Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 September	15 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. No need for third relist; sourcing found and no rebuttals. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trading Partner Identification Number

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

Not notable, deprodded without comment, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some sourcing - and there is ample more sourcing. We have Taxpayer Identification Number (and the more notable Social Security number) - no reason not to have TPIN (save the OSE - mentioning to show we have other similar numeric id codes) - it is a valid lookup - which is important for anyone who is a US government contractor for the past couple of decades.06:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per sourcing added by Icewhiz ~Kvng (talk) 15:04, 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 delete. as a basically super-expired WP:PROD ansh 666 09:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Music Awards

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

Insufficient coverage to pass WP:EVENT; some coverage in Music Week, a trade publication, but nothing found in mainstream WP:RS. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 7 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) 03:04, 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, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 21 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:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ziadie family

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

Seemingly NN family with only two members worthy of a Wikipedia article. Seems to be more of an attempt at some limited genealogy than an article, with all references, centering around one member, Lady Colin Campbell. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. See Eduardo Torres Maldonado, From Tropical Hell to Tourist Paradise: State Intervention and Tourist Entrepreneurship in the Mexican Caribbean (1997), p. 384:

As David Nicholls pointed out, a notable feature of the Arab migration is the way in which families have cut across national boundaries and they way that international links have been extended through marriage. Thus, he went on... The Hannas in Jamaica are related to the Deeb and Boulos families in Haiti, to the Laquis in Trinidad and to the Brimos, Zaccas, Fatta, Karrams and Ziadies in Jamaica itself.

Referencing: David Nicholls, Haiti In Caribbean Context (1985), p. 141:P

The Hannas in Jamaica are related to the Deeb and the Boulos families in Haiti, to the Laquis family in Trinidad and to the Brimos, Zaccas, Fattas, Karrams and Ziadis in Jamaica itself.

There are, therefore, at least a few sources referring to this family (among other families) as an entity in and of itself, without reference to its the one member for whom we have an article. bd2412 T 01:51, 7 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) 03:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needless to delete at this stage.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Fairly notable Jamiacan family. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:26, 29 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Shang a Lang

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

Stated plainly, this is an article about a band that was not notable when the page was created nor has anything demonstrated their significance years later. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Figureskatingfan has a record of excellent content including FAs. This is one of her first creations and I'm sure she's forgotten all about it. Anyway, I really can't see how it could possibly meet WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-committed. Kudpung is correct above; I created this article as a stub when I was working on The Wiggles, my very first FA, in the interest of thoroughness. I did forget about it, mostly because they don't even perform anymore; plus, Murray Cook has retired from The Wiggles, anyway. The band's mentioned enough in other articles, so I'm fine with its deletion. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:BAND#6. The ensemble has two notable members: Murray Cook (who does have a WP article) of the Wiggles and Clyde Bramley - although he doesn't have his own article he is a former member of four (or more) notable bands, which do have WP articles.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)04:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like they were members of notable bands but they themselves were not notable. Remember WP:NOTINHERITED. Why would we want to keep an article that absolutely fails WP:GNG? Here is an interesting quote from WP:NBAND: "Note that this criterion needs to be interpreted with caution, as there have been instances where this criterion was cited in a WP:CIRCULAR manner to create a self-fulfilling notability loop".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Since you claim that Cook is not notable, does this mean you are saying that Cook's article should be deleted?
"self-fulfilling notability loop": that would apply if I argued that Cook's notability can be used to establish the Wiggles' notability, which in turn means that Cook is notable. Cook is independently notable. I argue that both Cook and Bramley are notable, both are members of notable bands. Criterion #6 is applicable in this situation and my case does not form such a loop.
WP:GNG applies to "general" situations. WP:BAND applies "specifically" to musicians or ensembles that's why they have different criteria. You're trying to argue for some sort of hierarchy of notability in that all bands must pass GNG, even if they pass BAND – I don't recognise any such hierarchy.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cook is borderline but Bramley is certainly not independently notable. A search for coverage about him, not the bands he was a part of, brought up nothing. Surely if he were a notable musician someone would have written something about him, wouldn't you agree?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:BAND#6 Bramley is notable because he is a former member of four notable bands. You're using some other standard.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also applying the "may be notable if they meet at least one" part -- not will be. The fact that the only claim made for notability is two borderline noteworthy members, one of whom who is not the subject of an article, is a good indicator that this band is not notable. A little common sense needs to be applied to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Excluding the first and final sentence, the article discusses other bands or endeavors the members were included in. You'll have to do a lot of original research to extract any significant content about this group.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. YKMV (metric for YMMV): I don't believe this article's inclusion is indiscriminate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:20, 12 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) 03:03, 14 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) 09:01, 21 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) 19:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2001 Santa Fe

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

An unremarkable live album which never charted. In a WP:BEFORE search I could only gather sources from the band's own website and wiki-generated pages -- both of which obviously do not meet WP:GNG standards. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with this batch of live albums by the same act, I can't find coverage to suggest that this release meets WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. gongshow talk 18:04, 9 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) 03:03, 14 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) 09:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as 'bandcruft'; no indications of notability or significance, and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 28 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 argument was put forward for keeping which explained why the tour was notable per WP:NTOUR. This may be recreated if more independent secondary source material about the topic becomes available from which a non-promotional, encyclopedic article can be written. Anyone wishing to work on this may ping me for a userfied copy of the article. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PSA Tour

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

Pure promotion with dates of tour for Fifth Harmony. Non-compliant with WP:NOT ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the tour looks notable Flow 234 (Nina) talk 16:16, 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 07:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Co,ment "looks notable" is not really a valid argument. But I have no opinion on the article, which is out of my field. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is simply advertising on Wikipedia. This is a promotional announcement, like a TV ad. Same with the references. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Steve Quinn (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - fails WP:IINFO Steve Quinn (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Most large artists have dedicated pages for their large tours. I don't see what makes this page different than the others, such as Dangerous Woman Tour or Purpose World Tour. Rufusmi (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When did the encyclopedia become StubHub, Live Nation or Ticket Master? What makes a list of upcoming tour dates encyclopedic? The article represents exactly what WP:NOT tells us not to include. I also reviewed WP:NTOUR to make sure I didn't miss anything, and saw no mention that it was ok to list dates for upcoming tours, only that notable tours must provide adequate information like revenue figures, etc. and be sourced to RS to substantiate notability of the tour - that tells us the tour must have already taken place. If artists have been given the ok to use the encyclopedia to promote upcoming tours, where is the consensus for that or the AfDs that have set such a precedent? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In truth, very few tours are notable, even by established bands, and there is nothing in the article to suggest that this tour is notable. Robman94 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment: NotAdvertising is not a reason for deletion, and doesn't really concern deletion per se, it is about article content. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L3X1, please read WP:G11, Unambiguous advertising or promotion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between NotAdvertising and G11 is how advert-y the offending piece is. Hopefully the piece to be G11d would fail the GNG as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability guidelines plus WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Half the dates do not even have an artist, how can we predict this will happen? Does anyone think anyone will type in this in a searchbox after it's over? Ifnord (talk) 17:43, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hit Dem Folks

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

A non encyclopedic collection of trivia. Significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cited coverage by MTV and USA Today. If current article content is an issue it can be improved without deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing about the subject goes above the level of trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define trivia? If multiple reliable sources are covering something you or I consider trivial, it is notable trivia in the eyes of WP policy and not subject to deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-known dance move that anybody under the age of 30 has seen or is familiar with. Zchris0783 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 14 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. ansh 666 19:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher W. Kersey

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 7 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) 03:00, 14 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) 09:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 23 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 that the sources supplied are not sufficient to show notability of this person. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Garcia (basketball)

