Aspects of Sexual Crimes and Unusual Sexual Practices [52] listing the zoonoses transmitted by zoophilia, and insert that into Zoophilia. IOW, much of the data from this article could be usefully shortened and transferred into Zoophilia. As I remember, it was only moved to a separate article to combat vandalism, namely because when it was in Zoophilia is was repeatedly removed by IP editors who believed that zoophilia simply cannot result in disease. Ratel (talk) 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merging the little bit to that is supported by proper refs to zoophilia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. How has this existed since 2006? This has to be one of the longest-running pieces of WP:SYN mashups in Wikipedia history. There is nothing of value here that is not covered elsewhere. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 3 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  15:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theda Singh

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

Non-notable upcoming film. It looks like it is WP:TOOSOON to write an article about it. De728631 (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Advertisement with an odd edit history largely unrelated to the film. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If it really releases in three days, there should be coverage by now. Relisting to avoid deleting just to have it recreated within a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete @SoWhy: a single Google search about this topic showed me a lot of coverage but by different name "Paisa Vasool". [53] I learnt that Theda Singh is a character of the film, so I added a reliable source to prevent it from deletion but I got to know that this is a duplicate article please see Paisa_Vasool_(2017_film) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Anoptimistix: Then wouldn't it make sense to redirect this article to Paisa Vasool (2017 film)? Regards So Why 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now (not soft delete). The article can be created again if the film becomes notable enough. It is WP:TOOSOON now, as it fails WP:SIGCOV. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @SoWhy: No sir the meaning for "Paisa Vasool" in the Hindi language means "value for money", whereas Theda Singh is a Punjabi male human name. Both are different, Redirect would be inappropriate, Regards Anoptimistix (talk) 14:43, 5 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Çağıl Uyar

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

Contested prod, fails WP:NHOCKEY Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in a very long string of articles about NN Turkish hockey players, and at least we've put to rest the inane notion that they possibly satisfy any element of NHOCKEY, which they do not. No evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 14:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this player, and definitely does not meet NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This player fails all of the criteria needed for an article to exist about them. Deadman137 (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:53, 3 September 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. Yikes, a 4-relist discussion. Anyways, no discussion of BD2412's proposal seems to be forthcoming, and consensus even before seems to be that the article should be deleted. ansh 666 20:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Fighting Championship

AfDs for this article:

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

New version was deemed to different from the last AfD deleted version for A7 so that speedy was declined but the PROD with the reason - no real references, and a previous version was deleted due to notability concerns that these references do not address - could not be done either so here we are.PRehse (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and no significant independent coverage. The sources are someone's blog, some fight results, and a bunch of articles saying their future events will be at the Alaska Airlines Center. In other words, nothing that shows this promotion is notable. In addition, the article is simply a list of blank fight cards for upcoming events. This promotion wasn't notable before and I don't see where that has changed. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:SPIP, references fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment everything bad Papaursa says about the article is accurate; I've removed the blank fight cards from the article. I'm unwilling to say this doesn't meet GNG, but can't find any articles that suggest it does either. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We encourage content building that fundamentally confuses the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site and gives undue weight to whatever low-hanging fruit Google dumps in one's lap. Resultantly, we see a pair of articles created solely to parrot a press conference, all the while ignoring the actual reliable sources out there. Such a stance has been furthered by others throughout this process. For instance, multiple reliable sources show that Sarah Johnston Lormier has been the owner or managing partner of the promotion since 2007. In this article, however, we have an infobox entry which refers to a Twitter handle sourced to a blog (and she isn't the founder, either). This AFD's nominator then proceeds to "fill in blank references" instead of bothering to scrutinize their reliability. Then I see a participant in the other AFD make a big deal out of BLP concerns because some fighters scheduled for the card were named (and predictably enough, that article was deleted anyway). Aside from the hilarity and potential irony of one of those fighters having the surname "Minus", that "problem" is downright innocuous compared to what I describe above. What a train wreck. This sort of going through the motions is precisely why I've cut way back on patrolling new pages.

A news archive search mostly of the Anchorage Daily News (search index accessible from adnsearch.com) shows that the promotion's coverage is heavy on its UFC affiliation in general, including emphasis given to the appearance of Chuck Liddell and Dana White at past events, as well as the promotion serving as a career springboard for Andy Enz, Nic Herron-Webb and Lauren Murphy (BTW, the timing of the last attempt at an AFC article coincides with a point in Enz's career ascent and associated coverage, but some of us are at a disadvantage to judge that if we can't view the content). Coverage related to the press conference states that the UFC deal figures into the decision to move to the Alaska Airlines Center. The focal point of that coverage was not that particular point or even AFC, but rather how the Sullivan Arena continues to lose business to their upstart competitor, to the extent of failing to point out that the Sullivan can be rented out as a half house, whether AFC has done so and whether therefore the move represents a step up or step down in terms of how many tickets they can sell.

