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 merge to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise (1991 film)

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

No indication of significance or notability. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1, where it appears as an extra. (c.f. [1]) Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 seems like the most appropriate action in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 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) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 sounds right to me too. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 where the subject is mentioned. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no 3rd party sources. A redirect is the logical outcome in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pixar Short Films Collection, Volume 1 seems to be the ideal thing to do right now. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. speedy/snow delete, as a combination of promotionalism and sockpuppettry. There is no possible basis for an article here. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Line Madder

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

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

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

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

Non-notable book published through an on-demand publisher. The synopsis is a copy-paste from elsewhere. Largoplazo (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No in-depth coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The synopsis issue is being resolved, the publisher is traditional enough to actually produce books, and in-depth coverage is difficult for a page editor when the content is being lost due to it being taken down quite often. It's a page that was created today. I know of at least three people currently on the task of making the page in-depth and all that. Stressinducedcoma (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Stressinducedcoma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Stressinducedcoma (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

The level of depth of an article has no bearing on the notability of its topic. Notability relates to circumstances external to Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not for deletion. The publisher has a page. Why can't one of their books? There are pages for towns that have much smaller descriptions than this book. Would they not be in-depth too? What makes a book notable? Sales? Commonality? A major publishing house? Or is it just because you've never heard of it before personally? And is a copyright issue if the owner of the copyright solves it? If you would like to discuss these questions and more, please feel free to. I would like to hear your arguments. Shiroisnowflake (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC) — Shiroisnowflake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You should consider following the link I've provided to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability precisely to convey information about what "notability" means here and how it's assessed. Largoplazo (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this As well as the above reasons, I don't think this should be deleted because its problems aren't large enough to warrant deletion. These are small issues and other articles are way worse for some of them. Maybe target those??? I don't know, you do you, but I still think that the only reason you're targeting this is because of the ACTRIAL talk page incident and that made it easy to hunt down. Enter the void 278 (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Enter the void 278 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think a lot of people need to stop making wild accusations about the reason for this deletion nomination. I hadn't heard of ACTRIAL until after another editor wrote about it on Shiroisnowflake's talk page after I'd flagged the article for deletion. I flagged it because I came upon it during new page patrolling that I do nearly every day, and it clearly had problems of the sort for which articles are routinely deleted. It may come as a surprise to new contributors that Wikipedia has standards for inclusion, but it does. Largoplazo (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete If any copyright issues have not yet been resolved on the synopsis, I have provided a new synopsis that I just wrote up. I believe it to be accurate of the book's contents (I've read it recently which is why I looked to see if it had an article, which led me to this conundrum) and that it should avoid any copyright infringement. If there are any issues on accuracy, I ask that someone who read the book contribute to the synopsis to improve on it. Kintsukuroi3 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)— Kintsukuroi3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-published book. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable book by non notable author (no Ghits beyond sm). Fails both WP:NBOOK for the novel and WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE for the author. This page should clearly have first been CSD-G12. It also looks very much as if a sock or meat farm has been voting here. Such votes should be accorded minimum weight - if any at all if they are not clearly based on policy/guidelines. Nominator please get up to speed with WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: A SPI has been opened here, please add any new arrivals. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the group that first user references as working on this promotional page about a self published non-notable novel. Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 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 speedy deleted under WP:A3. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalized Arguments

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

This unsourced article appears to be a personal essay and/or op-ed. Chetsford (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unencyclopedic personal WP:ESSAY. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:51, 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 redirect to Miss Latina US. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen US Latina

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

The article has no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject; not suitable for a stand-alone article. Richie Campbell (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Latina US. Non-notable on its own. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. — Za wl 15:23, 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Alyn Elders

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

no independent articles on the writer - references are either in passing, self authored or book reviews. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additionally doesn't google beyond private webpage and bookselling sites CelenaSkaggs (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:29, 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)} 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough as director / screenwriter of all these films. Lots of mentions in Gbooks (often as "Kevin Elders"). —Kusma (t·c) 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable film writer and director. Note I didn't say a good film writer and director. But he meets WP guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided. passes WP:FILMMAKER. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not world famous but sufficiently notable to meet our criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 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 redirect to Indu Sarkar. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 03:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Jha

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

Actress who falls under too soon-only one role so far. Either delete or redirect to the film. Wgolf (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not enough independent and verifiable source to confirm notability yet WP:TOOSOON. Should be a redirect to Indu Sarkar. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:25, 17 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) 03:05, 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 speedy deleted under WP:A7. (non-admin closure) MassiveYR ♠ 13:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Mohamed

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

Putting this for wider discussion. This article has been recreated a number of times. It's about an author who has written a book. The only award mentioned in the article is "one of a thousand writers in the name of the 'Men of the Summit' in 2017". This seems to clearly fall short of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nadermohame60 ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 03:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Sock reddogsix (talk) 10:52, 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 speedy keep. "Should not be on Wikipedia" is not a valid rationale for deletion. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High-intensity magnetic separator

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

Should not be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrasapuentes (talk • contribs)

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} 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saiwyn Quadras

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

fails WP:GNG CelenaSkaggs (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Screen Awards winner up for AfD? Also wrote two Filmfare Awards Best Film-nominated films. Best Screenwriter of two major films Mary Kom and Neerja. The forthcoming Parmanu: The Story Of Pokhran is also a major-release starring John Abraham. Easily passes WP:BIO. An Academy Awards or BAFTA Film Awards-nominated screenwriter would never even be considered for AfD. Is this a case of WP:BIAS?--Oakshade (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winner of a notable award with reliable sources in the article and google news, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article content is minimal but the confirmed awards are enough to meet WP:CREATIVE 4(c). AllyD (talk) 10:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards won are sufficient enough proof that subject passes WP:BIO and WP:FILMMAKER. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable per WP:CREATIVE, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The awards have legitimate sources and were a part of huge Bollywood films.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FSOJM791 (talk • contribs)
Keep per WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 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 speedy keep. Per speedy keep rationale: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Article is already sufficiently sourced and was demonstrated to have even more sources. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Octopath Traveler

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

unreleased software. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (or Userfy) until release and substantially reviewed enough to meet notability requirements. Softlavender (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Terrible failure of before. This game has received a ton of reliable source coverage, especially recently, since a widely publicized demo was released just yesterday. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Source list, all with a consensus for being reliable/usable per WP:VG/S:

(edit conflict) Keep speedily (or at worst, restore redirect to List of Nintendo Switch games). It's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD. This topic is a useful search term. The sourcing in a video game reliable sources custom Google search is enough to support a small article. If the article's current referencing issues are insurmountable, restoration of the redirect would suffice, but I don't see how outright deletion would be warranted, nevertheless any policy-based deletion rationale from the nom. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Definitely meets the notability guideline. Nominator's rationale for deletion is bizarre. AdrianGamer (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Widespread coverage from reliable video game sources. Web source search returns over 300,000 results. With the demo releasing yesterday, we now have some in depth previews as well: [2]. There's enough coverage from sources to expand the gameplay and development sections into a satisfactory pre-release article. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:21, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Stanzl

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for singers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Subject fails WP:MUSIC
Delete Whole lot of nothin' there. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:41, 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. If someone wants to add some content about Chessbrah to Hansen's article, then a redirect could be made. Currently there's a reference to "Chessbrahs" being a username that Hansen uses, but nothing else. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chessbrah

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

It looks like all of the sources are primary and/or brief mentions of the subject, and I'm not seeing sufficient other sourcing out there to satisfy WP:GNG. We would need in-depth coverage of "chessbrahs" beyond coverage of Hansen and other involved individuals, and in publications not connected to the people involved (either financially or personally). Hansen himself is notable, however, and this is so closely associated with him that a redirect may make sense. (a merge only if reliable secondary sources are used, as including material based just on primary sources would be undue/promo). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: lack of participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 03:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chessbrah article actually does cite a number of significant secondary sources, including recognition by the United States Chess Federation, the Canadian Chess Federation, and other independent sources. Among the most compelling is from La Presse, an independent news organization in Montreal, Canada, which produced a feature documentary of the chessbrahs, filming both GM Eric Hansen and IM Aman Hambleton, and others in primary source interviews as well as observing the chessbrahs in their natural habitat for the purpose of the feature piece; thus the entire feature may be considered a secondary source because of the news organization's full editorial control (i.e., this was not Chessbrah self-promotion; see reference 5: Grand Master 2.0, [3]). Documentaries are considered as secondary sources. Furthermore, the US Chess Federation (USCF) recognized "chessbrahs" in the bio of GM Hansen as one of the official commentators for the 2017 US Chess Championship, specifically recognizing that chessbrah is associated with not only GM Hansen, but others, as well (see reference 22: U.S. CHESS CHAMPS: MEET THE COMMENTATORS & ARBITERS: [4]. There are also several compelling secondary sources that reliably and notably cover not only the existence of The Montreal Chessbrahs chess team in the PRO CHESS LEAGUE, but cover their performance, including against World Champion Magnus Carlsen. The team's PRO CHESS LEAGUE roster includes a notable roster of world class chess players, including GM Fabiano Caruana and GM Anish Giri. See references 47 and 48 re: "The Montreal Chessbrahs" in the Pro Chess League. An additional secondary reference is from the Chess Federation of Canada here: [5]. The Chessbrah article must not be merged into Eric Hansen (Chess Player) because there are multiple chessbrahs (PLURAL), as stated in the article and supported by citations. GM Hansen is the founder of the name, yes, but Chessbrah is also a brand entity and a social movement within the chess community, as detailed in the article, and the chess community has social import to society at large, and the Current World Chess Champion, Magnus Carlsen, has been recently photographed with 2 chessbrahs, GMs Yasser Seirawan and Eric Hansen (see: [6]). In short, the chessbrah name is a recognized, reputable name in the chess community, it's been adopted into the name of a PRO CHESS LEAGUE team that competes at one of the highest levels of chess, and it's one of the most popular chess-related Twitch and YouTube channels, and it comprises several high-level titled chess players. The name Chessbrah definitely should not be associated with Eric Hansen alone as that would not be an accurate depiction of who the chessbrahs are and what they represent. It serves the public to inform who the chessbrahs are in the form of this Wikipedia article. It's why I wrote it in the first place. I respectfully urge Rhododendrites to keep the article. Piewalker 21:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am not arguing that Hansen is not himself notable. He is. And I'm not opposed to mentioning "chessbrah" in that article. "Chessbrah" is not notable, though, and these sources just demonstrate that. They are brief mentions, use of the word, coverage of Hansen or individual notable people, etc. -- what we need is in-depth coverage of this subject as distinct from that of the involved people, published by secondary sources with a reputation for reliability, editorial oversight, fact-checking, etc. The first link, which is clearly the best quality source, displays the word Chessbrah, but seems to be about Hansen and not the concept/company "chessbrah". This has no in-depth coverage at all -- just a brief mention in a paragraph about Hansen. That it's used in a team's name would only help if there were in-depth coverage of the meaning of the name published in a different source (i.e. the members of the team may be notable, and the team may even be notable -- I haven't really looked -- but this article isn't about that team, but a company and/or lifestyle brand/identity. The standard would be WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate that, Ryan. What would be ideal to allow the article to survive? An independent news story discussing Chessbrah as its focus? A news story featuring World Champion Magnus Carlsen discussing the Chessbrahs? A feature in Chess Life Magazine? Perhaps a feature like this one on GMs Hansen and Van Kampen by SportsNet Canada: [7]? Or a completely new Wiki article describing the Pro Chess League Team "The Montreal Chessbrahs" with some of this article as background? What would you like to see happen?