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

Contested PROD with no removal rationale. The subject hasn't played in any of the leagues listed in the sport-specific notability guidelines, and in fact has only just commenced his professional career at all. While there are references, most of the ones in English seem to be of the "local boy makes good" variety, rather than the level of coverage required for notability. I have no Macedonian abilities, so am happy to be proven wrong in relation to those references. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, there are plenty of references and information to meet notability guidelines, and he played at Wofford in college, which is notable in itself. I think it has merited and should not be deleted. Potatornado (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NHOOPS, linked earlier, playing at a given college isn't "notable in itself". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Playing in college or an a semi-professional league are not sufficient for notability. Trying to search for better sources is too hard, since he has a common name (I know a teacher with the name name). Bearian (talk) 23:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I just had to respond to your comment here. It's not that hard to search for someone like this. Search for "Eric Garcia" plus "basketball," or "Eric Garcia" plus "Wofford," or any number of combinations. We do have enough information to narrow down the search results. That said, I don't know where the Macedonian league should rank in terms of notability. Garcia did work out for the NBA's Denver Nuggets [1], so he may at least be at the fringes of Wikipedia worthiness. Zagalejo^^^ 19:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article creator is notorious for creating poor basketball player articles for pretty much anyone (especially Americans/imports) who joins a Macedonian team – just check the user's historical contributions over the past few weeks/months. Eric Garcia did play in the NCAA and like Zagalejo mentioned, a simple google search of "Eric Garcia basketball" or "Eric Garcia Wofford" brings up plenty of material. However, a first-year player out of Wofford (I personally hadn't heard of this Division 1 school before) heading to Macedonia isn't a player I would create an article for. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His team, MZT Skopje, will play in the ABA League (Adriatic League) which is one of the leagues listed in the sport-specific notability guidelines and Garcia already has a player profile on the leagues official website. That said, he hasn't actually played a game in the league as the season doesn't start until September 29 so technically he doesn't pass WP:NHOOPS yet. Is it better to delete the article now and resurrect it when he has one game under his belt or put this on ice until the season starts and see if he's still on the roster then? - Dammit_steve (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With football players, the solution seems to be delete-and-recreate-when if they're on the books at a team in the relevant league and just haven't played yet, so that suggests this is the same process here as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. This editor has been creating literally dozens of pages for players that often do not meet the WP:NHOOPS I have unreviewed a few and added notability tags that the creator has removed without adding sources that prove notability. I don't know if they know what the criteria are or just that they don't agree. If admin could hold off closing I will bundle them here if the participants agree. Domdeparis (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor did not seem to be aware of the notabilty criteria. On his talk page here, I asked him to go through his creations and check they meet the different criteria and if not blank the pages and add a db-g7 template to avoid having to go through them ourselves. Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' Hello to everyone. I just want to apologise for the misunderstanding about notabilty criteria for any of those players, including Eric Garcia. But, about Eric Garcia I can assure you that he played for Wofford college, i`m very close to his present basketball club, so i know all the information about the player. You can just check with normal writing on Google that he played for that college. Also, the season in ABA league starts on 29 September, so...As i said to one of the users, I don`t have bad intentions when i create the articles. - Mkdbasket2014 (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MZT Skopje plays ABA League that is a completely professional competition. Asturkian (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NHOOPS doesn't mention being in a fully professional league as meeting the requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NHOOPS does include the ABA League as one of the notable leagues. That said, Garcia has yet to play there as the first game is still 10 days away. As BigHaz points out above, there is precedence for football players at least to delete and recreate the articles when and if they play in notable leagues. I don't mind if that route is taken, but would raise no objections to wait a few days until the first game is over either. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup but like you said he hasn't played there yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL we must delete as anything (god forbid) could happen between now and then which has unfortunately happened in other sports in the past. I don't follow basketball articles as much but I know I always undelete articles of ice hockey players that were deleted that subsequently meet the criteria so I am sure there are admins that will do that for basketball as well. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I could find to meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some significant coverage from reliable sources here and here and here to meet GNG. As an aside, it feels very silly to me to choose to delete an article to be recreated when the season starts in less than 10 days. Garcia won't suddenly become notable as a result of stepping on the floor. The presumption of notability should be predicated on his career to date, in essence saying he is a notable player as proven by playing at a certain level league. If that isn't the case, then we should consider if the ABA League should be listed in the guideline. It may be that football chooses to delete and recreate articles in this instance but in my opinion that is plumb dumb. Why wouldn't you just wait the 10 days and see if he plays for them, as expected, if that's the hang-up? Rikster2 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second is a blog so wouldn't be good for notability. The presumption of notability is based on if there are likely sources or not, and someone who has met nhoops likely has them. There has to be a line somewhere. That being said, an article that meets nhoops can still be deleted if it a good faith effort to find sources shows that none could be found. -DJSasso (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it's not exactly a blog in the classic sense. This is the Spartanburg newspaper site and on-line news is done this way in today's day and age. Essentially this is a sports feature writer in their on-line edition. But here is a replacement from the same paper if you prefer. Rikster2 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even then we don't use blogs like this as they don't usually go through the editorial process which is required of a reliable source. Most papers draw a line between their news articles and their blogs online and those labelled blog are usually the equivalent of an opinion piece in traditional newspapers. All that being said the replacement is ok. -DJSasso (talk) 11:21, 22 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) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete college and semi-pro is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's fully pro, not semi-pro. The ABA League (Adriatic League), where his team plays, is a fully professinal league and one of the leagues mentioned in WP:NHOOPS. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, good college players routinely meet GNG so that is not an acceptable answer on its own. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rikster2 newfound sources. Dammit_steve (talk) 14:10, 23 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 Yale University#Student organizations. The most logical alternative. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yale International Relations Association

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

Delete per WP:ORG, most sources are self-published or not relevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colestefan (talk • contribs) 20:27, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consider this a combo article about a number of related programs. The Yale Review of International Studies is notable on its own (my judgment based on previous AFDs about student-run academic journals) but is covered here. There is an annual(?) Acheson Prize associated with that. --do ncr am 21:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entirely primary and affiliated sources when it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) So let's see those sources, especially that the undergrad Yale Review of International Studies is independently notable... czar 19:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:16, 15 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) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent Yale_University#Student_organizations (where it is mentioned by name but unsourced) as WP:ATD-R. No showing of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?), or put another way, there isn't enough secondary source content to do justice to the topic. czar 03:38, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan National Resistance Organization

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

not notable organization Mardetanha (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. The article is currently promotional, and the subject is itself a promotional organization. I am not familiar with the topic area and don't know if RUDAW.NET, e.g. in this source from the article, a Kurdish network, is independent of it or not. But it is not a fly-by-night / new organization; another source in the article is about its 10th year anniversary. It sorta seems okay/good to have an article about this organization, to me. --do ncr am 21:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should be reformatted however it should not be deleted.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 23:21, 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) 16:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PASSES GNG.Platogrew (talk) 16:45, 28 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. WP:NPASR applies (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Social Distortion Fall 2012 Tour

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

Non-notable concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR, with only two references that are from the band's website and no longer work, and has been tagged as only having primary sources for four and a half years. Aspects (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be a notable concert tour, got two sources [2][3], both are providing significant independent coverage to pass WP:GNG.Anoptimistix (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have added the two ref which I gave above in the article [4]. Anoptimistix (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:20, 15 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) 16:45, 21 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) 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Quintus

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

A film director and presenter supported by a tranche of blog type references but nothing of any weight or independence. I posted an earlier version to AfD where it was deleted with no other participants. I was concerned then that the lack of Cameroonian sources was a disadvantage for the the article but it is now clear that the individual is based in the US and good sources should be available. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velella,thank you. The producer is based in the USA but not a Hollywood actor. He done movie in Cinema of Cameroon. The reference used to cite the actor notability is not a blog but independent news source for example line 2 and 9 cited from all Africa news website. And Ghana news site before minor website. Abanda bride (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on references, line one of the subject reference is cited from Cameroon national news paper Cameroon tribune Abanda bride (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 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, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am not impressed by the sources - he exists, but the coverage is minimal, and the 'news sites' read like marketing press releaeses. I am not seeing significant international awards. But then there is the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS to consider, maybe for that part of the world his achievements are sufficient? Would be nice to hear from Cameroonian Wikipedians, but, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:17, 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. Euryalus (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rafeef Al Yasiri

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

No evidence of notability. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment i provided new references for this article but I about notability i cant say my finally idea i should think Leodikap (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 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, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable "beauty expert".John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a WP:Promo page on an non notable individual; no indications of notability or significance. Likely a COI-based profile which does not add value to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not free means of promotion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 28 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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 10:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conlanging - The Art of Crafting Tongues

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

This article is about a film that does not meet notability. The references in the article do little to establish notability. Most are not independent (film web site, facebook page). The UBC link is just to news postings for the university as one of the people involved is a UBC professor. There is a 660 news item but that is a local Calgary radio station. I searched for coverage and found this news item from a local community news source for the Okanagan. In total, the available resourcing does not establish notability with significant coverage from multiple indpendent reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as there are the local news sources that seem to be reliable, local news is allowed for WP:GNG but national would be more convincing so putting in a weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 14:05, 21 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) 19:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

T. L. Orcutt

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

Although this article has been around for seven years, and has many incoming and outgoing links, I am just unable to see how it satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. I'm looking for significant coverage of the author and/or his books and I'm not finding it. A Google search brings up many many directory listings and Wikipedia mirrors but nothing in-depth about the author.

Similarly, the articles about his books are heavy on plot detail and light on sources. So I will also nominate them as part of this process.