Considering all that, the ADN has run a small handful of 1,500 to 2,000-word stories substantially about the promotion dating back to its first six months of existence in 2004, which combined give a halfway credible telling. Stories state that AFC has been among the Sullivan's top three tenants for most of its existence, along with the Aces and Seawolves hockey teams (the former of which also pulled out this year), that they've enjoyed attendance figures comparable to those events (with the caveat that the best-attended events were perhaps the 2006 co-promotions with concerts such as Drowning Pool and Naughty by Nature, plus the event where Liddell appeared) and that the popularity of AFC and MMA in general in Alaska has been influential enough to spur minor public outrage on occasion and to call for reinstating Alaska's defunct athletic commission. I'd suspect that coverage from other outlets does exist, even if they're hard to find. The all-inclusive search function found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/sources doesn't work as intended. Still, the "development" of the article thus far reflects the results of the same Google search I made, leaving me skeptical that any of those MMA sources were consulted. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post some of the articles you found? That site is a bit difficult to navigate. Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try this and this. Contrary to what others in this discussion have attempted to claim, the non-routine hits found at those links alone plainly satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. I still don't have the time to go through everything, but what I've read appears to also satisfy WP:SIGCOV, though not to a great extent. The aforementioned sources page at WP:MMA speaks of the importance of non-MMA-specific sources so as not to create the impression of a walled garden. Unless, however, I'm supposed to believe that such a statement applies only to that page and not to this page or the article under discussion. This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to reach after reading some of the arguments here, the latest being to categorically excuse away local media coverage as "routine", all the while continuing to demonstrate that zero effort has been made by anyone but myself to actually examine those sources. Last I checked, WP:V has nothing to do with how much low-hanging fruit a Google search returns, which appears to be the "notability standard" being applied here by everyone else. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I didn't find anything that shows the UFC and AFC are actually affiliated, except for both being MMA promotions. Local coverage of sporting events doesn't seem like enough to show notability and doesn't WP:GNG say there should be multiple sources and that "multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source"? User RadioKAOS seems to say that the AFC is notable because some people have attended their events or once competed for them, but that doesn't mean the AFC is notable.Sandals1 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mixed martial arts#Promotions - no evidence of sufficient standalone notability but the sparse coverage suggests it would fit right in as a sentence or two in the promotions section of the MMA article. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on the merge suggestion; the target article says, there are hundreds of MMA promotions around the world. If there really are hundreds of them, and this one isn't notable, would adding it there be a case of WP:UNDUE? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid concern, but I found a way to get around that with guidelines I set for another article I created - Meal kit. There are reportedly 150 meal kit companies, so the list there could likewise get unwieldy, but I put in some editing notes to ask that contributors not add any company to the list unless there is a) a Wikipedia article on that company or b) significant indepth media coverage in at least one reliable notable third party publication. Companies that already have their own articles are wiki-linked, and companies with coverage but not an article (yet) are just sourced with that coverage. This acts as a stepping stone and creates three tiers of companies, only two of which appear on the list. So correspondingly non-notable MMA organizations would not be added. Once the list gets too long, it could be spun off as a standalone list. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like entry on an entity with not indications of notability or significance. The article consists of trivia such as:

In July it was announced via social media that the AFC had signed a deal with the University of Alaska Anchorage campus arena Alaska Airlines Center for the 2017-2018 fight season!

The merge / redirect would not be appropriate in this case, so delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User RadioKaos has demonstrated that the promotion is noteworthy due to the fact that it's been written about in media and that it's attendance is notable enough to put it level with other acts from different media. I don't think this warrants a deletion, if people are upset about the page, then a compromise could be to create a list of North American MMA promotions.Egaoblai (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Routine sports coverage in the local paper is insufficient to show notability. Crowd size does not prove notability, or every major college football game would have an article. No one has shown any significant coverage in any sources, much less the multiple ones required by WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:SPIP per HighKing. And, as Papaursa points out, the size of the event doesn't necessarily impact notability. Ifnord (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little too blatant that just about everyone else here has come to this discussion with their mind already made up. Among the non-routine hits found in the links I provide above, there are multiple stories which refer to their attendance levels as being significant among local events in general. There is another story, by the Associated Press and not a "local yokel newspaper", which devotes several paragraphs to AFC's role in the athletic commission issue. This is coverage by reliable sources which demonstrates their impact on the real world, a place which some of you ought to try experiencing sometime. If you're expecting me to take a severely filtered view of few particular sources at face value, well, I can get that kind of POV from their websites without having to see it mindlessly repeated here. As has already been demonstrated with prior AFDs of this sort, you're expecting me to believe that if a promotion existed which consistently drew 50 people to the Muldoon Boys & Girls Club gymnasium yet were quite skilled at manipulating the media, that I'm supposed to pretend that they're "notable" if someone comes along and pulls the "right" sources out of their ass. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of significant coverage so fails WP:GNG. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has been up for about a month and the sources provided are so few. It does not look notable either since if it was, it would have more sources at least.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose we were to break out a new article for Mixed martial arts promotions and merge it there? bd2412 T 02:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss bd2412's proposal
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I changed my vote to delete from merge and redirect and struck my old vote. I revisited this and reviewed the coverage, and based on the limited reliable sources I found, this event does not demonstrate notability, even for inclusion on an article simply listing notable promotions. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:31, 25 September 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) 04:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wofai Egu Ewa

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

promotional article on a subject who fails to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She won online comedian of the year at a national comedy awards. Ross-c (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ross-c:, how does winning a non-notable award meet GNG? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: Being covered in multiple non-trivial independent sources, as per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(awards) e.g. http://www.pulse.ng/events/pulse-news-all-the-fun-and-laughter-from-naija-fm-comedy-jam-awards-id3247218.html http://allure.vanguardngr.com/tag/naija-fm-comedy-awards/ https://nollywoodobserver.com/2016/10/10/jenifas-diary-wins-best-sitcom-at-naija-fm-comedy-awards-2016/ http://www.latestnigeriannews.com/news/863921/bovi-ay-akpororo-wale-adenuga-all-the-winners-from-the-2014-naija-fm-comedy-awar.html Ross-c (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to say nothing of note. This is the website she did an interview with, this is the primary school she went to, this is the magic show she appeared in... In order for her to meet notability guidelines she has to have some renown and independent coverage of whatever impact she has had in her given field. How widely is her work reported and reviewed, discussed, critiqued or lauded? This tells us nothing at all. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 06:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems promotion and doesn't has a lot of content. Doesn't meet GNG. Only if we have more good and notable references we could keep the article.--ClrView (talk) 10:28, 28 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Top Dog Theatre

AfDs for this article:

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

First AfD closed as no consensus in 2010. Frankly I think the original nom was correct - this fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. There is coverage, but it is strictly routine local coverage from Christchurch. Nothing indicating that it has garnered "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", per WP:N. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NORG. Local coverage only. No independent sources presented during the last AfD (seven years ago) and the article looks more like an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic entry. Ajf773 (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read The Press daily and this group doesn't appear to get attention by the local newspaper. I follow the arts scene (mostly music, though, but occasionally theatre) and Top Dog Theatre doesn't ring a bell. I am aware of the Summer Shakespeare plays, but not that it's a production by this group. So if, as an interested local, I'm not aware of them, then a case for WP:GNG is hard to make. Schwede 66 19:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of anything except routine "things to do" coverage in a local paper, which says very little about the subject of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 10:31, 31 August 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. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands with more than one lead vocalist

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

About as WP:INDISCRIMINATE as you can get, while this topic has been discussed in reliable sources, they do not discuss the general concept which is the subject of this article but more specific criteria. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While vastness isn't in itself grounds for deletion, there's little evidence that the topic is notable, i.e. that there are multiple sources discussing the list subject as a coherent group. There is an AV club article "bands with more than one prominent lead singer"[54] and a Rolling Stone feature "Pass the Mic: 15 Big Hits Not Sung by the Lead Singer"[55]- but is that the same thing? How to distinguish between a band where a non-singer sings one song in a 20 year career and a band which shares vocal duties nearly equally on each track or between tracks? You could have an almost infinite series of similar articles (list of bands with 2 guitarists/drummers/bassists/etc). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a defining feature of bands. what next list of bands with more than 2 guitarists? LibStar (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a defining feature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 4 September 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 Radial-G: Racing Revolved. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tammeka Games

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

A search does not turn up sufficient references for it to pass WP:NCORP. While their game Radial-G is obviously notable, the studio is not, and notability is not inherited per WP:INHERIT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the game. Was that attempted? --Izno (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the article is a possible WP:COI, I believed any redirect I made might be reverted and I would be forced to do an AFD, so I decided to pre-empt that by simply doing an AFD. Also, I don't really believe it's a plausible redirect, being an extremely small indie studio._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I speedied this as an unremarkable business, but the tag was removed by the article creator.TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radial-G. All relevant video game reliable sources custom Google search coverage is about the game, thus the company's title should redirect there as a common search phrase. Try redirecting (even if it means being reverted) before coming to AfD. The redirect is plausible as long as any reader is likely to search for the phrase. czar 20:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radial-G: Racing Revolved; the game is more notable than the company and two separate articles are not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 11 September 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 speedy Delete. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 06:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaikki kissat

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

Incomprehensible. Google search cannot find a single English hit on this phrase. (Most of the retrievals are in Finnish.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per speedy deletion criterion A7. Article contains no assertion of significance. CJK09 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 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. Alex Shih ^Talk 04:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neurotypical Disorder

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

Originally tagged as G3 and A11. This still appears to have been invented by the author, and is at best original research and at worst a hoax. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent it, someone else did. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661309001703 http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wflr34&div=28&id=&page= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763414003327 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.1508/full The list goes on and on. We just have a better understanding of how the brain works now and the links to genetics. I'm sure it will be published in the next DSM in 20 years or whenever they get around to rolling out the old printing press, but this is the 21st century and we have computers which obsoletes that technology. I won't accept deletion without a suitable redirect to another article with the same basic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whytehorse1413 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm no psychologist, but based on at least the abstracts of the papers linked (only one of which even uses the word "neurotypical", unless I missed something, and none of which use this term, arguing against the claim that "someone else [invented it]"), I'm thinking this is a hoax. It does also sound a little bit along the lines of the rather silly political trope of "[insert name of the side of politics you don't subscribe to] don't understand common sense, so they must be psychologically affected". Criteria 4, 6 and 8 in the article point in this direction, although that may just be me having read too much political science today. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit like someone creating an article Hearing disorder that states the condition is characterised by a lack of deafness and an inability to understand sign language.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3, tag was removed by article creator. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neurotypical. While I think the contents of the current article need to be significantly improved, it's not a hoax. I could see the usage of the exact term "Neurotypical disorder" in Sussex.ac.uk accepted research (Yuill, N., et al, 2015).^{Journal of Assistive Technologies} The exact term can also be seen in various books and research papers: [56][57][58][59]. dr.library.brocku.ca's digital library describes the exact term "Neurotypical disorder" as "a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity." Having said that, while the term is not a hoax, it can easily be accommodated in the Neurotypical article, which already has a skeletal paragraph on this issue. Lourdes 07:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My computer's up to no good, so I can't read/search everything you've cited. That said, Yuill's article, while it does use the term, it's used in what seems to be the context of a thought-experiment where someone on the autism spectrum is describing how a neurotypical person would be described if autism-spectrum conditions were the "standard" by which others were measured. The last source says precisely what you've stated, but the rest of the context there reads "The above statement is taken from a website developed by people on the autism spectrum. It attempts to provide a humorous account of the belief that autism is a disease by seeking to establish the argument as irrational." The "skeletal paragraph" in the artcle you're suggesting as a redirect target is simply a rehash of the symptoms of the "disorder" as quoted in this article. If it's not a hoax, it's certainly something being taken significantly more seriously than it is intended to be. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is a parody or joke. I have also remove similar text from Neurotypical. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:30, 29 August 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 List of Republic of China Navy ships#Frigates. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of frigates of the Republic of China Navy

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

Three items do not make a list make. The article has been completely untouched since 2009. Term is too specific for a redirect. Was prod and prod-2'd, but it's not eligible since it was prodded before. This is not a notable topic for a list because there are not enough items to qualify it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 11:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Republic of China Navy ships#Frigates, where the topic is discussed in more detail, by the way, that article is in need of massive cleanup, just because a list contains merely 3 entries is not a valid reason for deletion as this otherwise does pass WP:LISTN and WP:CSC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 12:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (Nothing useful to merge, would be merge if there were). No need for a separate frigate class list (without individual ships!) - unneeded fork of List of Republic of China Navy ships which is in a much better state. Note there is also List of frigate classes by country#Republic of China (Taiwan) (Zhōnghuá Mínguó Hǎijūn).Icewhiz (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last comment, an unneeded fork of a better article Atlantic306 (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to List of Republic of China Navy ships#Frigates. The redirect is useful for navigation. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect name per above. No reason to have such a small separate list. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was the prod-2. Brad (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zui quan