Delete. To quote WP:SPIP, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." None of the quoted sources meet this standard. Neither "recognition" nor "reputation" nor "social import" nor who Carlsen was photographed with matters; what matters is whether people not associated with or trying to promote "Chessbrah" have written anything non-trivial about it. There is no sign that they have. Therefore the article should be deleted. Cobblet (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Cobblet, with respect it appears you didn't watch the 7-min documentary feature by La Presse. Your comment is wholly dismissive and unfairly so. It's certainly a non-trivial secondary source. I encourage you and other comers to watch it and seriously consider it. [8]. Also, something doesn't have to be "written" in print to be valid. Other independent sources of media count (video, radio, independent blogs, etc.) The medium is also the message. Piewalker 20:27, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  - A 15-second soundbite (4:23 to 4:38 in the video) is non-trivial? I don't think so. Recall that WP:GNG refers to "sources", meaning that "multiple sources are generally expected." If this was genuinely a topic of any "social import" one would surely not have to reach so hard to find even a single significant source. Cobblet (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eric Hansen (chess player). Utter lack of non-trivial mentions in secondary sources - most of the references are just links to YouTube. Not notable enough for a standalone article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per user Cobblet. Sophia91 (talk) 15:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mduvekot (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan L. Bachman School

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

defunct school, no Google sources CelenaSkaggs (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't really about the school; it's about the building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places. —C.Fred (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- hmm, shouldn't it be then listed under the current name (Bachman Community Center) or rewritten to make the point that it is a historic building rather than a closed school? CelenaSkaggs (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for this title is that "Nathan L. Bachman School" is the designation given to it by the National Register for Historic Places.Jcf1981 (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps a redirect page for Bachman Community Center to the Bachman school page?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcf1981 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a place on the National Register for Historic Places. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As an editorial opinion, Rename to Bachman Community Center. The page name should refer to the building's current usage in this case. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a place on the National Register for Historic Places. The page name should refer to the government listed name. Create redirects for any other plausible search terms. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed on the National Register for Historic Places. That's enough per WP:GEOFEAT. And the name should be the one by which it is known as an historic building, which is this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per listing, Sadads (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added NRHP infobox and otherwise developed the article a bit. I redirected Bachman Community Center to the article and added Bachman Community Center in the lede. Having just one combo article about the former school as an organization/learning place, the historic building, and the current community center makes sense. If/when there is more development about the Bachman Community Center in the article, it could possibly make sense to move it to that name, but currently the notability developed is the historic notability and using the historic name currently is best, IMHO. The NRHP nomination document asserts its importance is in "social history as a Public Works Administration (PWA) project in an unincorporated community of Hamilton County" (so, interestingly, not about its educational function) and in architecture as "an excellent example of Colonial Revival architecture, which retains a high degree of architectural integrity despite additions to the building in 1955". If/when there is significant coverage about the place having some important role in community centering, a move indeed can be supported. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 03:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Zero proper AfD rationale given. "Defunct" is not a reason to AfD a topic. And yes this does show up on a google search, including its NRHP designation. I'm noticing the nom is speedy prodding and AfD-ing multiple articles with similar recklessness and no regards to our guidelines not to mention any regard for WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - On the National Register of Historic Places. We're done. Carrite (talk) 11:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anna Fiorentini Theatre and Film School. ansh 666 07:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stage & the City

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

After a thorough search, I am unable to find any substantive RS referencing "Stage & the City." This may be a case of TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the parent company Anna Fiorentini Theatre and Film School for the time being. There's actually plenty of info on Stage & the City; it gets 88,000 Google hits. But may take some time (or else targeted searching website by website, which I don't have time to do) before sufficient notable RS sources review it substantially. Softlavender (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a core mention, but not the detail that is not independently sourced, to Anna Fiorentini Theatre and Film School. Fails WP:ORG and I am not particularly confident about the notability of the target. However, whilst we have a page on the parent organisation, this is a pragmatic solution and may, also, help boost the notability of the target. Just Chilling (talk) 21:18, 6 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Femtech

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

Not a notable term, WP:NEO. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google News results and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the number of sources using the term suggests it is already a notable term. PamD 16:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a neologism, but rather is well-covered in multiple independent sources, clearly GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A neologism isn't negated by the fact that multiple independent sources use the term. See the definition at neologism. The google results are all trivial and discuss femtech in a less than significant way. But WP is already a random collection of neologisms so I don't see this being deleted. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please try to consider WP:DICTDEF as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Though its usage is relatively new, such usages (like "chick flick") do not go away once they have reached this level of easily demonstrable significant independent highly RS coverage. This is the digital age, and technology is only going to increase, not decrease. Softlavender (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a new term, but clearly one that meets WP:GNG in terms of verifiability and independent sources over time. I learned something new by reading this starter article and gained access to useful, reliable new reference materials - and that's the spirit of the encyclopedia that I appreciate and would like to contribute to as I learn more. Shameran81 (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Many terms in technology are pretty recent and so would it be sort of Neologistic like other technological terms. This one does not look much different since some reliable sources seem to be present for it (like Forbes and I see something from Berkley on it when I searched google) and the policy on that is that terms need to have very little or no coverage in reliable sources in order to be eliminated. Probably this term may gain some currency in the future as more women get involved with technologies.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets GNG, Sadads (talk) 02:47, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Nyanzi

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

no notability under WP:PROF, or otherwise. WP NOT NEWS the entire section 4 and 5 is a BLP problem. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Guardian didn't publish a very flattering academic profile of her, that's for sure. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 17:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. I see multiple independent sources covering her in sufficient detail. Consider that Wikipedia has a systematic bias against people like Nyanzi as well.--TM 17:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major international news coverage for at least two different protests gives her a pass of both WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Whether the Guardian's profile was flattering or not is completely irrelevant, as is whether she passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but honestly, I am conflicted. No doubt, she has been in the news in 2016 (for a nude protest) [9] and recently for being arrested [10]. She seems to be an academic and also a political (possibly opposition) activist. However, considering that Wikipedia articles are often used to defame and harass subjects, I am in an ethical dilemma about whether we should preserve articles about controversial individuals who have come into limelight once or twice (but otherwise, are not public figures). Articles such as these can lead to harassment of the individuals and it needs to be considered whether the need to preserve information is more important than the potential harm to an individual.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The need to keep an article is never more important than potential harm. The question is whether the additional coverage that WP can give will do harm, or whether it is trivial ccompared to the coverage already given from outside. I'm mentioning this at the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability other than for two related trivial "incidents" ("pair of buttocks" is not exactly a horrendous offence as far as name-calling is concerned) , neither of which amounts to more than a "mini-mountain of Limas." If we brand BLPs on everyone who has called the US President names, I fear that we should run out of air. A Uganda Shilling has a current value of .00026 $US, so "ten million" is still under US$2600 total. Ought we include everyone who faces a bail of that huge magnitude as though it were meaningful and important? I note that this is specifically a policy issue, and that the "I like the article" !votes have less weight. Collect (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Fairly balanced right now. Discuss
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:38, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cityscrapes: Los Angeles

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

Cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. Fails WP:NMOVIE; Cannot find any full length reviews, major awards, etc. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No evidence in article or in search of significant coverage or other indicators of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage that I can find. Ralbegen (talk) 17:05, 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. Consensus appears to be that the sources are not in fact sufficient to establish notability Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga Vidya Gurukul