... discospinster _talk 20:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that a total of six articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no discussion has taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:OCCULTTAROTPROFESSIONAL. Additionally none of the books appear to be notable, I could find no significant coverage of any of them, so delete all of those too.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all do not meet any notability standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 27 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) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Cooper

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

Does not meet WP:ACTOR virtually no coverage in reliable sources, virtually orphan, no filmography listed. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ACTOR and WP:CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 14:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Written by SPA whose only edit was creating this article. No RS whatsoever, only an IMDB link. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:01, 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 keep. Consensus is although there were WP:CRYSTAL concerns, the community believes improvement of the article is possible in all circumstances. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BETSY (album)

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

Non-notable album that is not mentioned in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and all relevant subject notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the singer is notable, she's been mentioned in several reliable sources [5], [6], [7]... but she doesn't have an article of her own, so a redirect won't be possible. I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON and that in a month's time there will be plenty of sources to justify this article, but for now I'm not sure of the best course of action. Richard3120 (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recently deleted the singer's article for being a blatant copyvio, but if anyone recreates it, it could be a valid retarget target.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:16, 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)}}} 18:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see the point of deleting this - yes the bio should have been deleted as a copyvio, but I've just recreated as a sourced stub. When Warner Records gets behind an artist they and the album are guaranteed notability for as long as the association with Warner lasts. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would have suggested merging it to the two-sentence article on the probably-not-notable-enough-yet singer, but there's no sourced content here and the article title is wrong (we don't try to replicate typography in article titles). Why on earth do people keep creating such crappy album articles? --Michig (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: since the AfD was created, the article title has been changed to the correct title Betsy (Betsy album). I guess in answer to your question, there are overenthusiastic editors who are so keen to get the first possible piece of news up on Wikipedia and not worry too much about adding an RS, but I share your annoyance – if they had waited a little longer and not been WP:TOOSOON with this article, we wouldn't be having this deletion discussion in the first place. With the publicity and connections this artist has, it's very likely that within a fortnight there will be reviews and chart placings, so I understand In ictu oculi's argument... if this gets deleted now it's probable that it will get recreated almost immediately and with sufficient reliable sources to ensure it passes WP:NALBUM. I am aware that my argument is WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I have no strong feelings on keeping or deleting this article... in the meantime it's in limbo a bit, unfortunately. Richard3120 (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this album does receive coverage, since it's just about the only thing she's done, it can still be perfectly adequately covered in the article on the singer, which isn't going to get so large that it needs to be split any time soon. It would be much better to expand that article with any content from reliable sources rather than having two weak stubby articles. --Michig (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rush? The album will be released by Warner in 7 days. Why not just hold on and wait for Warner's giant press machine to pump out the sources. It won't break to wait a week. Besides there are sources enough now anyway. Keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the user In ictu oculi. The album will be released in a week by Warner Bros. so it will probably gain notability. Also the artist was featured in the Guardian's "One to watch" series in August. link AndreasAt (talk) 22:59, 21 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 SNOW keep. Nomination of high school article by newly-registered SPA. This discussion should have been closed as Speedy keep a long time ago. (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steller Secondary School

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

There are no indepent sources, this school has no evidence of being notable, and it also reads like an advertisement for the school Alright, so in response to the below commecnts: The fact that it is a highschool does not actually protect it from deletion if it does not meet notability standards, as per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) which also states that if information cannot be verified, then it may be challenged and removed from the article. As laid out is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), to be notable the school's article must have depth of coverage, using reliable sources. These sources may not be self published. It also needs to have attention from media to a certain extent, but coverage should be from something more read than local media. This article does not have any international coverage, it does not cite any independent sources, and if I was to remove all uncited material this article would be a candidate for speedy deletion. I do know that lack of sources does not indicate that the subject is not notable, but I also cannot find any sources from my research. (Which I think answers the other objection, because I have looked and I cannot find any sources for this information other that the school's own website.) And as for my being a new user, that's why I keep messing up and making work more difficult for the bots, and I'm really sorry about that) FluffyKitty999 (talk) 01:59, 14 September 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 September 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close High schools are generally held to be notable in and of themselves following a long standing consensus. Please direct any concerns about promotional tone to the talk page on the article. Has the article nominator made an attempt to improve the article before nominating it for deletion?Egaoblai (talk) 07:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close - there's nothing wrong with this article. Note that the nominator is a new user with only 6 edits, 5 of which involved the attempts to start this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep - Per others. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably meets the speedy keep criteria as a POINTy nomination by a new account (likely an old user who just got so used to Twinkle they don't know how to transclude). That being said, it pretty easily meets the GNG. It receives coverage in To Russia with Love (one paragraph viewable via Google Books, the description of the event seems to continue into the next page. Google News also brings up a few mediocre hits, but I'm also assuming we don't have the entirety of the Anchorage Paper's archives (probably one of the regions of the US that it is hardest to find sourcing on). There are a few other mentions in Google Books as well. This is enough to get it to GNG for me at least in how we typically apply it to other secondary schools (even post-RfC, we tend to be more flexible here). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:35, 21 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 into Arc of the United States#Arc of San Francisco Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arc of San Francisco

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

Promotional, to the extent of possible speedy G11. Only refs. from its own city DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bernick, Michael S.; Holden, Richard. The Autism Job Club: The Neurodiverse Workforce in the New Normal of Employment. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 54. ISBN 1632209977. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The book notes:
  
  Today, targeted job placement efforts are underway throughout the United States by national nonprofits such as ARC and Goodwill and thousands of local job-placement providers. The programs often are funded through state departments of rehabilitation or federal disability funds. These targeted efforts generally utilize the same intensive job search assistance and follow-up as in "Jobs for All."
  The San Francisco ARC, for example, serves persons with a wide range of disabilities such as cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and wheelchair use. Like ARCs around the country, the San Francisco ARC has seen a sharp increase in clients with autism in the past five years so that now persons with autism form the majority of new clients.
  For nearly forty-five years, from the 1950s through early 2003, the ARC operated a sheltered workshop, a separate workplace in which workers with disabilities performed basic tasks such as packaging and mailing. Today, the emphasis is on workforce inclusion.
  Recent San Francisco ARC placements have been in supermarket chains, Safeway and Trader Joe's (clerk and bagger positions), retailers Noah's Bagels and Starbucks (maintenance, stocking), and the city's major law and advertising firms (facilities set-up and office support). Salesforce.com, the cloud computing giant, employees fifteen ARC placements, a mix of part-time and full-time, in facilities set-up activities.
  With ARC's growing autism population, a good number of whom have college degrees, ARC staff hope to expand to a higher pay and skill level of job in these companies and others. But ARC is still searching to break through to jobs above the lower-wage and contigent positions.
  ARC is the largest of the Bay Area job-placement entities for persons with autism and other neurological/physical conditions, but only one of the networks of providers.
  
  The book further notes:
  Terry Goodwin is the director of business development and partnerships at the ARC, where she has worked for over twenty-five years. She is in charge of ARC efforts to develop job placements in mainstream firms. This usually means convincing firms to at least try out workers with disabilities, who they wouldn't hire through the normal hiring processes. ARC serves the range of workers with disabilities, but, as noted in the Chapter 4, adults with autism now comprise the greatest number of new clients.
  The ARC adults with autism themselves comprise a range of abilities and skills. The easiest to place are those who have significant language along with a high school degree (or, in rarer cases, college or college degrees).
  ...
  Additionally, ARC has developed a form of supported work for the more severely impacted that involves project-based tasks. ARC, as the subcontractor, acts as the employer of record. It has developed contracts with a major assisted-living facility to do laundry tasks, with the local convention industry to perform labeling and bagging of convention materials, and with the federal Department of Health and Human Services to arrange file folders. The work crews are sent on site to perform the tasks and are accompanied by job coaches. Though the employment is irregular, the ARC as employer does pay minimum wage and tries to use the assignments as evaluation opportunities for transitioning at some future time into more direct employment.
  The book further notes:
  For over forty years, from the early 1960s, ARC operated a sheltered workshop (sometimes known as a "community workshop") for the more severely impacted. Like many sheltered workshops around the nation, it closed in the early 2000s, the result of both economics and policy shifts. But there are person in the autism community who are already calling for its return.
  Jack Fagan was hired as an instructor at the ARC sheltered workshop in 1993 and in a few years became its director. He stayed until it closed in 2003. He regards the years he spent at the sheltered workshop as the most satisfying of his career. He is among those who believe should return in some form.
  In the early 1990s, Jack recalls that the ARC had around 100–120 clients at any time participating in the sheltered workshop located on the second floor of the ARC building. The ARC had contracts for assembling products and sorting/filling merchandise bags—for example with Leapfrog, then a major manufacturer of educational toys, and Jessica McClintock, the garment and fashion firm.
2. Casey, Laura (2007-06-07). "Service group expands, offers more for adults with disabilities". Daily Review. Archived from the original on 2017-09-08. Retrieved 2017-09-08.
  The article notes:
  