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

Prodded as hoax, but prod removed as the article was supposedly prodded before. However, I can find no proof that it was. The article is a clear hoax, as Googling turned up no mention of "zui quan" in the aforementioned sources, nor in any other reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would need Chinese speakers knowledgible on the subject to weigh in. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to be cultural joke deriving from Drunken Master. See the Chinese language wikipedia article which is also tagged as "hoax" and relies heavily on the movie. The hoax itself might be notable, but this article isn't about the hoax. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the prod; your prod was removed by an ip then readded as shown here which is not allowed Atlantic306 (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a publisher purporting to sell books on drunken boxing: https://www.plumpub.com/sales/kungfu/collbk_drunkboxing.htm According to them, it is not a distinct style; but many styles use forms which imitate a drunkard's movements as a training stage. Like the drunken monkey form of monkey style boxing, no actual drunkenness is involved; instead, the boxer consciously and soberly imitates a drunkard's movements. Is this a part of the hoax as well? Or are these books for real? I'd like someone with knowledge of kung fu styles to evaluate them before we consider deleting the article. Texas Dervish (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Texas Dervish: Those books appear to be self published. I get only 323 unique hits on Google, most of which seem to be Wikipedia mirrors or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Ten Pound Hammer. I'm sure this style of Chinese Martial Arts doesn't exist for real.98.209.191.37 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the style has largely been mythified in pop culture, but its notability as a popular myth is undeniable. It has been depicted in numerous popular kung fu movies. -Zanhe (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the crux of the problem. The article talks about this being an actual style not a myth. The closest to reality is something that may be taught within an actual style as an exercise to break away from rigidity. Treating myth as fact is a hoax.PRehse (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about questionable content, which should be purged from the article. However, the topic itself is not a hoax and the article should not be deleted. -Zanhe (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed a chunk of questionable material. -Zanhe (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about something more fundamental - the whole thrust of the article. I have not voted yet but I really do see a problem.PRehse (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this problem plagues most kungfu-related articles. However, AfD is about notability of the topic, not quality of the article. Zui quan, minus the myth, is still a popular style of Chinese martial arts, and there are a significant number of Chinese books about it from serious publishers, such as Chinese Zui Quan, Zui Quan, and Overview of Chinese Martial Arts: Volume 9. Unfortunately, none of them are available online. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's no supporting evidence that this is an actual kung-fu style. It is something people seem to know about because of the movies, but the sources given are youtube videos along with non-independent and non-RS sources.Sandals1 (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandals1: I guess you missed my edit adding sources as well as my comment above. This IS an actual kungfu style, and many books have been published about it. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links to Googlebooks in your edit don't show me significant independent coverage nor do the sources in the article.Sandals1 (talk) 13:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem seems to be that there's a lack of reliable, independent sources supporting the claim this is an ancient martial arts style. Many of the article's sources are youtube videos or published by those who claim to know and teach drunken styles. As I said at the discussion at WT:WPMA#Potential Hoax article?, I know wushu instructors who teach a drunken form to some of their better students, but I've not heard any of them claim that drunken forms make up a style, much less an ancient one. Even the book review article from Kung Fu magazine says things like "according to legend", which is hardly proof--it's essentially heresay and insufficient to show WP:GNG is met. Zahne says that it's about the "notability of the topic, not the quality of the article", but there's a lack of independent evidence showing this even exists as "an ancient style and its origins are mainly traced back to the famous Buddhist and Daoist sects". I think the fact that the Chinese WP article on this topic has no sources and is considered to be of questionable authenticity is telling. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 11 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sann Satt Naing

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 08:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 4 September 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My Time/Your Time

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

This is an article devoted to a TV pilot – unaired TV pilots are generally not considered notable except under exceptional circumstances, as per WP:TVSHOW. Sourcing does not establish notability. NathanielTheBold (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON since it's been ordered but that's no guarantee it will be scheduled or aired. If/when it is confirmed for CBS's schedule, then it can be re-created without difficulty. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist final
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BALL as noted above. A pilot order doesn't guarantee or even assure a series pick up, many pilots are never seen by the public. This is premature. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:53, 17 September 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 prejudice against creation of a redirect if anyone thinks that would be useful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorbyshire

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

WP:DEL7. Unable to find any sources to support content of page. "Sorby" and "shire" are mentioned together here: Gorton, John (1833). "SORBIE or SORBY, shire of Wigtown S.". A Topographical Dictionary of Great Britain and Ireland: Compiled from Local Information, and the Most Recent and Official Authorities. London: Chapman and Hall. p. 428. Retrieved 2017-08-27.; however, the S. indicates the location is in Scotland (as do other towns mentioned as being within this area). I was unable to find anything to support Sorbyshire being a former Shire in what is now Yorkshire (England). A natural history society in Yorkshire uses the name "Sorbyshire", but take their name from Henry Clifton Sorby. DferDaisy (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly made up. I could find no use of the word "Sorbyshire" in this context - everything I found was either a Wikipedia mirror (or blatant copying from Wikipedia), an OCR error, or the alternate meaning of "Sorbyshire" used by the natural history society in Yorkshire. CJK09 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a copy of Sowerbyshire but this spelling is not a useful redirect.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sowerby, West Yorkshire#History. Confusion is clarified by The Northern Danelaw: Its Social Structure, c.800-1100, D.M. Hadley, Bloomsbury, 2001. Sowerby was not a shire; it was a scir, understood as a poorly understood unit of territorial organization under the northern Danelaw that had ceased to have any formal administrative meaning by the time of the Domesday Book but that was still in limited use in the early medieval period as a term describing an estate. When Sowerbyshire, an estate, appears in history it is as part of the manor of Wakefield.[60]. This article was probably honestly created, but I think it is more efficiently redirected and merged to Sowerby.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better to redirect term than delete since "Sorbyshire" is sometimes used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that Sowerbyshire be similarly redirected to Sowerby, West Yorkshire#History because there is no indication that it was ever "a small shire" in the sense of shire as a political unit, but, rather, was some sort of populated place, estate, or strategic location and valuable estate at the time of the Norman Conquest but with so little historical documentation in the pre-Norman period as to make a separate article making the sort of claims this article does misleading.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 28 August 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 Thomas Myles. and Kilcoole. A bold close; but, there being a clear consensus for a merge, the only question is- where to? The emergent opinion- based as much on lack of exoressed views as on those expressed- indicates that both the individual most noted for involvement in the event and the place it took place are deemed the most suitable tagets. Irish Volunteers and Easter Rising gained little traction, and Howth almost none at all. There are few strong arguments presented, but the strongest are- after a month of discussion- favouring Myles and / or Kilcoole. The boldness of this close, I suggest, lies ore in the and than the or. I say nothing about the original necessity in bringing an article to a deletion discussion which even the nominator favoured merging; for future reference, note we have WP:MERGE precisely for that. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kilcoole gun-running