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

Some passing mentions, but no indepth reliable independent sources about this organisation. Fails WP:N Fram (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Keep - Yoga Vidya Gurukul is a 40 years old social organization in the activities of Yoga. There are more than 15000 yoga teachers in India, 3500 yoga teachers in foreign countries and more than 300,000 yoga students all over the world. The organization spreads awareness on Yoga and conducts many courses. This is one of the major and important organization in India in 20th century. I had already added few more references and information in both English and Marathi languages which confirms the notability of the organization and article. Pls. see the website of this org. www.yogapoint.com for more details. I need support to improve the article from other fellow Wikipedians.... Thanks Kautuk1 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that yoga isn't important: the number of yoga teachers etc. has no bearing on the notability of this organisation. I looked at your sources when I norminated this, and e.g. this is a passing mention, not a source which gives significant, indepth attention to this organisation specifically. Can you indicate which one or two sources you consider the most substantial, the most indicative of the notability of Yoga Vidya Gurukul? Things like a comment on a Tripadvisor forum[11] won't cut it. Fram (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May pass GNG but most defiantly fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Article suffers from a severe, in my mind fatal, lack of third party sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 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. Time to put this discussion out of its misery. I am explicitly not closing this based on the argument of advocacy; while the article text was inappropriate in that direction such things can be fixed easily enough and are not reasons for deletion. Nor has it been deleted because the original author is a paid editor who is explicitly complying with the terms of use. However, there has also been a fair bit of ink used discussing the sources, but there seems to be a consensus formed that the references provided are either exceedingly local in nature, of dubious independence from the subject, or primary sources. While not universally accepted, this argument has not been rebutted and is the strongest view presented here.

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

Rainbow Housing Assistance Corporation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Nelson (mayor)

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the mayor of a town with a population of 4K is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of enough reliable source coverage about his work in that role to get over WP:NPOL #2 (local political figures who have received significant press coverage) — and one piece of purely local coverage of his indictment on a criminal charge is not, in and of itself, evidence that he's more notable than the norm for smalltown mayors. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some coverage of him (this CNN story picked up from wire services and local media like The Advocate) but he seems to be notable for being caught as part of a sting operation, so WP:BLP1E would apply. If there was an article about it, I would support merging with that, but there isn't. 331dot (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small town politician with legal problems. Fails the WP:POLITICIAN high bar. A bit of racist dogwistling in the lead as well, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 11:46, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Chandra Chaudhari

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

Article fails WP:V. I have spent all afternoon searching and have found nothing that can verify any of the facts stated in this article. The single source on the article is permadead, no Wayback Machine copy available. Same with the sources on the page of his political party (Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal). None of the resources I can find about the 2008 Nepali election list this person as a member of the Nepalese Constituent Assembly, under any of the following variations of his name: "Tara Chandra Chaudhari", "Tarachandra Chaudhari", "Tara Chandra Chaudhary", "Tarachandra Chaudhary", "Tarchandra Chaudhari", or "Tarchandra Chaudhary". Google searches in Nepali under his Nepali name didn't turn up any election results either. There is no Nepali Wikipedia article to check for info or sources.

Sources checked are as follows:

List of all CA members, including members elected via both systems, First Past the Post and Proportional Representation.
Archived list of First Past the Post results. No Proportional Representation results are available as they are listed in Nepali only and the text is not rendered correctly. Even when following the site's instructions to use Opera and the PCS Nepali font, the text does not render. Effectively the official PR system results are lost as far as I can tell.
The Himalyan Times' list of PR System winners shows Laxmilal Chaudhary as the PR seat for the Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal, not Tara Chandra Chaudhari. Tara Chandra doesn't appear at all under any of the parties.
Political Handbook of the World also shows Laxmilal Chaudhary as the PR seat for the Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal for 2008.
Himalayan Times: I have searched through the HT using the spelling variations noted above and found nothing on Tara Chandra Chaudhari; on the other hand a search does turn up results for Laxmilal Chaudhary being a CA member.
Nepal: Transition to Democratic Republican State : 2008 Constituent Assembly shows no results for Tara Chandra Chaudhari, shows Laxmi Lal Chaudhary (clear variation on Laxmilal) as the PR seat for the Nepal Loktantrik Samajbadi Dal for 2008.

Ultimately I don't know if this was a mistake or a translation error with the name but it seems fairly clear to me that Tara Chandra Chaudhari was not a member of the CA and therefore does not pass WP:NPOL. What I can't tell is if Tara Chandra could possibly be a mistranslation for Laxmilal since they have the same last name, or if it's the wrong political party listed for Tara Chandra (although I doubt that since I've been double checking everything by name not just by party). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 23:53, 22 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) 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- should the article be then moved to Laxmilal Chaudhary, if that's what the sources show for the 2008 election? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure if a move was appropriate, given that it seemed to be two different people. In case anyone went through the history and was confused that an article about Person A had been changed to be about Person B. But I have no problem doing the work for that if it's an acceptable solution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A move is being discussed, and that may impact notability discussions especially since the subject of the article is in doubt, so keeping open for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 13:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 19:29, 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarika's Hotel

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

advertising CelenaSkaggs (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:CORP per [12] [13] [14] [15]. SmartSE (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This hotel is clearly notable, as Google Books and Google News searches show. I have expanded the article, added references and removed a blog reference. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs improvement, but being a UNESCO Asia-Pacific Heritage Awarded establishment with historical value clearly passes notability criteria.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gryffindor (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Quite obviously notable. Meets any criterion fro WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 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 no consensus. Seems to be fairly even disagreement whether WP:BLP1E (and other issues) apply or not. ansh 666 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Corban

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

Contested PROD (after it expired, but before it was deleted with no rationale). The concern for PRODing this is that it meets WP:BLP1E conditions 1) Reliable sources only cover her in the context of challenging Obama on Gun control 2) She has remained, and is likely to remain a low-profile individual, and 3) the event was not significant. menaechmi (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a BEFORE performed prior to nom? I see a number of book references - [16] [17] [18]. Beyond the copious initial 2016 references, this continues through 2016-2017 - [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. Yes - lots of right-wing less-reliable outlets (but they still demonstrate ~~reliablity~~notability. Seems she's become a rape-surviving pro-gun poster-girl for the NRA - and it doesn't look like that's going away.Icewhiz (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Modified significant typo (with strikethrough).Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was, thank you. Of those book mentions, one is part of a link (included in a book, why would you do that?) to the Washington Post article on her, and both the second and third are again about her interaction with Obama. Passing mentions in articles that say "She'll be joining us later on the show"[26], a name-check in an article about the women's march [27], "8 NRA Twitter accounts to follow in 2017" [28], and an article to tell people to watch the video [29] aren't claims of notability. The three interview with her about her sexual assault are primary and don't count towards notability, and would be an awful article to have to write. menaechmi (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-event notice, not sustained notability. If for some reason the article is kept it needs to be serverly revisied to remove the POV-pushing "brave decision" and other unecyclopedic language.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, prominent public figure. Covered in many RS. Antrocent (♫♬) 18:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entire article was a COPYVIO of the subject's website. I cleaned up the unencyclopedic breathless style and added references. No opinion on whether the topic is notable. BTW, it's quicker to edit the article than to discuss it. Rhadow (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly a subject of extensive third-party sources, the subject is far more than a mere BIO1E, having created a larger role in public discourse. More refs and work still needed, but article quality is not the same as notability. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Third party sources exists. She is a prominent public figure.BabbaQ (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- WP:BIO1E and WP:ADVOCACY for the subject's position. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 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 as WP:OR. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lactase persistence frequencies by population

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

Copyright violation: The table is taken completely from a single PhD thesis, with only rearrangement of rows and columns. Since this is a "creative listing", it is subject to US copyright law. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not enough of an expert to judge the possible copyright violation. But the content of the article is largely from one unpublished thesis, which makes it original research. The topic is likely notable, but it needs to be written and sourced from independent reliable sources. I've never advocated deletion from WP:TNT before, but with possible copyvio and OR, this article seems to be unrecoverable without a lot of work. --Mark viking (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law of the United States#Compilations of facts and the sweat of the brow doctrine Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The University College London (the publisher of the doctoral thesis) indicates that "from the copyright perspective a doctoral thesis is an unpublished work prepared for the purposes of examination. The inclusion of extracts from copyright works may be covered by the fair dealing exception for purposes of instruction and examinations as long as it is "fair dealing"." [30] More importantly, the lactase persistence frequencies are actually from many different analyses, which are enumerated in the frequency table (pages 215-223) as well as in the bibliography (pages 193-207 [31]). Each of these analyses can instead be linked to if need be, though that does not seem particularly necessary since the work is a literature review. Soupforone (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. When a doctoral thesis is published it stops being ..er.. unpublished. Fair use doctrine applies for excerpts, not for complete pieces of information. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An additional problem with this table is that these numbers are not absolute, but rather a result of some sampling of population and therefore of questionable stability. Moreover, the data are taken from various publications and there is no guarantee they have a consistent methodology. We have already had extensive discussions about dangers of putting statistics from various sources into a single table. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete More than anything, I say "oh. my. god." I always get surprised at the labor people put into these kind of hyperdetailed lists and tables. So the problem here is that is a work of original research that is compiled here in Wikipedia, and this is not what we do here. So this is a WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:OR thing. Maybe has a place in Wikidata. Jytdog (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Jytdog, for violating WP:OR. Ifnord (talk) 16:35, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carmouche