  Founded by a group of parents concerned about the lack of services for their sons and daughters, The Arc of San Francisco has been serving clients with intellectual and developmental disabilities since 1951. The organization helps its 460 clients in San Francisco — 10 percent of whom are from the East Bay — find jobs and housing and participate in creative recreation within the city.
  Clients attend local colleges with the help of The Arc's programs. They work out at gyms like Crunch and the local YMCA — and work as employees there, too.
  ...
  The Arc of San Francisco's ArtReach Studios' classes are held there, too. The program, which started three years ago in Pacifica, is likened to an art academy or art school. Adults with developmental disabilities pursue art as a means of personal expression and as a way to learn new skills.
  The artists work with various media, from photography to sound sculpture. They sell their work at various gallery shows, too.
  ArtReach grew out of its modest Pacifica home after word about the quality of programming spread.
3. "Willing and ready to work". San Francisco Chronicle. Hearst Communications. 2005-05-12. Archived from the original on 2009-02-18. Retrieved 18 February 2009.
  The article notes:
  
  THEY ARE GREETERS at SBC Park and the San Francisco Conservatory, janitors at the Courtyard Marriott, paper shredders, coffee attendants and mail clerks throughout San Francisco.
  And there are 100 more like them who are in need of a place to work.
  Since 1951, The Arc of San Francisco has been a resource that links people with developmental disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, autism, epilepsy and mental retardation with businesses willing to hire them.
  But now, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts and President Bush threatening to cut Social Security income further, those with disabilities need jobs more than ever.
  ...
  The list of employers who hire through The Arc is growing -- Starbuck's, Albertsons, KRON Channel 4, to name a few -- but the number of potential employees is far greater.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arc of San Francisco to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional content was added here. The prior version was neutral and written by me. I have reverted the promotional changes.
Cunard (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A regional chapter of an organization does not inherit notability from its parent. Rhadow (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with parent organization: Per Rhadow, this article subject is a regional chapter of a wider organization, and this page is not significant enough to warrent it's own page.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This regional chapter received extensive discussion in the book source I quoted above. I think that's very significant coverage. But I am fine with a merge to Arc of the United States in lieu of deletion. Cunard (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the material to Arc of the United States#Arc of San Francisco.
Cunard (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arc_of_the_United_States#Arc_of_San_Francisco where the subject is mentioned. Not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 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 merge to Thompson Autorifle. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BSA Autorifle

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

Non-notable British firearm, no reliable in-depth secondary coverage could be found. The cited book (Rifles of the World) mentions it extremely briefly as part of an entry on a different rifle. Created by the most recent spate of User:Ctway socks. ansh 666 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'd be okay with a merge. Book was a little confusing to me but I think all relevant info supports Icewhiz's summary. ansh 666 09:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 22:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thompson Autorifle (probably as a one/two-liner there) - this is BSA licensed production of this gun with some seemingly minor variations. There are some sources for this one of Ctway's creations. Note this is a possible copy-vio of [8].Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per justification of Icewhiz. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:10, 15 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) 17:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per IceWhiz. BSA is more popular for making motorbikes than guns. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:23, 29 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. G12 deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muser movement

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

Failed the Google test. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 02:04, 14 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 and rename to List of dust storms Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of dust storms with visibility of 1/4 mile or less, or meters or less

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

This is the only article of its kind, listing dust storms of a certain visibility. (How many meters? 400m = 1/4 mile, but that's not in the title.) There's no way it can be anywhere near comprehensive enough, unless somebody goes through every source about every dust storm since records began and pulls out information about the visibility, but yet only three of the twelve storms currently listed on the page are notable enough for an article of their own - one of which is the Dust Bowl which is not so much a storm as a decade of storms, including the second item on the list - and this indicates that it is hard to find enough notable storms to populate the list. Additionally, the list is heavily weighted post-2006, which must surely be inaccurate as dust storms happen every year around the world and so missing out nearly all of the 20th century is ill-advised.

There must be hundreds of dust storms which had visibility low enough to be included in this arbitrarily-defined list, yet almost none of them are notable, nor have many reliable sources, and so this list is of pretty much no use. I can't believe it has lasted since 2013. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (inform) 22:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of dust storms and delete the arbitrary criterion and unnotable entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And add Great Bakersfield Dust Storm of 1977, 1983 Melbourne dust storm, 2014 Tehran dust storm, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to either List of dust storms or more likely List of significant dust storms or List of notable dust storms, establish more rigorous criteria (Wikipedia notable, significance supported by RS, and/or deaths, injuries, or significant damage, perhaps) in the lead section of the revamped article, then trim the fat and regularly remove the non-criteria-meeting entries that will surely be added over time. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's assumed that list entries are notable/significant, so that's not specified in list titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dust storm. Guy1890 (talk) 04:12, 16 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) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of dust storms. Even if the existing inclusion criteria are retained or altered, those criteria should be stated in the intro, not the title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and establish criteria as Ks0stm suggests. As nomination states, no reason have an arbitrarily-limited list. The visibility criterion appears to be an attempt at defining significance whereas such lists should be instead defined by noteworthiness. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 26 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 08:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presstitute

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

Possibly speedy. Not a notable neologism/portmanteau. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These days, the term is creating buzz and controversy and is in news. Please check Google News and Google Books for initial research. I think, It fair to keep this article. Other editors please do formal research and give your opinion on it. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's cited in various Indian publications (e.g. Hindustan Times[9], The Indian Express[10]) and has made it into The Manila Times.[11] Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:49, 14 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) 08:35, 21 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. ansh 666 19:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiro Kono

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

Non-notable Japanese voice actor. ANN only shows guest roles and little bits. [12] WP:TOOSOON. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eyeshield 21 per WP:CHEAP. It looks like she has appeared mostly in this series anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87 that could work except his character isn't listed anywhere in List of Eyeshield 21 characters, which means minor or guest character to me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True I saw that after the fact, oh well deletion it is then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:37, 19 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) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese wikipedia seems to list him for quite a large number of roles, including live-action drama. He seems to list all his past roles on his official website (spanning multiple pages too). However I do not know whether any of them are indeed notable. Perhaps someone who is more comfortable in researching in Japanese follow up? tonyxc600 comms logs 15:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He might be in a few live-action dramas but the Japanese wikipedia doesn't go into any detail on that and doesn't have any references to back that up outside of his own website, so notability is still unestablished. It's definitely not based on being a guest "student" in an anime show or minor role in a video game. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 21 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) 12:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arm Slave

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

Pretty much entirely WP:NOTPLOT information that slipped under the radar, seems to have been the product of several merges that should have rather been deleted for non-notability. Its "reception" section cites dubious sources and fails to indicate any societal impact. Information is already in Wikia, for those who may cite WP:VALUABLE/WP:INTERESTING as a counterargument._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, information is already covered in Full Metal Panic!, and the article in question suffers from either a severe lack of sourcing or contains extensive WP:OR.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:13, 16 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) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was going to vote keep until I saw the same information already included in Full Metal Panic!. This is one of those cases where we have to let the reader enjoy the series for themselves rather than narrate it for them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would also support a redirect to Full Metal Panic!. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:07, 28 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. ansh 666 19:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyndago

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

Delete per WP:NWEB. Although the story is a tragic one, I do not see significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As writer of this article, I am willing to hear out any suggestions as to what needs to be sourced. And possibly a list of reliable sources where I can find stuff on Cyndago.-K-popguardian (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So what is needed to keep cyndago alive?-76.174.35.70 (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: K-popguardian, 76.174.35.70 – what you would need is reliable sources not from YouTube or other social media, or the group's own website/social media platforms, but coverage in independent sources, such as newspapers and music magazines (either in print or online)... not blogs. Richard3120 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I can assure you I will be looking for Cyndago sources-K-popguardian (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there like, any youtube news websites?-76.174.35.70 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:38, 14 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) 04:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources such as this mention the group in the context of the death of one of its members, but I didn't find significant coverage about the group. Delete per WP:INHERITWEB which states "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sadly it seems that once you strip out the social media and YouTube sources, the only reliable sources available are those regarding Daniel Kyre's death, rather than anything to do with Cyndago's output before that, which makes them a bit WP:ONEEVENT. The fact that the article's two most enthusiastic "keep" voters seem to have been unable to come up with anything better either in the last two weeks doesn't bode well. Richard3120 (talk) 18:13, 23 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) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke Music

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

Company fails WP:GNG and there are no sources I can locate that establish WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, a non-notable company. Possible fails WP:MILL given the subject company's scope is likely covered by other articles.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP, no indications of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:30, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies due to low participation. Mz7 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cox Companies