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

Merge: with either Easter Rising and/or Thomas Myles and/or Kilcoole -- insufficiently notable in its own right. Stub created by Irish republican on a tear, determined to create articles and categories about anyone/anything connected to The Troubles. (I also will support a consensus to delete.) Quis separabit? 14:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep significant and has enough coverage Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insigificant. It's like having an article for any time a supply drop was sent to troops in the field. Not denying it happened, just not independently notable. Canterbury Tail talk 20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either Easter Rising and/or Thomas Myles and/or Kilcoole. It belongs within the context of those articles. Only if there's so much info on this that it would be undue should it be split off from those. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, perhaps Irish Volunteers. I imagine we have more than one article about Irish Republican activity before the Easter Rising. Note that this all comes from one newspaper source. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect the incident is already mentioned at Howth gun-running and Thomas Myles. I think Myles is the best place to send a redirect, unless an article about gun-running during the troubles exists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be sufficient consensus to redirect/merge somewhere but not about the target. Since there can only be one redirect target, which should it be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Howth gun-running (Maybe event change the title to Howth and Kilcoole gun-runnings?). There only seems to be recent coverage because of the festival thing or whatever, so I wouldn't call the news very reliable. But, it should be covered along with the Howth gun-running, as this gun-running was the backup plan in case the former went sour. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 19:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sigh. SoWhy was faced with four possible merge targets and didn't know what to do, so he asked for more input. Now we've got five possible merge targets. Hopefully, in another week of discussion we can reduce that to a single choice? Please, guys? Help us out here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Make up your mind, guys.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: - It looks like there is consensus to merge and no one seems to have a strong feeling for the destination for the redirect. From the proposals, can you suggest your first choice and we can see if there is any opposition. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy -- sorry for the delay -- I was trying to arrive at a decision. Between "Easter Rising and/or Thomas Myles and/or Kilcoole", I posit that Easter Rising might be the most appropriate. But if you have a better or more informed idea, let's chat. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to reiterate my !vote, but I preferr Myles as a good place to redirect someone looking for information on this incident, although I don't have a particularly well-informed idea. From a policy/content perspective, I don't think any material on this page would fit in the Easter Rising page, and so I wouldn't think merging/redirecting to that page would be useful. If you really think it would, I'm fine with it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate fourth relists but no consensus wouldn't be appropriate due to there being no consensus among merge/redirect targets (No consensus results in keep), and there is far from a solid consensus in general. This is a situation where I ask myself: Is a plurality of consensus required or a majority, not relying on pure !vote count?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Minor event that does not appear notable. Could be merged to some bigger article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 12 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Çağla Baktıroğlu

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that, because NHOCKEY does not mention any women's ice hockey leagues, that women who play professional ice hockey in women's leagues cannot be considered notable under NHOCKEY? — This, that and the other (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, yes, indeed, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. The reason that NHOCKEY accords no presumptive notability to women's leagues (save for women playing in the Olympics) has been exhaustively discussed on the talk pages of WP:NHOCKEY/LA, WP:NSPORTS and the hockey WikiProject, but they simply boil down to that nowhere in the world does women's hockey receive a level of coverage sufficient to presumptively declare every player in the league notable. Given that this is a standard issue throughout women's team sport -- the WNBA is the only women's team sport league in the world that is credited with presumptive notability -- this should be no great surprise. Ravenswing 11:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. This looks like it might be a start (though I would need to see more in order to be happy GNG is met) but I can't get the page to load. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:54, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huriye Yeliz Yüksel

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wider GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refika Yılmaz

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. This appears to be a relatively lengthy interview with the player which goes some way towards GNG, but I would need to see more than a single source providing significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 August 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betül Tayğar

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The purpose of Wikipedia is not to right great wrongs. It may not be write that female tennis starts, and male football, hockey, basketball and many other sports starts receive more coverage than players of the opposite sex in the same sport, but it is the truth, and sports notability is meant to reflect real coverage in sources, not some desire for equity in our work. Wikipedia is meant to collect worthwhile knowledge on reality, not to be a platform to push social change or to advocate for a certain point of view. It is not the format to try an propel to stardom sports figures who lack significant coverage in the media.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burcu Turanal

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Ravenswing 11:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete comes no where close to meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:52, 3 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elif Ulaş

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Likewise, the subject fails NSKATE, which does not provide presumptive notability to juniors-level skaters. Ravenswing 11:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if editos want to create articles on female hockey players who fail guidelines, they need to change the guidelines. However since the guidelines at present reflect general notability in reliable publications which in turn reflects actual interest in the sport involved, what really needs to change is interest and sourcing, both of which need to be changed by actions off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for social change or to right perceived wrongs, it is meant to reflect the actual reliable sources on topcis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah. It sucks, for instance, that the likes of Khloe Kardashian gets about twenty times the press attention of every single Nobel Prize winner last year combined, but society didn't ask my permission or advice concerning about what they're allowed to care. Ravenswing 09:05, 4 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fulya Yurt