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Claim that he "won a Grammy" is a bit exaggerated, him being one of 14 producers (and only working on three tracks Speakerboxxx/The Love Below#Personnel). Sources only mention him in passing, which isn't too surprising as a producer but nothing that's in-depth enough to write a verifiable biography. menaechmi (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BAND states that winning a Grammy makes someone notable, and the official Grammys website states that he won one. Maybe it was part of a group effort, but the page doesn't state it was awarded to a group, but to him. Could it use more information? Absolutely, but the article doesn't merit deletion on notability. 331dot (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND states that someone may be notable if they win a Grammy, but defers to WP:BASIC. Beyond the Grammy statement, the only verifiable information that exists is that he worked with Big Boi in 2011.[32][33][34] There's no way to satisfy WP:BLP or WP:V. menaechmi (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALL the audio engineers who worked on Speakerboxxx/The Love Below won Grammys for their work on the album, so if Carmouche is notable, then by that logic John Frye, Vincent Alexander, Matt Still and Moka Nagatani are as well... with three wins in total, Frye has a better claim to notability than the others. Richard3120 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we could redirect to the album that he got the Grammy for. 331dot (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the grammy is for an album, not in this case given to an individual as such, so it is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:BASIC. Referring to WP:BAND seems a bit of a stretch to me - as in the discussion above, it's a list of things that may suggest notability. As there's not enough coverage to provide verifiable information, it's clear this article doesn't meet inclusion criteria. Ralbegen (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. The grammy is not for him, and there isn't enough in-depth sourcing to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:32, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Senn

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

run of the mill business person, only outside reference is to his suicide. WP:GNG WP:BLP1E CelenaSkaggs (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets GNG. There are a million articles about his suicide, from much higher profile sources than the one included in this article (i.e. WSJ, Reuters, the guardian, etc), but there are also a bunch of sources from before he killed himself that cover him as well [35] [36]. Please try doing a google search before AfDing a new article. — InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{(or here)} 18:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Senn was an important Swiss manager.--Ruedi B (talk) 15:57, 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 merge to Greenwich Library. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cos Cob Library

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

Run of the mill library. No significant coverage in reliable sources. See here and here. Sorry. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Greenwich Library, Connecticut as this is just a branch of that library. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, tentatively, leaving a redirect behind. If there were more development, this could continue or be restored as a separate article, but currently there is only a sentence or two which can indeed be carried in the main article about the Greenwich Library system. It doesn't hurt really to have this article separately, but perhaps readers would be happier arriving at a bigger article which provides more context about all 4 of the Greenwich library branches.

At the redirect left behind, the categories (Category:1930s establishments in Connecticut and Category:Public libraries in Connecticut) should be left there.

Note, User:HaapsaluYT is welcome to comment in this AFD. --do ncr am 18:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Greenwich Library per above. Station1 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: I'm happy with a merge. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:48, 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 no consensus WP:NPASR. ansh 666 07:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condemned 84

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

no sources apart from their own website. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep I've found coverage from 1992 in the Washington Post and a more recent review in a German magazine: [37]. There are a lot of mentions in google book searches too, most of which can't be previewed, but demonstrate that this band has had a lasting influence. By no means brilliant sourcing, but also by no means completely obscure. SmartSE (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. They had both a single and an album on the UK Independent Chart in 1986 - no. 21 and no. 26 respectively (from Barry Lazell's book Indie Hits). It seems likely that print coverage exists from the mid-80s, but none of my books on punk have anything in them about this band. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 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 keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roney

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG CelenaSkaggs (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable businessman. CEO of a FTSE 100 company for 11 years, now chairman of a FTSE 100 company and a FTSE 250 company. Article was a bit thin and somewhat out-of-date, and has now been expanded. Another case of WP:BEFORE? Edwardx (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep See above.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edwardx. People need to stop starting AfDs on articles as soon as they're created. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 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 keep. No opposition to sources found. This could be reopened if someone puts forward a valid argument why the sources that SoWhy do not convey the meeting of GNG. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 22:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Sieben Sr.

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

I'm afraid I don't think this meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Not significant coverage and not an elected official. Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here constitutes an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and there's no evidence that he received enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG. Having been a director of the Small Business Administration is where the potential notability might be sitting — but that's still not a claim that gets him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards. Again I stress that running for office does not make a lawyer notable. In this case, however, he also served as Federal SBA head under LBJ, and furthermore a Marshall and court clerk. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if somebody could show actual reliable source coverage about him in that role. But it's not an automatic inclusion freebie that would entitle an article to stand on this quality of sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Sieben was not the Federal Director of the SBA, but a Regional Director (Region V). (source added to article) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not keep based on Berian's self declared standards, we keep based on consensus standards. These include articles needing truly reliable secondary sources which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiry Would a merge/redirect to List of United States political families (S) be an option? Power~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 6 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)}}} 04:59, 7 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)}}} 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A member of an important Minnesota political family. My own sympathies are for keeping biographies of two-time Congressional candidates, but consensus is that being an unelected politician subjects one to a high bar for inclusion. A very notable namesake son, but the father is not, it would seem. I have not been able to consult Johhn Haynes' book on the history of the Minnesota DFL, buried in my stuff, that would hold the only potential source to save this piece. Carrite (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for him on newspapers.com nets quite a lot of coverage, such as [38] [39] and [40]. There is probably much more but one would have to sieve through all the false positives to find them. Personally, I think these are sufficient to show notability per WP:BASIC and WP:NEXIST but I won't invest more time now if the article is deleted anyway. If it's kept, ping me and I will check for more. Regards So Why 10:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the clippings SoWhy found. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)≤[reply]
Weak keep as there are a lot of claims to notability, it's just a matter of getting sources. Since I do not believe anyone thinks this is a hoax, it's a keeper. Ifnord (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SoWhy, there seem to be sources, just not ones that are easily available online, which is to be expected for this kind of topic. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  21:44, 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. While the existence of many articles about the subject was claimed, none were produced. So Why 10:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Bayes

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

I'm not convinced he meets WP:NPOL or WP:GNG - no significant coverage, not an elected politician. Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – he was VP nominee of Prohibition Party which, while it admittedly isn't a major party these days, it was a historical force in U.S. politics. There are many articles about him as well. MB298 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me this is on the cusp of notability. An alternative might be a separate subarticle summarising every Prohibition Party candidate for president and VP, or breaking out the Electoral history section (merging similar details about every VP to Prohibition Party would produce a very long article). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Personally, I think this article should remain. Bayes is obviously a minuscule political figure, however I think his campaign for both the Prohibition and Constitution parties in 2020 (if he continues to pursue them) should be noted. Of course, the election is still very far away, but he has already been included in the United States presidential election, 2020 page. Also, I think that since Jim Hedges, Bayes' running mate has a page, he should be entitled to one as well. - Polopolus (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping or deleting should not be based on personal preference, but based on sources and Wikipedia policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While being the vice-presidential nominee of a minor party can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it is not an automatic notability freebie that entitles him to have an article regardless of his sourceability or lack thereof. But the referencing here isn't cutting it at all: this is referenced almost entirely to primary (his biography on the party's own self-published website about itself, and ourcampaigns.com) and unreliable sources (three WordPress blogs and Newsmax), and the only two references that count as reliable sources at all are purely routine local coverage in the context of him running for and losing a city council seat. This is not even close to the kind of sourcing that it takes to get a person over GNG — it's so far away from the kind of sourcing it takes that it isn't even in the same galaxy as GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing close to enough sourcing to show notability. Being the candidate for an unnoticed party that does not appear on most state ballots is not enough for notability. If the Prohibition Party had been on the Michigan ballot, I think I would have voted for Bayes. I did not like any significant candidates on the ballot, but as I said, these things are not based on what we like, and we should not keep articles based on personal preference.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 3 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)}}} 04:53, 7 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)}}} 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Represents a minor political party, this is not enough for notability. The sources are not there for GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 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 Delete for current failure to meet notability requirements. (Similarly to the recent deletion of the artist's page). — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Supernatural

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

Song for a rapper whose main article was deleted. Talk page raises doubts about non-notability, so I'm bringing this to AFD instead of CSD. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: Did you try to assess notability yourself WP:BEFORE nominating? There are a lot of reviews cited. Did you look specifically at the 4 I referenced on the talk page. What is your assessment of these? ~Kvng (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I did, actually! I am suspicious these might in fact be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of self-publicity. But I admittedly don't know if these are genuine publicity or just a walled garden, since I am not up on the rap music scene. That's why I'm bringing it up for discussion. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are adequate and reliable enough to establish notability. I have searched for these sources here on WP and a couple (HipHopDX, HotNewHipHop) have WP articles. The others are used as sources for other hip-hop WP articles. Certainly not a WP:WALLEDGARDEN as suspected by the nom. ~Kvng (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for points laid out by Kvng. Article clearly passes GNG MustaphaNG (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the requirements for WP:N (music) - WP is not the marketing arm for launching new careers in the music industry. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:Despite not having a strong interest in music generally lately, I still expect to have heard of all Nigerian musicians worthy of WP articles, especially Hip-hop. I consider it strange and to a lesser extent suspicious that I've never heard of the artist behind this album until today. That being said, the references in the article show coverage, but they are mostly non-Nigerian hip hop-related references, would highly benefit from coverage from mainstream newspaper and entertainment sites in Nigeria.