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

Company fails WP:GNG. There are some references but all local press and nothing that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is also tied to Rosa's Cafe and Taco Villa as it is the parent company for both. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability even though it has 2,200 employees. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 17 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) 04:19, 21 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 due to low participation. Mz7 (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Jain

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

Non notable actor. There exists a Praveen Jain who is Amitabh Bachchan's manager, but they are not the same person. Has probably acted in blink and you miss roles. All the references provided are dead and searching does not provide any better references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Jupitus Smart 12:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 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, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 27 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OfficerDown.US

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

I can only find trivial mentions of this website in independent sources. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 09:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it appears to be a crowd-funding website, and not a notable one. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG. only mentions. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JerryCo

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

There's no real evidence of notability. Most of the links are dead, but as far as I can tell, they include the subject's official site (not an independent source); a couple of blogs (also disqualified, per WP:SPS); and a smattering of other more-or-less shady sites, apparently promoting some video clip. The subject seems to have been associated with a couple of better-known figures in 2004/05, but that really is not enough to demonstrate any sort of notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:34, 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, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate that this rapper is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Barrios

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

Non-notable individual mentioned briefly in conjunction with Oscar Danilo Blandón in a few conspiracy sources that claim the CIA was involved in drug trafficking. Location (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC) -Location (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentioned in Dark Alliance as asking Oscar Danilo Blandón to speak to Norwin Meneses, and as owning a restaurant in Miami. Have found no other references or rhyme or reason for an article about him. Rgr09 (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:33, 14 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) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Saw second hand accounts that claimed he was involved in the cocaine trade in Los Angeles, but nothing that met requirements for notability or notoriety. Rogermx (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article totally lacks sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 23 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Radusky

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

The page previously contained a variety of controversies surrounding the individual's architectural projects, that do not necessarily reflect personal controversies. Furthermore, upon searching for information about the individual, little information (besides that from the NYC Office of Professions and a LinkedIn profile) appears. It is therefore my proposal that the page be deleted as its subject is not sufficiently notable. --Hunterm267^Talk 21:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 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 00:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the deleted content was not focussing on Radusky, but on a coatrack-y listing of projects he was involved in as architect - with lots of irrelevant details. Radusky is only mentioned in passing in his obvious role as architect, none of the sources offers additional relevant biographical information. The general problem with the underlying certification process is sufficiently mentioned in Self-Certification (New York City Department of Buildings), but a Wiki-article should not serve as a directory or "list of shame" of such incidents without sufficient topic-related context. On a sidenote, several other related articles have also been edited in an apparent attempt to raise more awareness for these problems in New York City (WP:NOTADVOCACY applies). Removing these coatrack details, the remaining content and sources directly about Radusky are not sufficient to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Pretty clearly a notable architect in NYC as a founder of Bricolage Design, see, for example THIS PIECE in the Village Voice and THIS PIECE in the New York Daily News would indicate. Meets GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 12:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion was generated by last relist. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a WP:MILL architect, and the article as written has no working references. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. After all the controversial material was removed, it is also became apparent the subject fails WP:GNG as well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fuck it, this has been held over FIVE times. Not supposed to happen that way. I will get out of the way. Carrite (talk) 01:25, 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 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 [13], 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: [14].

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Equity Ltd

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

Per WP:NCORP. The sources need to be checked for WP:CORPDEPTH. A large portion of the sources are briefly state menthes about normal functions of any financial services firm - I don't reel as though their is anything significantly noteworthy about the company that would warrant a WP page at this time. Comatmebro (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This appears to be a borderline case, with several of the sources right on the threshold of CORPDEPTH. The sheer amount of sourcing pushes it over the line, just barely, toward "keep" for me. I also should note that as the nominator it's your responsibility to check the sources for CORPDEPTH before making the deletion nomination, instead of leaving it to others to do so. CJK09 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added independent in-depth references from reliable sources.ViktoriaCerena (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC) — ViktoriaCerena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Summoned by ViktoriaCerena on my talk page. Notability is established with the addition of reliable sources detailing the company. Meatsgains (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Copiously referenced with news-release style notices in trade journals, there seems to be nothing in Gnews from the sort of truly independent, reliable business media that would meet satisfy our requirements. I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that the "sheer amount of sourcing" from non-reliable publications somehow pushes this past the mark. I'm not sure why a new WP:SPA has popped up to create this article on a minor ~~Canadian~~ North American financial firm, but I don't think this belongs here, based on the quality -- not mere quantity -- of sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking through "Canadian." Company has expanded to the US. Let's add to that deletion sorting, as well, accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 30 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) 20:12, 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)}}} 05:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is clear that the "Keep" !voters above are misinterpreting the guidelines for notability, especially WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. References derived from company PR, company announcements and normal business announcements do not meet the criteria for establishing notability since they are not "intellectually" independent. The quantity of sources only suggests a functional PR department. ViktoriaCerena suggests that "independent in-depth references from reliable sources" have been added but looking at the sources added, it is clear that while the sources may be independent, the articles are not since they rely almost exclusively on company material with no independent opinion or commentary. For example, this added references from privateequitywire is not independent as it is a joint announcement from the company and the law firm that advised them on an acquisition and fails ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH. This reference from pehub.com is an interview with the company president, offers no independent commentary or opinion, and fails CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. I could go on but you get the point. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- "45th fastest growing finance companies in Canada by Profit Magazine" is hardly a claim of significance. The sources are PR-driven and not independent of the subject; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Basically, corporate spam for a nn organisation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. should be deleted as an attempt at promotion, regardless of notability, but in addition the sources for notability are insufficiently independent or substantial -- situation which tends to confirm the promotional nature of the article DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 14 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gallen Group

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

The discussion group is real and has been covered, but the question is whether or not it is notable enough for its own article: my !vote is obviously no. The essential claim to notability is that they formed a faction within two papal conclaves (2005/2013) to elect the current Pope and in opposition to Pope Benedict XVI: this is essentially a conspiracy theory that would be common in virtually any papal election. They're secretive by nature, so no one knows what goes on as they are occurring and as of at least the 20th century, cardinals cannot actually reveal what occurred in the conclave, so the existence of any sourcing on it is by its very nature an unreliable source. We effectively have here a conspiracy theory about BLPs, and it should be deleted as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simply quote myself: "I don't think the group itself is notable". Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#St._Gallen_Group (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "Group" had annual discussions, but inconsistent participation and no name we know of. Papal succession was one topic among many. There's no evidence the 7 (approx.) of them who participated in 2005 conclave did anything other than support like-minded candidates, which is no shocker. While the content of discussions was confidential, the existence of these discussions was not secret, as evidenced by the fact that the Vatican sent one of its own loyalists, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, to check it out. But the press gets excited by anything "secret" (not revealed until 2015!) and the joke about Mafia served as a multiplier. Then conspiracy theorists run with the headlines and try their damnedest to stretch the influence to 2013. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliably sourced topic with references from mainstream Catholic media (Catholic News Agency, National Catholic Register) and secular media (London Telegraph, Washington Post, La Stampa, Spectator, etc). The topic has not only featured in the international press and in officially approved biographies of one of the Cardinals involved, but has also been given a prominent place in the work of Austen Ivereigh on the Rise of Pope Francis. As well as this, it elicited a response from the Holy See Press Office in 2014 with a statement from Federico Lombardi. Given that the Catholic Church has some 1.2 billion members worldwide and this group of high ranking clerics have been described under this title in mainstream sources as having had influence in two Papal conclaves, it would appear to be notable enough as a topic. I don't think it would fall under "fringe" because it is mentioned by the mainstream media. Aside from that the main contention in the nomination that it is a "conspiracy theory" (whatever that slippery term is supposed to mean) is not stated in the aforementioned sources. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The oft-quoted "1.2 billion" members line. They include me in that figure! Doesn't mean much. Once you're in, it seems you can't get out. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Catholic Register is the rough equivalent of The Weekly Standard and Catholic News Agency of the WSJ editorial page: also, they are both owned by EWTN, so hardly independent intellectually. As I said at the fringe theories noticeboard, this is effectively a conclave conspiracy theory: we get tons of those on here dating back hundreds of years worth of articles because conclaves are secretive events.
None of the reporting on the conspiracy theories from at least the 20th century on meet our standards for reliable sourcing, however, because they are built on the Roman rumour mill: there is no such thing as an on the record statement about the internal workings of contemporary papal conclaves. A cardinal would be excommunicated by the law itself if he were to reveal what happened, so there are never actual names involved with the sourcing, and it is usually a friend of a friend of a friend of Cardinal Foo who tells it to the journalist. The secular sources above all generally reporting on what the other sources reported on: that means they are re-reporting that other people reported unreliable information. That doesn't get near GNG.
The question is whether or not this particular conspiracy theory is notable or whether it just got a brief burst of press and is excluded by NOTNEWS. The most notable conclave conspiracy theory is the one about Siri thesis that spawned Sedevacantism. That is notable because it caused several (exceptionally minor) schisms by conspiracy theorists who have elected their own rival popes over the last 60 years, and thus it has received enough sustained coverage to be notable as a theory. It also doesn't really have any BLP issues since everyone in the 1958 conclave is dead now. This one, however, just received a brief blip of news, and involves living cardinals to whom association as a cabal within the conclave or college from non-RS could have a negative impact on. This should be deleted on BLP, NOTNEWS, and GNG grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 23 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) 20:58, 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 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- concur with nom: the group is not sufficiently notable to justify a stand alone article, for lack of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BLP concerns are also a factor. The conspiracy theory does not meet WP:NFRINGE either. So delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources sem sufficient--that is,unless youreject all Catholic sources for topics dealing with that religion. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, of course not: I've certainly never made that claim (and actually fight against it in all religious AfDs for their relative religions). I suppose the argument I should have made here was WP:NFRINGE, which requires extensive coverage. This is a conspiracy theory involving living people that hasn't been extensively covered. That's the big issue, not the Catholic sourcing. If one considers the sourcing: CNA I would probably consider reliable. National Catholic Register it depends on the day where they fall on the "nutjob" vs. "good journalism" spectrum. A lot of what they publish is opinion pieces by sensationalist bloggers, but they do have some good content. It certainly wouldn't be up the the quality America (magazine) is regarded as, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of you--I see we agree about the sources. I do not consider this fringe.The existence of factions with the Catholic church is real enough and sufficiently reported. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The factionalism isn't the concern that makes it fringe so much as the idea that there was a organized faction secretly advocating against Ratzinger in 2005, and that it continued in 2013 in an organized manner. That I'd consider a fringe view not really held by any except those within the fringes of the relative Catholic political factions. There is room to disagree, however, and as always I appreciate your views. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 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) 01:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keepI believe this is notable based off the above keep !vote and what i could find. L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but yeah, it could use some improvement. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:23, 20 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) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Krishnan (actor)