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

Continued disruption (removal of PRODS) by User:‎Hmlarson. A clear violation of WP:NHOCKEY. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given Hmlarson's curious argument that NHOCKEY isn't valid as a deletion ground because NHOCKEY doesn't accord presumptive notability to female players, my retort continues to be that as long as being a hockey player is the sole stated premise of a subject's notability, failure to meet NHOCKEY's a valid reason to delete. It's also true that the GNG supersedes NHOCKEY, but since neither Hmlarson nor anyone else has presented evidence that the subject can meet it, no article on her can be sustained. Nor does the subject meet the criteria of NGOLF. Ravenswing 11:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NHOCKEY No indication of wide GNG. Article is well referenced, however all sources are essentially databases, stat sites, brief routine mentions or Primary sources. Would challenge other editors to provide a single instance of a significant, dedicated article on the player that might be used to support GNG. Her golf career is so minor as to obviously fail WP:NGOLF and at such a low level that it is inconceivable sufficient coverage could exist to satisfy GNG as a golfer. Fenix down (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Summed up pretty well already. I can find nothing anywhere that indicates they meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if people want another league to give default notability, they should seek to change the notability guidelines for hockey players, not ignore them. Is it just me or does hockey have a high rate of the creation of articles on non-notable players? This may indicate that our guidelines on other sports need to be tightened.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A lot of it comes from two factors. We had an editor who was prolific, obsessed with his article creation count, and hell bent on defying the criteria and consensus to create as many articles as he wanted; it took a community ban to shut him down at the last. The second was a bad mistake I made when I originally drafted NHOCKEY; I presumed good faith on the part of hockey article creators, that they'd exercise good sense in realizing what the criteria meant, that they'd agree to be governed by consensus in case of disputes, and that they wouldn't bring their own shibboleths and hobby horses to the process, and therefore I didn't need to go to the point I did at the last and spell out each and every league at each and every level. That was badly naive of me, and a great deal of work and angst among a great many editors over the years has been the result, for which I am deeply sorry. Ravenswing 17:57, 4 September 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. Mainly because it's not clear whether some of the later delete !voters have factored in Jclemens's argument, which is a strong keep point. There is some discussion about a merge and a move to a different title, which I shall direct to the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Equestria

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

Not independently notable, WP:OR, effectively unsourced. Redirected but got reverted (twice), propose redirect to article on the show. Kleuske (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will find a few pieces of non-original research and add it to the article as soon as possible. User:Navarre0107 1:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep: Two new sources have been added that contain no original research, one is a book written by the show writers which help cite a talking point in the article, and the other is a mathematical statistics study on the population of Equestria and one of its major towns. Unless I missed one of the points, this should disqualify the page for deletion. user:Navarre0107 1:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC) (edited 2:33, 28 August 2017)

WP:OR means no original research.--Eflyjason (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, that was a typo, I didn't notice, I meant to say that I added sources that contain no original sources, I have edited my previous comment user:navarre0107 2:32 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep: I'm a new user, but when I looked over the rules, it seemed to be in accordance (at least the edited one is). And I for one support a new article on the 'Kingdom of Equestria'. That is, if it cited correctly. User:RainbowIsBestPony 5:38 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@SubZeroSilver, Pure conSouls, and NightShadow23: any input?--Eflyjason (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eflyjason (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: Lack notability.--Eflyjason (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the sources are fan sites and analyses. The others aren't third-party. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only one of the sources are fan-created at this point, and I am currently looking for a suitable replacement for that reference. Navarre0107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ISBN 978-1476662091, Ponyville Confidential is published by a reputable house, contains extensive discussion on this and other elements of MLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in online news sites [61], [62], [63], [64]. Wow, after digging through all the Hasboro merch and press releases, and blurbs about the upcoming movie, there really is quite a lot of RS commentary on MLP. Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further note that even if this is judged to be insufficient to demonstrate standalone notability, there certainly seems to be enough for a section in My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic, and a merge to that location would be more policy-based (per WP:ATD-M) than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: No notability, looks trivial (at least for me), very few refs and even that are of fan-sites, not of third parties, In my opinion it should be redirected to MLP: FIM. Pure conSouls (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the references is now a fan analysis, I'm currently searching to find non-fan analysis to replace it. Navarre0107 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2017

Delete: Wikipedia:No original research. Federal Chancellor (NightShadow) (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NightShadow23:, any change of opinion with the many new added references and expanded article?-RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: While Jclemens is right that is has been mentioned in other sources, those are only mentions and do not focus on the kingdom itself, but rarther on the Show itself and therefore mention the kindom as part of it. Therefor this generates no notability for this article. Gial Ackbar (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about making a "Settings" section in the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic article then adding the proper information of this page to that one? - Pure conSouls (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Fim article do lack a section for the world settings. --Eflyjason (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, here. Kleuske (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that we'll have to find a way to condense the information properly, but I'm sure that wouldn't be too hardNavarre0107 (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to qualify the above with the firm expectation it will "neutrally summarize sources", refrain from original research and use reliable sources. Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have previously mentioned, the current article has been edited as so that there are no longer original research, and all sources are reliable.--Navarre0107 (talk) , 00:46 30 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.85.201.45 (talk)