My reason for making this vote weak is based on personal ~~bias~~ judgement, not policy or guideline. Nevertheless, I'll love to know if Versace1608 has listened to any of his music or heard of him before now? Darreg (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darreg: I try as much as possible not to settle for what the mainstream offers and i usually dig deep to listen to quality hip hop. That way i catch up with artists who have been making waves in the underground. He actually has been covered by some newspapers. [here] and [here] and I've seen his works with the likes of Mode 9, Weird MC, Terry Tha Rapman, Boogey, A-Q etc. I think having international publications all depends on the target audience or maybe where the artist is based. MustaphaNG (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is he not based in Nigeria? Darreg (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The album fails WP:NALBUM. I was able to find two sources that reviewed the album, but it appears that these sources are not reliable. The Creative-hiphop.com and Rapstation.com sources do not have editorial oversight. @Darreg:, I have never heard of this artist. He's not a well known rapper in Nigeria. There are tons of rap acts in Nigeria without stand-alone articles that are more popular than this guy. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 07:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Articles for other notable Nigerian rappers will be created in due course.

What leads you to conclude the sources are unreliable? ~Kvng (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I am not using that as an argument. I was simply replying to Darreg who asked me a question. I am well aware that popularity is not synonymous with notability. A subject being popular doesn't mean that they deserve a Wikipedia page. There are currently eight references in the article. The first reference is simply a press release about the subject releasing a brief trailer for the album, and doesn't discuss the album. The second reference is an album review of the album. While it is a well-written review, the notability of the website itself is in question. For starters, the website's About Us page doesn't show the website having editorial oversight. As a matter of fact, the website is a promotional platform that has no criteria when it comes to the writers they accept (the website currently has one contributor and an editor-in-chief). Anyone who "got the plug on the latest hiphop happenings in their city/country, or is hungry and looking to create a name for himself/herself in the hip hop community" can become a writer. The third reference shows the album's page at AllMusic; nothing reliable there. The fourth reference is a highly-promotional opinion piece review of the album. Here is an excerpt from the review: "In a world where hip hop has been misconceived and abused, MCskill ThaPreacha resurrects hip hop (in Africa and around the world) on this epic Pan-African hip-hop "Diary Of A Supernatural" album. MCskill presents hip hop as a glorious magnificent craft risen from its ashes of commercialism and flabbergasted flamboyance and immersed in immateriality. It tells a tale of a gatekeeper (Master of the Arts) who rises from glory to glory in his quest to enlighten and break-the-chains of mental slavery in all peoples of the world through his conscious heart-throbbing music." How can someone who isn't known in his native country or around the world resurrect a genre that has been around since the 70s? The review cited above isn't a professional review in any way, shape, or form. It is simply a review meant to promote the album. Words and phrases such as "glorious magnificent craft" and "ashes of commercialism and flabbergasted flamboyance and immersed in immateriality" are not included in professional reviews. The fifth reference is an album review from SpitFireHipHop, an unreliable website with no editorial oversight. The sixth reference is a simply a music post. The HNHH post doesn't discuss the single whatsoever. The HNHH staff who created the page simply copied and pasted a promotional biography of the subject that has been circulated on various platforms. Evidence of the circulated bio can be seen here. The seventh reference is simply a music post about the artist's "Man in the Mirror" song. HipHopDX does not review or discuss the song. The eighth reference is a well-written album review. However, the notability of Rapstation.com should be brought into question because there is no information about the website having editorial oversight. Of the eight references cited in the article, only the second and eight can be considered for acceptance. However, in order for them to be accepted, proof needs to be shown that said references have editorial oversight. As it stands, the album fails WP:NALBUM. It didn't chart on any country's official music chart, didn't win nor was nominated for any notable award, and hasn't been reviewed by a reliable publication. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed rundown. Sounds like your position on some of the more promising references is that they're assumed to be unreliable until there's evidence to the contrary. My own assumptions are a bit more forgiving. ~Kvng (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me i think when specific notability guidelines in wp:nalbums and wp:nsongs are clearly not met, we shouldn't be lenient in our interpretation of significant coverage and sources. If he passed specific guidelines, such as nom/won award, charting, etc. I wouldn't have had a problem with the references. Darreg (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: a case of A9. Furthermore, cited footnotes are press releases and reviews from primary sources. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete, but... I think that this artist is not notable enough yet to be a wiki article. But maybe in the future he can become more notable and then return for a wiki page. The sources are very few considering that the album has been out for almost a year. Surely some more coverage would have surfaced by now.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing notability guidelines. Also, I'll dredge out WP:TOOSOON. Ifnord (talk) 16:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

291 Broadway

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

Non-notable building. No in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. It exists. It had some tenants. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The NYTimes article is substantially about it, and is in-depth coverage. It is a 19-story building built in 1911; there were obviously much taller buildings by then but this is still major at the time, i think. There's no indication in the article that it is a NYC landmark or has other designation, but the phos suggests to me that it is significant. Why has this article just been created though, I wonder. --do ncr am 15:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In-depth coverage with prime example of such from doncram indicating passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to invite Beyond My Ken to opine, as a resident of NYC. Softlavender (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that I've seen this, but I am at work at the moment. I'll comment when I'm home and have access to my references. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the full New York Times article, and the fact that it is still in the American Institute of Architects Guide to New York City, means it meets notability. Softlavender (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, everything about this building is fairly equivocal. It's not a landmarked building, but it's across the street from the African Burial Ground and the Commons Historic District, and it's in an area that has a fair number of old but not landmarked buildings. It's listed in the AIA Guide to NYC, but the book doesn't have all that much to say about it; still I found it interesting enough visually to take the picture of it that's in the article. The architects aren't stars by any means, but they did a number of notable buildings in the city, and they have an article here. And then there's the NYT article. I think that if there wasn't that, the building would be borderline and I'd !vote "delete", with the NYT article, it inches over the notability line, and I therefore !vote:
Keep Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral pointer to this discussion has been posted on the talk page of WikiProject New York City. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Abak. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abak/Midim Clan

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article shouldn't be a standalone page, it should be integrated into Abak page. Zazzysa (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  18:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge as per nom. Tecrum (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the nomination is only proposing a merge, but a "delete and merge" !vote is present. Also of note is that deleted articles are often not merged, as most users don't have access to them after deletion occurs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that merge and delete is not possible per licensing rules. When merging, the page history must be preserved for attribution. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abak. EMachine03 (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Abak. Unsourced and no evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:47, 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 speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale advanced, and the claim that this is a copyvio (which would merit stubbing down or speedy, not AfD) has been debunked by the timing of the source publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Janowitz

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

This article have been copied and pasted from several sources. Hakken (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this article should have its copyright issues fixed, not have the article deleted. You can help! And I encourage you to do so. TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's nothing in the nomination (or on the talk page) providing evidence or information about the alleged problematic copying/pasting. It may well be true, but it would have to be such that none of the content is usable per COPYVIO, since the subject is clearly notable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no valid argument for deletion advanced. Earwig's tool reports that a copyright violation is unlikely. In any case, copying can be easily fixed, no need to delete. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the page history, it seems Hakken suspected copying from this PhD dissertation. The dissertation only mentions Janowitz once, and although there is a strong similarity between this passage and Morris Janowitz#Perspectives On Civil-Military Relations, that text has been in our article since June 2011 and the dissertation was submitted in 2014. So if any plagiarism has occured, it's more likely to be in the other direction which would be, well, a major oops for the author, but not our problem. And anyway, to reiterate, copyvio issues can be fixed without deleting the article. – Joe (talk) 08:02, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joni Paladin

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

I declined the expired BLPProd and redirected as there appears to be no independent notability. There were sources in a prior version that were removed. Redirect was reverted to present unsourced version. My attempt to find sources was unfruitful. Delete as not meeting GNG, no reliable sources.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC) Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 19:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The artist is better known as Jamie Bond, and her biggest claim to fame appears to be singing the song "Heart of Love", on the soundtrack to the 1985 film The Heavenly Kid. I'm unable to verify the claims made about radio airplay in the current version of the article, but it's possible there are offline 1980s-era sources that may provide more information about her. Chubbles (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:49, 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. – filelakeshoe )³  09:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd McCollough

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Some of the content also constitutes WP:BLP violations due to lack of sources. DrStrauss talk 15:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete WP:BLP isn't a concern since he died in 1976. However, I see no claim of notability and no secondary sources presented. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  09:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c)  17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV .It is not a WP:BLP as the subject died in 1976 but this biography clearly lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games Opening Ceremony

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

PROD contested by IP. Not notable enough for stand alone article, unsourced with very little content. PRehse (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is a recreation of an article that was deleted in August at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Asian Indoor and Martial Arts Games opening ceremony. If that isn't enough the article has no sources or claims of significance. Papaursa (talk) 15:40, 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 delete. bd2412 T 12:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Records Keeping in Tanzania Police Stations'

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

This article appears, partly, to be a manual on the method for recordkeeping at local police stations in Tanzania. The other part is a personal essay on problems of said recordkeeping. Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete for all kinds of rather obvious reasons. Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay, and a bad one at that. Un-sourced - PDF at bottom is for US police. The two other links to are to top-level organizations.Icewhiz (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this can be saved with editing. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. We do not seem to have an equivalent article about police record keeping in any other country, and I consider it is not a suitable topic for Wikipedia,. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable reference and the content of the article does little to support its title. Tecrum (talk) 10:45, 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. bd2412 T 12:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts Beneath The Mountain