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and no evidence that actor has played a major role in any film listed in the article. I may be looking in the wrong places, but a Google search for "Hari Krishnan" found nothing that establishes notability. Appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are few exclusive interviews sourced in the article. He has also been credited as "Hari" in films, I guess. Madras and Kabali are his notable films. Editor 2050 (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Editor 2050: Per WP:IV interviews are not generally considered useful for notability, as they are not independent of the subject. I tried but can’t find a single reliable source that talk about his role in either Madras or Kabali and I hope you are not mixing him with Kalaiyarasan Harikrishnan who played Tamizh Kumaran in Kabali also go with same name Harikrishnan. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:IV is an essay not a policy, AFD is continually recognising interviews as notable sources where they are in reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and also when they contain straight prose as well as an interview. Regarding WP:NACTOR he has third billing in an upcoming film and some fifth billings in released films which are reasonably prominent.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course, I'm aware - I watch Tamil films. Sources aren't as freely available for supporting actors as they are in the Western World - but I have attempted to include as many as possible here. Editor 2050 (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Delete- At best he is a supporting actor with no work that has been notable, In my opinion until he does more prominent work this page is TOOSOON. FITINDIA 18:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: New sources and text has been added since this was listed. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable references Shashi 1980 (talk) 15:29, 14 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) 17:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 23 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. A consensus has emerged that the article should be kept, but revised with a focus on "reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories." Malinaccier (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolo (tank)

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

Appears to be pretty much entirely in-universe content that violates WP:NOTPLOT with no indication of wider cultural significance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It could be refactored as an article about the series of books and appearances in other books. But 80% of the content is fancruft and would still need to go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GraemeLeggett:Care to give a revised opinion of keep or delete? Right now your statement amounts to WP:MUSTBESOURCES but I couldn't find any that would allow for a revising of the article that weren't WP:PRIMARY or not significant._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page is quite popular, getting about 100 views per day. That's because this has developed from the original Laumer stories to become a substantial shared universe with stories by numerous established authors and with a variety of spinoffs such as board and computer games. Because it has grown beyond the work of the original author, it makes sense to keep this as a separate page rather than merging it into the author's page. As for notability, it's not difficult to find sources if one looks, e.g. A Guide to Popular Reading Interests. An additional consideration now is the fresh fears about the dangers of AI and military robots as unmanned drones and tanks are becoming real. Reference is typically made to fictional foresight in titles such as Well-Behaved Borgs, Bolos, and Berserkers and we ought to be able to explain these to readers who can't place the reference. Andrew D. (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bolos get a single passing mention in one sentence in the intro in Well-Behaved Borges, Bolos and Berserkers. Out of 9 pages. that's not sufficient for notability. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the guide to popular reading seems to be just a listing of themes and books with a brief note describing the subject in each case, the Bolo series is outlined in a couple of sentences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE is not a sufficient rationale. Your other argument is WP:SOURCESEARCH, but what matters is whether it has more than WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE. If one seeks to find information about unmanned drones, they should refer to military robot, not this._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE states that "article popularity is likely to correspond with some form of notability" and it's easy to find more sources. For example, here's an extensive review of the series. My !vote stands and based upon multiple policies including WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a) not really an extensive review, b) a blog by unnamed contributed. There must be more sources higher on RS scale for this series out there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that you claimed it was a popular page, which I said was not an adequate rationale. I think that, objectively, it's not actually a popular page. 100 hits is pretty small, most popular pages on Wikipedia get thousands of hits a day. So if you're using comparisons of statistics to say it proves notability exists somewhere, then, well, it doesn't really prove much._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recurring SF element and the basis of a shared world used by multiple authors. Artw (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that there is absolutely room for cutting a lot of cruft from this article, and reducing the emphasis on in-universe description while possibly expanding on the real world history of the stories. It's still a keep though. Artw (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since it's been picked up by writers other than Laumer. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:INHERITED, even if it appears in other books, it doesn't gain notability from those books._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article should be re-targeted to be about a series of books. It currently claims to be a type of fictional vehicle. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Power~enwiki:Comment That assumes anyone will bother to rewrite the article to conform to the book series rather than the tank. Better to use WP:TNT and wait for someone to write a suitable article on the books._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several users appear to be engaged in good faith efforts to improve the article without the use of TNT. Artw (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon there's about 50% more of the article to be excised yet. TNT would be cleaner. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:44, 15 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. There's no consensus to delete here after two relists. If a merge is appropriate that discussion can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 09:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bauhaus books + coffee

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

That a funky local store would get local coverage is not a surprise--that's what local papers do. But I contend that the coverage is not broad, deep, and really independent enough for this to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Coffee in Seattle#Coffeehouses. This business isn't unique enough or notable enough to have its own article. I found one article in the Kansas City Business Journal that was an in-depth profile of the Bauhaus coffee shop and its history and for a second I thought it was evidence of significant media attention outside Seattle. Then I realized it was actually another Bauhaus coffee in another city, that happened to have the same basic story arc as the Seattle one. Run-of-the-mill, in other words. But still, most of the content fits nicely in Coffee in Seattle. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dennis Bratland--I would not oppose a merge of (trimmed) content. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable business, just one of hundreds in the city. Absolutely none of this is worth merging to the coffee article. Reywas92^Talk 22:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started this article. It passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses.

The content here would be undue to include in coffee in Seattle. The merge that is mentioned above would be cutting this to 1-2 sentences or even just a list entry. There is no space shortage in Wikipedia and if we have content backed with citations we are not pressed to delete that.

There is no rule that local sources are unworthy of being cited. Yes, this is a local coffeehouse and not of broad international interest, but the sources discussing this are doing so because the place was of interest to local people. Wikipedia already has a precedent of allowing all sorts of local articles to be cited, for example, for biographies of local artists, local art objects, and cultural topics. This article has sources cited over a period of years and that demonstrates that there was lasting interest in the topic from multiple perspectives.