Wikia, which is cited four times, is user generated content and hence not a reliable source, much of the article is still unsourced. I maintain the article is largely WP:OR and/or badly sourced. Simply stating it's not, does not suffice. Kleuske (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia, is not directly sourced, it is used for the transcripts of episodes, which is what the citation is for, the episodes. Is you would like, I'll attempt to find transcripts of the episodes on a different site, but either way, this does not change the fact, that the episodes are reliable sources about Equestria, while, understandably, Wikia is not.--Navarre0107 (talk) , 14:36 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As of two minutes ago, Wikia is no longer used as the link for the transcripts of the episode, so according to your definition of credible source, the page is fine.--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Though I am new with Wikipedia, I must agree with Navarre0107, you're argument over there being fan-created content is no longer really in effect, and my guess is, since Wikipedia has a citation template for shows of both fiction and non-fiction, I'm sure you should be able to use the shows themselves as citations, which they have--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added three new citations from third-party news sites, and one extra book citation, in addition to the episodes themselves still being used as a citiation.--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still non of them have the kingdom as a main topic, but the show itself, with the Kingdom as part of it. This just supports that it should be the same here: The Kingdom should be descirbed as Part of the main artile about the show. Gial Ackbar (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Equestria book, is largely about the development of the Kingdom and settings of the show themselves, so that argument isn't completely valid.--RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the Hearth's Warming Eve episode citation are specifically on the founding of the Kingdom.--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree FLVSstudent417 and RainbowIsBestPony, some of these sources are indeed specifically about the kingdom. --Navarre0107 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In its current version, I see no issues, other than it could use some expanding, but honesty, what Wikipedia page cant use some expanding. It has no original research, no fan-based sources, citations from books, episodes, and third-party news sites. And it does have plenty of notability. I still say that it is well and deserves a chance to grow as a full, independent article. --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though no one has validly debated against the latest argument to keep the article, is it possibly safe to assume that the consensus is to keep the article? -Navarre0107 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the summa summarum of the above discussions, I'd say: no, it isn't safe to assume that. Kleuske (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Navarre0107, RainbowIsBestPony and FLVSstudent417 doing good job on the article. Maybe add more refs and specific information on the cities as well, like on Ponyville, Crystal Empire, Cloudsdale, etc. I don't want this article to be deleted as well. But if you guys don't work on it fast enough, I'm afraid that it will be deleted. Pure conSouls (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FLVSstudent417 and I have both added additional refs, and I'm working on finding some more now-RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As am I :)-Navarre0107 (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested reading: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Still need to work on "writing from real world perspective" in my opinion. But much better than before! :) --Eflyjason (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you suggested, Pure conSouls, RainbowIsBestPony, FLVSstudent417, and myself, have all added references, and are currently working on adding more specific information. And, other than some perspective issues, as Eflyjason mentioned, I think the article is fully worth keeping.-Navarre0107 (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much better than before. Problems related to WP:OR and unsourced are mainly solved. Only problem left is the in-universe style which I believe can be fixed.--Eflyjason (talk) 08:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some hints about writing style can be taken from Islandia (novel), Wonderland (fictional country), McDonaldland and others in Category:Fictional countries. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Eflyjason, its way better now and have many sources too. There is no issues besides the style of writing (which can be fixed easily). Definitely this article should remain. Good job, fellow ponies! 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pure conSouls: Don't forget to strike out your original vote by del :) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107, FLVSstudent417, RainbowIsBestPony, and Eflyjason: I think it will be nice to include some information about the Everfree Forest in the article too. 😊 Pure conSouls (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navarre0107 and I have both added to a Everfree Forest section of the article :) --RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the notablity of this article may be higher after the release of My Little Pony: The Movie. So keep working! 😊 --Eflyjason (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have two options:

Keep the article, but move it to Equestria per WP:COMMONNAME
Delete the article, and redirect both Equestria and Kingdom of Equestria to My Little Pony (2010 toyline). Remember that MLP is from toy maker Hasbro, and Equestria is also a prevallent location in other media within the 2010 relaunch (a.k.a. G4), so My Little Pony (2010 toyline) has a priority.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 05:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, excuse me, Equestria already redirects to the article, and there is no valid reason to delete the article. By your explanation, there would be no fictional country entries at all, and yet, theres an entire category of them. Please explain your reasoning, since we have all basically agreed to keep the article as is.- RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowIsBestPony: Beware making points with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and WP:OTHERSTUFF. (This usage is ok here, just a friendly reminder 😉) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, also, nothing in the rules of Wikipedia, state that any page should have priority over another--Navarre0107 (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JSH-alive:, and even if different pages were given priority, the toy line is based on the show, not the other way around. Even it was at first. And, respectively, JSH-alive, looking at your numerous flagged and questionable edits, I doubt you have the right to be telling more expierenced editors (on the topic of My Little Pony, at least) what to do - RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RainbowIsBestPony: Friendly reminder: WP:ABP --Eflyjason (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'm just not a big fan of ultimatums, especially when they aren't completely warranted. I'm sorry if my argument got out of hand, that is completely my fault. It's just saying that's what we are required to do, when nothing particularly requires us to do it bugs me. I'm sorry. -RainbowIsBestPony (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support keeping and moving to Equestria per WP:COMMONNAME --Eflyjason (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Equestria already redirects to the page, do you mean renaming the page to just Equestria?--Navarre0107 (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107: Yes. That would be a more common name 😊 --Eflyjason (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eflyjason: But Equestria already redirects to this page, it seems redundant to completely recreate the article, just to change its name. - Navarre0107 (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Navarre0107: Moving does NOT mean cut-and-paste move, but rather move the whole page with history by requesting move, and make "Kingdom of Equestria" redirect back to "Equestria". So there is no need for recreating the article. And read WP:COMMONNAME too, which states "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." But anyway, we shouldn't discuss about moving here in deletion request. If nesseary and the article is kept, I will request move after this discussion is over, and we can discuss it there. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Eflyjason:, thanks for the clarification, it was just confusing me a little, of course we can do that. And it looks like, by all accounts, the page will be kept, so no problem there. :) --Navarre0107 (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep the article and its current name, I definitely agree with what, RainbowIsBestPony and Navarre0107 said. Even "Equestria" redirects to this page. I don't think its must to change its name to simply Equestria. 😕 Pure conSouls (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Pure conSouls, Navarre0107, and RainbowIsBestPony, because Equestria redirects to the page, I doubt we would need to change the name.--FLVSstudent417 (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With the recent approvals of keeping from the majority of the users involved within this deletion article, and the relative inactivity within the last twenty-four hours, is it now safe to assume that we have come to consensus to keep the article? Of course, we need to resolve the issue over renaming the article to simply, Equestria, but that's really more a topic for the talk page than a articles of deletion page.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: I just created a new section of the Equestria talk page specifically for the debate over renaming the article.--Navarre0107 (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's better to wait until the normal end date and let admin decide. No need to rush. :) --Eflyjason (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no in-universe evidence that the land's full name is the "Kingdom of Equestria", and not sure if we can call it a kingdom at all, since that fictional land is not ruled by a king. So, should the article be kept, it must simply be renamed Equestria. But Equestria already redirects to... Don't worry. You can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests for assistance.
In the age of the audiovisual media being most influential forces, some of you may want to think the current (a.k.a. "G4") MLP toys are by-product of FIM TV series. But technically, it's the other way round. You know Hasbro is a toy maker. The TV shows like this (as well as animated shorts, animated video films and, sometimes, theatrical feature-length films) is one of marketing strategies used by major toy companies these days. FIM is a part of the 2010 relaunch of MLP, and even the toy descriptions are set in the fictional universe of Equestria. It's commissioned by Hasbro (thorugh Hasbro Studios) after all. So, if the article is going to be deleted, both Equestria and Kingdom of Equestria must be redirected to My Little Pony (2010 toyline), NOT My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. Equestria is also the main location of the upcoming theatrical film.