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

Article on e-book was written by a new user whose username is identical to author's name. The e-book has made no bestseller lists, has not received any substantial reviews, and has not won any awards. Chetsford (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published. Not sure why we can't make A9 apply to books. BTW I already tagged the author's article for speedy deletion: the mere fact of having self-published a book is no claim to importance. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very clearly not notable. Almost no web footprint at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity COI article of no notability. Softlavender (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, absolutely nil reviews from reliable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity piece that fails to meet WP:RS or WP:NOTABILITY criteria. DaveApter (talk) 15:56, 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. bd2412 T 12:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Litespeed

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

Can't find any WP:RS which even come close to meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Just a lot of passing mentions and unreliable sources such as blog posts. Most of the editing on this article has been done by two WP:SPAs, so I'm assuming there's WP:COI problems there. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep. There are plenty of articles about Litespeed and its bikes in all the main bicycle publications and others that have nothing to do with bicycles:
- Bicycling - Bike Gear Hall of Fame, October 2011 Merlin and Litespeed Bikes, 1986 (available online)
- Bicycling - New High-End Road and Tri Bikes, September 2010 Litespeed Xicon (available online)
- Bicycling - 2016 Buyer's Guide: The Super-Light Titanium Litespeed T1sl, March 2016 (available online)
- Bicycling - Litespeed’s Newest Gravel Bike Does It All, May 2017 (available online)
- Bike Rumor - Factory Tour: Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle by Zach Overholt, February 2016 (available online)
- Cycling Weekly - Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex by Simon Smythe, February 13, 2017 (available online)
- VeloNews - After a two-year hiatus, Litespeed’s TT bike is back and looks sharper than ever By Robbie Stout, March 13, 2009 (available online)
- FinancesOnline - The World’s 10 Most Expensive Bikes: Cycling With Style #9 Litespeed Blade, March 21, 2016 (available online)
- Times Free Press - American Bicycle Group rides into future, Litespeed, Quintana Roo maker shifts to Chattanooga location by Mike Pare, August 28th, 2016 (available online)

to list just the first ones I found. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are just routine announcements of specific products. That's not what WP:CORPDEPTH is looking for. Of the list above, the one that looks most useful as a source is Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex. But, it fails WP:AUD, specifically, media of limited interest and circulation; Cycling Weekly is only of interest to the cycling community. That's what limited interest means.

I disagree with your assertion that "Bike Gear Hall of Fame", "Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle", "Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex", or "American Bicycle Group rides into future..." are "just routine announcements". None of these fall in the list of "trivial coverage" given in WP:CORPDEPTH. So, let's go through them one-by-one to see just how many really are "just routine announcements of specific products".

Bicycling - Bike Gear Hall of Fame, October 2011

Definitely not an announcement of any product. In fact, no specific bicycle model is mentioned. Instead Litespeed and Merlin are recognized for their pioneering work in making "previously unobtainable metal grades available to frame builders."

Bicycling - New High-End Road and Tri Bikes, September 2010 Litespeed Xicon

Yes, a list of new products from several vendors, but it also contains the detail "Litespeed now has more carbon road frames in its line than titanium, but the company isn't abandoning the material."

Bicycling - 2016 Buyer's Guide: The Super-Light Titanium Litespeed T1sl

Yup. This is just a product announcement.

Bicycling - Litespeed’s Newest Gravel Bike Does It All

Yup. This is just a product announcement.

Bike Rumor - Factory Tour: Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle

Definitely not a product announcement. Instead this is an update on the company with some historical background. Also, Bike Rumor does call itself a "blog", but Zach Overholt is "Managing Editor for Bikerumor.com" and so the article falls under the exception "Content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."

Cycling Weekly - Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex by Simon Smythe

Definitely not a product announcement. Instead it is a look back 15 years on the legacy of a frame that "would turn out to be titanium’s swansong in pro cycling, as well as its apogee."

VeloNews - After a two-year hiatus, Litespeed’s TT bike is back and looks sharper than ever

While this article does introduce a new model, it also provides a great deal of history of and detail about a bike that played an important role in the sport, such as how "the signature titanium airfoil tube shape was created by accident in the early 1990s and brought to widespread prominence when Lance Armstrong used one (disguised as a Trek) in the 1999 Tour de France."

FinancesOnline - The World’s 10 Most Expensive Bikes: Cycling With Style #9 Litespeed Blade

Definitely not a product announcement. Probably better described now as "click-bait".

Times Free Press - American Bicycle Group rides into future, Litespeed, Quintana Roo maker shifts to Chattanooga location

Definitely not a product announcement. This is an article all about recent changes to the company.

In summary, of the 9 articles:

2 definitely are just product announcements

2 do introduce new products, but also include important other details about the company and its history

1 is click-bait

4 definitely are not product announcements, and focus instead on the company and its history.

Thus, I would rate the assertion that "most of those are just routine announcements of specific products" as mostly false.

Plus, there is plenty of depth available in articles such as:

"Made: Lynskey Performance Designs in Tennessee" by Adam Newman, December 22, 2014 in Bicycling Times Magazine (http://bicycletimesmag.com/made-lynskey-performance-designs-in-tennessee/), which includes such details about Litespeed Bicycle as:

"At a bicycle trade show in 1986, two East Coast companies introduced titanium bicycle frames in an era where steel ruled the roost, and carbon was just a twinkle in the industry’s eye. One of them became Litespeed"
"that’s how Bill Lynskey started, with his small machine shop building high-end chemical and chlorine processing equipment for industrial, aerospace and defense projects"
"In the mid-1980s when David Lynskey was nursing a knee injury he took up cycling, got hooked, and quickly began competing."
"So with the help of his brother Chris, they welded up a bike and sure enough it worked."
"pro cyclists were riding Litespeed frames painted over with their sponsor’s logos. A certain Mr. Armstrong rode one painted as a Trek in the 1999 Tour de France."
"Shortly after Bill Lynskey passed away the family sold the company to American Bicycle Group."

"See how Litespeed bikes are built in Ooltewah, Tenn." by Mitra Malek, February 23rd, 2015 in Times Free Press (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/business/aroundregion/story/2015/feb/23/see-how-litespeed-bikes-are-built-ooltewah-tenn/289810/), which includes such details about Litespeed Bicycles as:

"The team that turns titanium into bikes at American Bicycle Group's Ooltewah headquarters is 32 strong. They design and cut and bend and weld."
"Litespeed started in 1986. It was one of the first to use titanium to build bike frames."
"The company's carbon fiber Litespeeds and the Quintana Roo line are manufactured overseas."
"I have to make subtle changes to accommodate for components" being released in the industry, says Brad DeVaney, American Bicycle Group's head of product design and development."

to make the article much more than a "very brief, incomplete stub".

Finally, mainstream press articles, such as:

"Litespeed's Titanium Bike Looks Like a Stealth Bomber, Is Priced Accordingly" by Leander Kahney, Sept 25, 2008 in Wired (https://www.wired.com/2008/09/return-of-the-b/), which includes such details about Litespeed Bicycles as:

"the titanium-framed bike that helped propel Lance Armstrong to his first Tour win."
"Holt is the owner of Bicycle Link, a bike store in Atlanta and a Litespeed dealer."
"With its expertise in shaping titanium, Litespeed also makes missile wings for Lockheed Martin"
"built the chassis and suspension for NASA's new Mars rover, the Mars Science Laboratory, which is headed to the red planet next year."
"Based in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Litespeed claims to employ some of the world's leading titanium experts."
"the Blade is set to come back on the market as soon as Litespeed finishes testing the new design in the wind tunnel."
""There's some new aero tricks that have never been done in metal bikes," said Brad DeVaney, Litespeed's head designer."

"The Showroom: The Worthiest Steeds, Circa 1996: Litespeed Hiwassee, $1,595 by Gordon Black, Alan Coté and Bob Howells, March 1996 in Outside (https://www.outsideonline.com/1844481/showroom-worthiest-steeds-circa-1996), which includes such details about Litespeed Bicycles as:

"The Tennessee-built bike offers Ti's legendary ride"
"Litespeed keeps the Hiwassee affordable by using a powder-coated finish"

"Bike vs. Bike: Litespeed Siena by Keith Schorsch, Sept 29, 2008 in CNNMoney (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/smallbusiness/0809/gallery.bike_face_off.smb/3.html), which includes such details about Litespeed Bicycles as:

"Litespeed Siena, WEIGHT: 17 pounds, PRICE: $4,000
"you can't beat a classic road bike like my Litespeed Siena."

"Sleek, light and durable speedsters by Roy M. Wallack, October 13, 2003 in LA Times (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/oct/13/health/he-gear13), which includes such details about Litespeed Bicycles as:

"Litespeed Siena: A racing bike with striking looks and titanium-carbon frame."
"Aerodynamic, wing-shaped down tube, fork and seat stays. Unpainted titanium mainframe is durable, scratchproof. Carbon fork and stays cushion the ride."
"Weighs 19 pounds. "Price: $3,530."

demonstrate that coverage spans more than two decades and is not limited to limited interest publications. -AndrewDressel (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still more in print:

Bike!: A Tribute to the World's Greatest Racing Bicycles by Richard Moore and Daniel Benson, 2012, The Miegunyah Press, an imprint of Melbourne University Publishing, ISBN 0522861830, 9780522861839 available for preview on Google Books

"While most other manufacturers were experimenting with aluminum and carbon, Litespeed pioneered the use of titanium in bicycle frames and produced bikes that were as revered for their sumptuous silver finish as their durability and light weight."
"For a long time that reputation was linked to the frames that the Tennessee company produced for other brands, including Bianchi, Merckx, De Rosa, and Trek."
"In 2002--by which point David's brother Mark Lynskey had become the company's president--Litespeed stepped into the big league..."
"The secret to this success lay in Litespeed's use of 6/4 titanium, comprising 6 percent aluminum and 4 percent vanadium, as opposed to the more usual 3/2.5 mix."