In Seattle this sort of coffeehouse is WP:MILL but in most cities, coffeehouses would not get any news coverage. Seattle is unusual for having a coffeehouse culture where all sorts of coffeehouse trivialities get journalism coverage just because people in Seattle are eager to read that sort of content. This article is a summary of local coverage of local culture and in general, local content has a place on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- "Bauhaus attracts patrons who like to read and study." "The old furniture is part of the atmosphere of the place." Are you joking? This is as run-of-the-mill as it gets! No, Seattle does not have some mystical coffee culture that makes the local coverage of the university paper listing some places to study, a neighborhood weekly noting the opening of a business, or a random blog discussing the atmosphere significant coverage for notability on Wikipedia. Local news around the world covers this sort of stuff too and Wikipedia would be overrun with hundreds of thousands of these articles if that were the bar for inclusion. Please don't point out WP:OTHERSTUFF - art and artists, themselves overrepresented, are not the same. Reywas92^Talk 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92 I am not joking. Wikipedia is full of articles that say things like "this monument commememorates (something local)" or "this artist's work expresses hope". The significance is not in the words, but instead in the fact that reputable publications found this information important enough to put this kind of information in print. The AfD process is not a critique of what people think is interesting versus what is boring. There is a demographic of people who are interested in reading about coffeehouses and that interest has led to journalism and passing GNG. Check the sources - these are not university newspapers as you say. Even if there were a school newspaper, that combined with other sources can establish notability. Seattle's coffee culture is not mystic but it does meet GNG at Coffee in Seattle which is unusual as compared to most other cities. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 19 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) 00:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from a few sentences in travel guides all the sources I can find are local. As Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says: ...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbara (WVS), WP:GNG says specifically that a article that meets those criteria are presumed to meet the requirements, but not guaranteed. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If we accept an article with only local reviews, every restaurant in the country that ever had a few reviews in the local paper could have an article, making Wikipedia a restaurant directory. This fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the reason given above by StarryGrandma. MB 02:49, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes WP:GNG because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." This coffeehouse has been the subject of articles in multiple sources including local mainstream newspapers, alternative newspapers, the television news, and a book of iconic local coffeehouses. Just because an article can be deleted doesn't mean that it needs to be deleted. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 14:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please list two references that you believe definitely meet the criteria for establishing notability and I may reconsider my !vote. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SahabAli^{говорити} 17:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications or notability or significance or that the business has achieved a cult following. Sourcing is local and / or passing mentions not meeting WP:AUD or WP:CORPDEPTH. There's nothing to merge, so a deletion is the best option when it comes to nn businesses. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability. Local coverage is insufficient to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. Fails WP:SPIP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coffee in Seattle#Coffeehouses seems like the best option. I'm not certain there's enough unique about this coffeehouse to justify including any content there, delete if there's nothing to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:11, 3 October 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 wants the content userfied to create a different article that is more likely to meet WP:LISTN, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of composers who died before age 50

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

Wasn't sure what to say about this list, now granted a list of who died before 50 is interesting for some (and kind of sad actually), but as you may notice the majority are hundreds of years ago-which is expected. Also the term most famous-most famous to who? Also seems like a original research project. For now I say delete. Wgolf (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera and WikiProject Classical Music. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of composers who died before age 40, and retain only those. That would catch all of the significant early deaths (and let's face it, composers who died young is indeed a "thing"), and avoid the problem that age 50 was not unusually young to die prior to the 20th century. Softlavender (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few that just link to DAB pages also. Wgolf (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Moving the list to the younger cut-off of 40 would eliminate approximately half the list and make it a much more useful and readable and notable list. It might also be useful to make it a sortable table -- that is, sortable by age of death (which should be added for each), by last name, and possibly also by birth year. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could work-also removing the bold font for "most famous" for sure. Either delete or move for now, need more comments of course. Wgolf (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – subjective list. No references whatsoever. Untenable inclusion criteria. There's some literature about composers dying young: instead of looking up that literature (which rather would go in the direction of an article than a list), there's some discussion above about the cut-off age based on all sorts of editor preferences' arguments instead of the only thing that should count: what do reliable sources say? Why exclude John Lennon? Less famous than Fausto Romitelli? Not dead enough? Not a composer to the subjective editor's taste? How about Johann Gottlieb Goldberg? Less famous than Georg Matthias Monn (only known by his name according to the Wikipedia article – while Goldberg's compositions are still occasionally performed)? This is all beyond repair, starting from the article title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – we have Curse of the ninth (not entirely unproblematic if you ask me, but feasible in Wikipedia); ~~List of composers who composed less than 10 symphonies~~List of composers who composed fewer than 10 symphonies would, on the other hand, be an unreferenceable disaster, comparable in its infeasibility to the list under consideration here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as it should be composed fewer than, and not less than. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, corrected. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lekeu? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, there is nothing subjective about facts. Either a composer died before a certain age, or they did not. If they did not, they are excluded from the list. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It aren't the facts that are subjective, it are the inclusion criteria (they were reworded a few times since I wrote my original comment above, but as said below, it only became worse). "Composers dying after age 13.5" is an objective cut-off age, but would make a terrible, subjective, inclusion criterion while no reliable source can confirm that dying at age 13.5 is a "thing" for composers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[15]. Your arguments appear to merely be a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is nothing that precludes List of classical composers who died before age 40 in WP:LISTN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your bludgeoning: you've made that argument below, I'll reply there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Francis Schonken. Double sharp (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing subjective about facts. Either a composer died before a certain age, or they did not. If they did not, they are excluded from the list. Softlavender (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - But where are the sources declaring 50 or 40 or any other number as a somehow significant cut-off, when one can find them so easily for 9 as a number of symphonies? Any cut-off is going to be somehow arbitrary, and as your links show both 40 and 50, I don't see a good case for either. "Dying young" is just not a very clear-cut line. Double sharp (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish by repeatedly posting the same link to a Google search without comment, but I can assure you that it does not become any more convincing by simple repetition. The very idea of either of these cut-offs to illustrate the phenomenon of composers dying young is anyway nicely ruined by this article by Tom Service linked below by Francis Schonken, which has among its "died young" list Gustav Mahler, who died at 50 (the article mistakenly gives 51), and is beyond the proposed cut-off. (And amusingly I already suggested him as an example in an edit summary). Double sharp (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of composers who died before age 40 and edit accordingly. I'd also suggest limiting it to classical composers (perhaps with a title change to reflect that, i. e. List of classical composers who died before age 40. Per Softlavender, this is a potentially useful list which can be improved by simple editing. The cut-off date needs to be lowered to 40 for the reasons given above. The "original research" aspect can be easily fixed by not making judgements on who is the most famous in the list and bolding those names. I've started doing that now. Ditto "unreferenced". It's very easy to add references. There are references for all the entries who have Wikipedia articles (or there should be). I've added one as a sample. I'd be happy to do them all if the list is kept. Note also that there is nothing to preclude adding an introductory paragraph based on the literature in this area. Improve not delete is the way to go here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no literature whatsoever grouping composers who died before age 40 – that qualification attempts to introduce objectivity where there is none. "Dying young" (or synonyms such as "early deceased") appear in literature, not any artificial cut-off age, and certainly not a cut-off age where all reliable authors writing about composers who died young could agree upon. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [17]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - this one looks promising. Any other reliable source confirming that "composers dying before 40" is a thing (WP:GNG does not consider a single reliable source sufficient, and launching Google queries without discrimination about the reliability of everything that turns up, without even checking which cut-off age, if any, is actually used by the source, is alas just missing the point)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Francis, if you do not believe that dying before the age of 40 is dying young, or that Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Chopin et al. famously died young, then I believe you are in the minority in classical music listeners. Your arguments appear to merely be a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because there is nothing that precludes List of classical composers who died before age 40 in WP:LISTN. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The only thing we need is enough reliable sources that confirm that 40 is broadly considered as a suitable cut-off age (and not too many other reliable sources that start from a different cut-off age): your Google search link turns up at least one forum (not a reliable source), the Wikipedia article we're considering for deletion here (can not be counted per notability guidance), etc. etc. Until now composers "dying young" (without giving a precise cut-off age) seems far more spread as a topic than whatever cut-off age for a composer's death. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Compare also List of child music prodigies not List of music prodigies younger than 13 (the hard age delimiter in the article title doesn't seem to work very well for this kind of lists; also the "classical" delimiter is questionable when comparing with that list). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        None of your demands are factors in WP:LISTN. That's even above and beyond the fact that composers who died before 40 gets 4,000,000 web hits, 57,000 GoogleBook hits, 76,000 news hits, -- Softlavender (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have no demands. My !vote is "delete", supplemented with a rationale, that's all. "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables" is a factor in WP:LISTN, thus WP/GNG's "received significant coverage in reliable sources" is a viable consideration. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Composers who died before 40 gets 4,000,000 web hits, 57,000 GoogleBook hits, 76,000 news hits: [18]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, raw Google searches are virtually unusable in this discussion. "Composers who died before 40" returns zero reliable sources as a Google search — none of that proves anything: that search doesn't even turn up the single book I'm thus far prepared to accept as contributing to the notability of the "Composers who died before 40" topic. Without more than a single acceptable source, this fails WP:GNG. Without a check whether other reliable sources use other criteria for covering roughly the same subject, the article title based on "age 40" would still be undesirable (per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voceditenore: I think your recent changes to the page have acerbated the problem, instead of remedying anything, e.g. your latest which, besides producing a grammatically incorrect lead sentence, made the page fail WP:NOTDIR #7, which is explicit that "Simple listings without context information" have no place in Wikipedia. What is the context of a classical composer dying before age 50 (or 40)? Absolutely none, while (WP:GNG:) classical composers dying before the age of 50 (or 40, or 30, or whatever) is not a topic that "received significant coverage in reliable sources" so that a context could be sketched. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have re-added the word "died" which I had inadvertently removed when I copyedited the lede. It is no longer ungrammatical. I do not believe that the page fails WP:NOTDIR #7 which in my view you are interpreting too broadly. Some will agree, others not. That's why the page is up for discussion here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but WP:NOTDIR #7 is an additional aspect to consider now, which it wasn't before your change, whether you agree on that point or not, my main point being that most of your mainspace edits (apart from maybe removing the boldface) were hardly helpful for increasing the odds for this AfD. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Francis you are cherry-picking the wording of WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits or discourages "Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of business alliances, clients, competitors, employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries), equipment, estates, offices, products and services, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions." That has nothing to do with a list of notable classical-music composers who meet a certain noteworthy criterion (and I've already established that this is a noteworthy and much-discussed criterion). Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The current single-sentence introduction to the list lacks all "context information", such a why the topic has any significance to begin with, nor is any context information appended to the individual entries in the list. There was a tiny bit of (unreferenced) context information which was removed from the list intro: context information requiring a reference is imho better than no context information at all, while in the latter case WP:NOTDIR #7 needs to be considered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - this suggestion added in the "further reading" section doesn't help much either: names a few that don't fit under a "classical composers who died before age 40" umbrella (Schumann: 46; Mahler: 51; Amy Winehouse and Kurt Cobain: not classical composers), and the main subject of the article (Whitney Houston) was neither a "classical composer" nor did she die "before age 40". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have now placed three articles (including the one you noted above from The Guardian) in the "External links" section. They all contain information which can be helpful for writing an introduction to the article, and can also be helpful to the reader in understanding what the "big deal" is about composers who died young. Note that another one which you had summarily removed because only 2/3 of the composers discussed were under 40 when they died was from the BBC Music Magazine. It discusses the possible implications for the development of classical music of the early deaths of Mozart, Purcell, Schubert, and Gershwin). Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re. "... what the "big deal" is about composers who died young" (emphasis added): as I said from my first comment above, the topic is rather "died young" than anything that can be circumscribed by a hard "age" delimiter. Any article title that mentions an age for this topic remains up for deletion as far as I'm concerned. While none of the listed external links refer to an upper limit for age, I've tagged the section as failing our external links guidance: these external links are not germane to the current article title, nor to the article titles proposed above, nor to any of the list definitions that have appeared on the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        They are highly germane to writing an introduction to the list. That is the whole point of external links. They contain material which could be usefully added to improve an article. Your insistence that they coincide with and/or contain the article's actual title is bizarre, but I'm quite happy to live with the tag-bombing. Voceditenore (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Re. "They are highly germane to writing an introduction to the list" – not this list, while not one of them combines "died young" with a hard "age" criterion. There's not really a coherent body of reliable source for that, and the suggestion thus kind of misses the point. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. If there are any who died at 27, add them to the 27 Club. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- [19]. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid - arbitrary (and very unfair to those who died at 50+). Smerus (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this title appears arbitrary/subjective, are there any books/articles that specifically discuss composers who died before age 50, not just about those that died young? btw, 4mill ghits doesn't mean much here is 2.1mill hits for "composers who died before 39" and 1.9mill before age 49 so i don't really see the relevance. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to likely OR. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel that the article reads like someone's contribution to a casual conversation; it's an arbitrary pile of facts without any meaning attached to it (which is a no-no on WP). If "composer-lifespan-ology" exists as a scholarly field (which I really doubt!) then we should have an article about composer-lifespan-ology. But not a list. Opus33 (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Composers who died young is definitely a "thing". I created this list because I often needed to quickly check which composers died young, and conveniently link to the Wikipedia page about them. My original list was limited to clearly notable composers. A number of lesser-known composers have been added. That kind of devalues the list for a broad audience, although I did find it interesting to see some of the composers added. I have not read all of the comments above, but may attempt to rebut some of the Delete comments a bit later. The suggestion about 40 years is interesting, but for now, I think 50 is valid, especially for more recent composers, since these days, dying before 50 in developed countries is considered dying "early".Tetsuo (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC) BTW, do those of you favoring deletion make the same arguments about the many morbid lists in Wikipedia of pop-culture and even fictional deaths such as:[reply]