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:37, 12 September 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.

[1] Flying Magazine. 1945. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[2] Hitchens, Frank (2015). The Encyclopedia of Aerodynamics. Andrews UK Limited. ISBN 9781785383250. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[3] Senson, Ben; Ritter, Jasen (2011). Aerospace Engineering: From the Ground Up. Cengage Learning. ISBN 1435447530. Retrieved 7 September 2017.

[4] "Councillor details - Bert Biscoe". 30 August 2017.

[5] "Bert Biscoe: Working for the future of Truro and Cornwall on the Cornwall County Council". www.bertbiscoe.co.uk.

[6] "Bert Biscoe - SaveTruro". www.savetruro.co.uk.

[7] "Bert Biscoe - Voices of Cornwall". voicesofcornwall.co.uk.

[8] "Bert Biscoe".

[9] "bert biscoe - Business Cornwall". www.businesscornwall.co.uk.

[10] ttp://www.cornwalllive.com/comment-bert-biscoe/story-20906203-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[11] ttp://www.cornwalllive.com/city-s-heritage-constant-threat-says-bert/story-11386148-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[12] "Hear Bert Biscoe's song Wilwaukee - Cornwall Today". www.cornwalltoday.co.uk.

[13] "Bert Biscoe - Isonomia". Isonomia.

[14] "Bert Biscoe and a piece of very important and very rare memorabilia". queenincornwall.blogspot.co.uk. 2010-11-18.

[15] "Bert Biscoe, and the Mayor of Launceston: opening 'A Space to Write' - The Charles Causley Festival".

[16] "Bert Biscoe Vote Independent". ElectionLeaflets.org.

[17] "Meditations Carn Brea Poems Pictures by Bert Biscoe Cliff Jones - AbeBooks". www.abebooks.co.uk.

[18] ttp://www.cornishassembly.org/OpenLetterToSarahNewtonMP27viii12.pdf. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[19] Tregarthen, John Coulson (30 August 2017). John Penrose: A Romance of the Land's End. Cornwall Editions Ltd. ISBN 9781904880028 – via Google Books.

[20] "WATCH: Protests over new Truro bus gate". 2017-03-16.

[21] "Cllr Bert Biscoe gave a most interesting and enlightening talk. - West Cornwall HealthWatch". westcornwallhealthwatch.com.

[22] "A response from Bert Biscoe". mebyonkernow.blogspot.co.uk.

[23] "Trustees - Royal Cornwall Museum".

[24] "Welcome to Cornwall Association of Primary Heads".

[25] ttp://www.cornwalllive.com/Parking-crisis-Truro-makes-life-just-hell/story-20511752-detail/story.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[26] "Tintagel Castle Merlin carving sparks 'Disneyfication' row". BBC News. 18 March 2016 – via www.bbc.co.uk.

[27] "Local residents complain after 'Disneyfication' of King Arthur site".

[28] "A bridge too far: The controversial plans to transform Tintagel".

[29] Goskar, Tehmina (21 February 2013). "Cornish heritage is a man's game".

[30] "Poetry: Trura - Cornish Story". cornishstory.com.

[31] "Councillor Contact Details - Truro City Council". www.truro.gov.uk.

[32] "Truro Civic Society". trurocivicsociety.com.

[33] Metro.co.uk, Oliver Wheaton for (22 November 2015). "Council spends £30,000 on bus lane, it causes chaos, they're forced to scrap it".

[34] "Brainiac 5 interview". www.psychedelicbabymag.com. 2014-05-02.

[35] Morris, Steven (18 March 2016). "'This is not Disneyland, it's Cornwall': the battle of Tintagel Castle" – via The Guardian.

[36] Council, Cornwall. "St Mary's Church spire moved back to Truro Cathedral - Cornwall Council". www.cormacltd.co.uk.

[37] "Poets lead Cornish revolt against 'English imperialism'". The Independent. 18 May 1997. Retrieved 26 September 2017.

[38] ttps://www.newspapers.com/newspage/206801098/

[39] ttps://www.connect.media/qa-affordable-housing-development-local-economy/?cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-White%20House%20Proposes%20Entrepreneurial%20Immigration%20Rule%20-_-News

[40] ttp://cem-az.com/gorman-company-inc-selects-rainbow-housing-as-service-provider-for-one-of-the-first-section-811-multifamily-housing-developments-in-arizona/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[1]

[2]

[3]