The Racing Bicycle: Design, Function, Speed by Richard Moore, Daniel Benson, and Robert Penn, 2015, Rizzoli International Publications, Incorporated, ISBN 0789331012, 9780789331014. No preview available, sadly.

"Litespeed" pages 176-181
"Richard Moore, a former racing cyclist, is a regular contributor to the Guardian, Sky Sports, and Procycling."
"Daniel Benson is the managing editor of Cyclingnews.com, the largest online cycling magazine."
"Robert Penn is the author of It’s All About the Bike and writes for the Financial Times and Conde Nast Traveler."

The No-Drop Zone: Everything You Need to Know about the Peloton, Your Gear and Riding Strong by Patrick Brady, 2011, Menasha Ridge Press, ISBN 978-0-89732-660-5. Available for preview on Google Books

"Soon after, the company that is today the largest playing in the titanium market, Litespeed, got its start.
"Eventually, Litespeed's parent company bought Merlin.

and so coverage is international, deep, and not merely online. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic, and is unsupported by adequate reliable sources. DaveApter (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it "not seem to be an encyclopedic topic"? Because it is an article about a company? Because it is not notable? Please indicate in which way the topic does not seem to be encyclopedic.

What is inadequate about the sources that support this article? The requirements that I can find are:

significant coverage in secondary sources, which must be reliable and independent of the subject. "Significant" is not defined, except that "single independent source is almost never sufficient," which leaves it open to interpretation.
coverage cannot be trivial or incidental.
coverage cannot be only local or of limited interest and circulation.

So here are the independent, reliable, secondary sources with non trivial or incidental coverage that demonstrate that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international" source exists:

1. Wired - Litespeed's Titanium Bike Looks Like a Stealth Bomber, Is Priced Accordingly by Leander Kahney, Sept 25, 2008 (available online):

Wired is completely independent of Litespeed.
Wired is reliable. It was founded in 1993 and has a circulation of 851,823.
Wired is a secondary source.
Wired's coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental. It is mostly about a specific product, but includes many details about the company.
Wired is not of limited interest or circulation.

2. Bike!: A Tribute to the World's Greatest Racing Bicycles by Richard Moore and Daniel Benson, 2012, The Miegunyah Press, an imprint of Melbourne University Publishing, ISBN 0522861830, 9780522861839 available for preview on Google Books and available for sale on Amazon:

Bike! is completely independent of Litespeed.
Bike! is reliable. It was written by established authors and published by an established publisher. It is not self-published.
Bike! is a secondary source.
Bike! coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
Bike! is a hardcover book and so its "interest" and "circulation" are unknown, but it is an international source. Are there some kind interest broadness and/or sales volume criteria for hardcover books?

3. Cycling Weekly - Icons of cycling: Litespeed Vortex by Simon Smythe, February 13, 2017 (available online):

Cycling Weekly is completely independent of Litespeed.
Cycling Weekly is reliable. It was founded in 1891 and has a circulation of 28,809.
Cycling Weekly is a secondary source.
Cycling Weekly coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
Cycling Weekly is of limited interest and circulation, but establishes international coverage.

4. Times Free Press - "See how Litespeed bikes are built in Ooltewah, Tenn." by Mitra Malek, February 23rd, 2015 (available online):

Times Free Press is completely independent of Litespeed.
Times Free Press is reliable. It is one of Tennessee's major newspapers.
Times Free Press is a secondary source.
Times Free Press coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
Times Free Press is of regional circulation but establishes coverage beyond limited interest publications

5. BikeRumor Factory - Tour: Litespeed Celebrates 30 years of cutting edge titanium bicycle by Zach Overholt, February 2016 (available online):

BikeRumor is completely independent of Litespeed.
BikeRumor is reliable. It describes itself as a blog, but the article is written by the managing editor of BikeRumor, and "content from a collaboratively created website may be acceptable if the content was authored by, and is credited to, credentialed members of the site's editorial staff."
BikeRumor is a secondary source.
BikeRumor's coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
BikeRumor is of limited interest and doesn't have "circulation" numbers, but claims "more than 4.5 million monthly pageviews as of September 10, 2014 (per Google Analytics)"

6. Bicycling - Bike Gear Hall of Fame, October 2011 (available online):

Bicycling is completely independent of Litespeed.
Bicycling is reliable. It was founded in 1961 and has a circulation of 325,000.
Bicycling is a secondary source.
Bicycling's coverage in this article is not trivial or incidental.
Bicycling is of limited interest but not limited circulation and so shows national coverage.

So that's 6 reliable sources including a US publication with 851,823 in circulation, a hardcover book published in Australia, a British weekly cycling magazine first published in 1891, a regional newspaper, and a US monthly cycling magazine with 325,000 in circulation. Combined, they establish:

significant (6+) coverage in secondary sources, which are reliable and independent of the subject.
coverage is not only trivial or incidental.
coverage is not only local or of limited interest and circulation.

I look forward to your response. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with the first comment, notability is well established. Article may need work but should not be deleted.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite the fact that the editor above was just blocked for voting keep on numerous articles in rapid fashion. I just hunted for sources and it appears that Litespeed is one of the top manufacturers of titanium frames, despite general sentiment that their quality has gone down over the last 10 years since they were acquired by American Bicycle Group. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 04:13, 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:SNOW, WP:HEY Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Copeland

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

tagged since December 2014. WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've fixed the article and added a ton of sources. She's a major player in Taranaki, & shown her art around the world. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Nominator is a new editor (8 day old account). A close per WP:HEY is appropriate, considering Megalibrarygirl's improvements. I urge CelenaSkaggs to withdraw the nomination. Mduvekot (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. So Why 09:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shipyourenemiesglitter.com

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

non notable company which was sold for $85,000. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I'm the shmendrik who started the article. Whatever the outcome of this AfD is, it's OK with me. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage seems sensationalist, and more importantly the subject company fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:WEB.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:GNG per a review of available sources, which are copious. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG per the sources in the article and per the above search. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Cribb

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

WP:BIO CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:CelenaSkaggs, AfD's require a rationale, and 'WP:BIO' is not a rationale. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having looked at what is online about her, I get the impression that she easily passes WP:GNG. Schwede 66 20:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG, though the article needs cleanup. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Article could use expansion not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 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 Move to draft space I shall close this AfD before time's up. I believe it is not helpful to discuss this for a whole week when we are six days out from an election. I shall move the draft into the project space of the New Zealand politics working group and if the person is successful, we can merge content to the draft entry that's already there for this candidate. Schwede 66 07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack McDonald (politician)

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

Political candidate for upcoming election, doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. One of a number of such entries by user Nexus000 CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may change after the NZ general election, depending on whether the candidate is elected as an MP, but at this point in time BLP currently does not meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Ajf773 (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason why this couldn't wait a week, election is 8 days away so after that we will know if the pages Nexus000 has created are relevant or not and the ones created that didn't get into parliament can be deleted then? NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 22:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We should move it into draft space until then. Ajf773 (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, believe that would be better than deleting at this stage till after the election is over then a proper decision can be made NZ Footballs Conscience^(talk) 01:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Will make better contributions next time. User:Nexus000 3:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
There is also a Wikiproject draft already created. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs/Jack McDonald (politician) Ajf773 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect this electioneering to the electorate page as a one-liner. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 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 I shall close this AfD before time's up. I believe it is not helpful to discuss this for a whole week when we are six days out from an election. I've gone ahead with deleting the article as this action was supported by the article's creator. Schwede 66 07:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Rusden

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as he is purely a candidate. Infobox is misleading, there's no such thing as an incumbent candidate. Doesn't meet general WP:BIO. CelenaSkaggs (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN and based on list ranking is unlikely to after Sept 23. Ajf773 (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, will make better contributions next time. Nexus000 (talk) 03:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this electioneering to the electorate page as a one-liner. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LogicManager

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Many of the references are dubious or trifling, example

The list of awards cited to non-notable publications, "Best Place to Work", N of 50 "most valuable companies", etc.
"LogicManager: Offering User-friendly ERM Solutions" published in CIO Review which is just a long interview with the CEO pumping this firm. That is his fiduciary duty but not ours to offer another forum to publish these things.