Re. "I think 50 is valid, especially for more recent composers, since these days, dying before 50 in developed countries is considered dying "early"" – This is WP:Original research 1.0, and should therefore be rejected as against policy. We don't make articles (and that includes list articles) based on a Wikipedia editor's opinions, but for which not a single WP:Reliable source can be found to support the idea. Further:

"...more recent composers..." – why would "more recent" all of a sudden be a principle on which the list is built? The list contains Jacob Obrecht (not a "more recent composer", not even sure he died before 50, and not even sure "before 50" was considered "young" in his day), but not John Lennon ("more recent", certainly died before 50 and certainly a composer).
"...in developed countries..." – this is definitely a no-no: Wikipedia articles, including lists, should not be built on such biased discriminations.

I don't think we can come to an agreement, anywhere soon, and built on what reliable sources consider to be valid, on a reasonable set of inclusion criteria for this, or a similar, list. I do consider "musicians who died young" a valid topic, which can be supported by plenty reliable sources. "Composers who died before age 50", with or without supplementary even more arbitrarily discriminatory inclusion criteria, is however not sustainable on any level as a basis for a list. Not a single external source has been brought forward which can be shown to have used "before age 50", i.e. 49 or younger, as a valid criterion in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant list that to me meets WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:09, 21 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 per WP:G5 block evasion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hendry Adii Magiic (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR -- No indication of any notability as an actor (only appearance was in a non-notable short film), no significant coverage for a stand-alone BLP. Both CSD and PROD tags were removed by an SPA IP account. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google search only turned up IMDb and some Japanese site. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 03:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt per G3, G5. Clear block evasion by User:Hendrix Adi Surya. Sro23 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: my speedy nomination was removed by an obvious IP sock, but if this must be AFD'd then it fails WP:NACTOR, it's a sentence about a teenager who appeared in a video two years ago for which I can find no mentions online in WP:RS. Not surprised to learn from Sro23 that this was thrown up here by a long-term sockpuppeteer. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Sheayu Felisha Cute (actress), and admins can look at the edit history of deleted Sheayu Felisha Cute, which was pasted from this article by User:Baru title A. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Sro23: and @Mr. MacTidy: for pointing out the sockmaster and SPI case. ("Long-term" is understatement.) I've blocked and tagged both accounts and deleted the page per WP:G5 for "clear block evasion". Appreciate your help. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:55, 14 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Barrier America

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

no evidence of notability -- the products mentioned are not novel, nor did they develop them The refs are mostly PR in trade jouranls. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable company, most of the refs are advertorials and not fit for use on an encyclopedia. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 00:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bordering on G11 with the product catalogue copy; no indications of notability or significance. Created by Special:Contributions/Jeremy112233 currently indef blocked for sock puppetry and promotionalism. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promocruft about a non notable company. If this is a case of PAID, it was certainly well crafted. However craftily contrived, it is still a promo piece best suited for somewhere other than an encyclopedia about a non notable entity. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:37, 14 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 for lack of adequate sourcing. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devatagal

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

Google search returns nothing and other tools are also showing nothing. No sources. If a source is found, I'll probably rescind the delete request and try to fix it. The Egg of Reason | (Talk) 00:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's more confusion here than meets the eye. The big clue in this very brief article is the mention of the Basava Sagar Dam. That dam is located on the Krishna River, which serves as a boundary between two districts in Karnataka -- Yadgir district and Raichur district. In Yadgir, there is a town named Devatkal, whose census listing here shows it to have a population of about 3,000. And in Raichur, there is a village named Dewatgal, whose census listing here shows it to have a population of about 1,000. (For both census listings, you need to scroll down a bit to see the list of towns.) So, which one did the article creator intend? If I had to guess, I'd say Dewatgal. But we can't be sure. And because there is so very little content here, the safer course of action is to simply delete the article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A1 Speedy. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I couldn't find anything about the town in my searches, but NewYorkActuary's noting convinces me to sway towards 'Delete'. This was a tricky one, because I was contemplating a move to Dewatgal, but it isn't a certainty that they're the same place. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:58, 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.