I attempted cleanup, but was reverted; so if this is an advertising magnet WP:TNT also applies. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear to me that this is a promotional piece, architected to get this firm and its product to the top of Google searches (upper right hand corner). Best practices means that the leaders in a field are using the practice. There is no indication anywhere that the software or its methods are proven. The subject does well in interviews, but the claim is still empty. The same criteria should be used on RIMS Risk Maturity Model, another bogus article designed to support this one. The article promises that the Risk Model is free. It doesn't appear so. http://riskmaturitymodel.org/ is no org. It's a site controlled by LogicManager. Don't get fooled into participating in this well-authored promotional scheme. Rhadow (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello, I have considered your concerns very carefully and have reverted the page back to a previous version that did not violate the terms you are citing, or at least were not flagged as violating any terms. I hope this will resolve the issue and that the deletion tag can now be removed. If there are any edits you wish to make to this version, please do so. ANicoleJ (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ANicoleJ, this is your first article, and a fine piece of work. I am not worried about violations. My concern is whether this company belongs in an encyclopedia. The underlying question is whether LogicManager, the company, has had any significant or demonstrable effects on the business world or life in Boston. Looked at in this light, what Forrester, or Gartner, or CIO magazine says are not compelling. Did you read the Forrester report? It costs $2,495. Journal of Risk, likewise, is behind a paywall. The CIO article was a puff piece, an ego-stroker. I recommend you read WP:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. After repeated references, paywalled publications, puff pieces, and links to LogicManager controlled sites are eliminated, the cupboard is bare. Rhadow (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that articles use freely accessible sources. The Forrester report is the best source in this article. While researching this earlier, I downloaded a pdf of a 2016 Forrester report (can't remember where I found it, but it wasn't by paying $$$$.) It scored LogicManager at 4.4/5.0 (not a perfect score) on "Customer references" which isn't exactly an "award" in any case. More relevantly, it also stated that LogicManager had more than 2300 GRC customers and that all vendors in the report had at least $15 million in 2014 revenue. That's something, but considering Navex Global (AfD) and BWise are listed in the report as having an even larger market presence and still got deleted, it isn't automatic grounds for inclusion. Furrykiller (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a wp:promo page on a private company that is not encyclopedically relevant just yet. At the moment of this iVote, the article content is strictly promotional, and I don't believe that the article can be improved through regular copy-editing, as the sources lack WP:CORPDEPTH. Part of an apparent walled garden which also includes RIMS Risk Maturity Model; both articles have been edited by the same single purpose account that created the Maturity model article. So, it's a "delete" all around for me. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion piece, not notable company per WP:Corp for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violation of WP:NOTPROMO, would require complete rewrite to become encyclopedic and even then, the subject is unlikely to be notable. Rentier (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rhadow, I would like to address your comment “The underlying question is whether LogicManager, the company, has had any significant or demonstrable effects on the business world or life in Boston.” I believe the company has had a demonstrable effect on the business world especially. The research study in Journal and Risk by Queens University has proven that organizations exhibiting mature risk management practices realize a potential value growth up to 25%, confirming the value of strong enterprise risk management programs. “Mature” in this context is defined by the RIMS Risk Maturity Model which the CEO of LogicManager authored and donated to RIMS. I believe this connection between enterprise risk management and every organizations’ value is a huge contribution to the business world.

As the current version stands, there are only third-party sources that are very notable and trusted in the GRC community. The study found in Journal and Risk is a peer reviewed academic study. Forrester and GRC 20/20 are independent research firms. RIMS is a non-profit dedicated to educating the community on GRC. Enterprise risk management is a growing field, not familiar to many, so I understand how discerning which sources have proper depth can be difficult in this case, but I assure you that these are preeminent sources in the industry that not only stand out as non-biased, but demonstrate the effects LogicManager has had on the business community. Therefore, the company is not in violation of WP:Corp which states “If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists,” because the company has received recognition from notable independent sources. As for the CIO Review article, it is only used in this context to provide objective information about what the company does, not how well they do it.

I hope this has allayed the main concerns of this discussion regarding the value and credibility of the information provided by LogicManager’s article. ANicoleJ (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you mentioned "The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity" in the Journal of Risk and Insurance. Do you have access to it? For me they want six bucks to read it. It is indeed a legit journal and has costs to cover, I guess. Fortunately, I have access to a free PowerPoint by the same authors with the same subject in the title; I'm pretty sure it's a synopsis of what's in the full paper. They mention "Logic Manager" (as they spell it) exactly twice, and not in any detail about the company. Rather it appears to be a data point that the RIMS Risk Maturity Model is being adopted in business settings. So as far as this deletion debate goes, it appears to be null. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question, Bri, “"The Valuation Implications of Enterprise Risk Management Maturity" doesn't seem to have any bearing here. can you clarify why you think it should?” I believe it does have bearing because Steven Minsky, CEO of LogicManager, wrote the RMM based on LogicManager’s framework. The study in question is based on the RMM. While I cannot share a peer-reviewed academic journal, I can point you to the landing page where the RMM resides, https://www.rims.org/resources/ERM/Pages/RiskMaturityModel.aspx You’ll see this in the footer: “RIMS Risk Maturity Model for Enterprise Risk Management was developed with the support of co-developer Steven Minsky, CEO of LogicManager, Inc. LogicManager is a leading developer of ERM solutions and creator of its own innovative risk maturity model. LogicManager, based in Boston, donated its intellectual property, expertise and services for the development of the RIMS Risk Maturity Model for Enterprise Risk Management.” As you can see, LogicManager donated the RMM to RIMS, which is why the assessment is hosted on RIMS’ website. Without LogicManager, there would not be Risk Maturity Model, which has made an immense impact on the GRC industry and the business world.

But this is only one of the points of evidence that makes LogicManager a notable organization. Let’s not lose sight of the others such as the company’s recognition by Forrester and GRC 20/20, which recognize the company for the software they created. The value award they received from GRC 20/20 was in recognition of how one company, Winona Health, was able to use LogicManager’s software to achieve a significant and demonstrable effect on their business performance. Source: http://grc2020.com/product/winona-health-value-achieved-in-risk-management/ ANicoleJ (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources for most of the article do not looks like reliable sources. Only the journal source looks more or less serious, but aside from that it does not look like it is a notable company/software provider.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:07, 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 procedural close.. No article exists in main namespace. The AfD template was placed on the draft article Draft:Jay Kaoshik, which has been deleted per WP:G2 as a test page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Kaoshik

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

Reason YOUNG BRAINS (talk) 13:24, 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} 13:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hinchcliffe (political strategist)

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

Lacks notability - an MP is notable, their office staff aren't. Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPOL is not applicable to office staff, subject should be compared to WP:GNG. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:Promo — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs)
Delete - what the nominator said; the sources are largely about Fabian Hamilton, and while I enjoyed his anti-grammar school rant on the Huffington Post, that's a piece written by him, not about him, which is no good for an independent article. He has the potential to be notable in, say, ten years time, but that's no good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why wasn't it CSD'd A7? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it doesn't meet the criteria - in this case there's a case to merge with Hamilton's article or it's possible my google-fu is not very good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet !votes Special:Diff/801277179

MergeI propose merging this with Fabian Hamilton as it seems extremely relevant to his page.Pigeon0999 (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Anything Hamilton does publicly is directed through him so should be merged

Merge Think a merge with Hamilton would be best as he, apparently, controls the whole media strategy and public affairs of Hamilton's office and Shadow Cabinet positionFirefox09101 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With Fabian Hamilton article. Not relevant enough for own page, but definitely notable enough to be linked if he is controlling whole media output of a Shadow Minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingthing11 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC) Thingthing11 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sockpuppetry reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Firefox09101. Cabayi (talk) 16:32, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by consensus. Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, A7. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Olotu

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

Non-notable person. — Za wl 13:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I was debating between an A7/G11 tag and an AfD myself when this popped up after I looked through the sources. Probably could be a A7 candidate since none of the sourcing is reliable and doesn't make an claims of significance, but letting the AfD play out is fine as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, as someone else concurs with my assessment here so quickly after it was nominated, I've tagged it as G11/A7. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unambiguous advertising. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMO and WP:CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Chamber (RJ Thompson album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUM XFhumu^Talk 13:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are self published, and the article fails WP:GNG. EMachine03 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not released yet, this album is not the subject of many works, I could only found this article who talk about the creation and the content. So, it fails WP:NALBUM's first point; and fails all criteria. --Lacrymocéphale 18:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice to its recreation if more sources turn up nearer the time, but for now it's way WP:TOOSOON, and I'm not sure the title is going to be helpful as a redirect to the artist's article. Incidentally, I'm not sure any of the records with articles under RJ Thompson discography pass notability. Richard3120 (talk) 00:12, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McNally

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Currently fails WP:NHOCKEY by not playing in a highly covered league for long enough (and recently signed to a lower league which will not add to his 94 AHL games, so he is a few years out), not a high enough draft pick, and only all-conference honors in NCAA Div. I, no AHCA All-Americans. Yosemiter (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree fails fails WP:NHOCKEY — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 12:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG Delete. EMachine03 (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be TOOSOON.18abruce (talk) 22:15, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Livetecs

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

I'm not finding sources on my own to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources cited in the article are mainly from the company's website. The rest are press releases, database-driven listings, one person's "top 10" list in a blog post, and reviews from the crowd on social media. Google adds download sites and providers of coupon codes to these. Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only a very exceptional company has a chance of passing CORPDEPTH, this company is not exceptional. Curiously the software package it makes could probably have an article. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aguyintobooks: So if it was titled "Timelive" and the company itself was only mentioned in passing, it would be more likely to meet criteria in your eyes? Richardaldinho (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only does it not meet WP:ORG but it has been ostensibly written with the express intention of getting this company on Wikipedia. It reads like an advertorial and if I'm not mistaken, the author has a WP:COI. I don't flat out believe they've done enough research or reading our rules before editing the Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Absolutely no COI with me - I just want to publish a page. Please don't jump to unfair conclusions. Richardaldinho (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep with conditions: I don't see any issue with the language; not advertising for me. Would suggest a redraft with the software as the focus 86.28.216.250 (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that advertising wasn't among the grounds I cited for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creating entity fails WP:CORPDEPTH, the service fails WP:PRODUCT, and nothing indicates the significance of this product as opposed to similar products, which violates WP:MILL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find enough reliable sources to satisfy me regarding the GNG. IDC whether or not it is an advertisment. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suna Said

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 24 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) 21:08, 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) 17:46, 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) 11:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMO and relevant WP:CS — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails GNG and BIO. L3X1 (distænt write) 00:14, 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, primarily WP:CRYSTAL. The 2017 North Korea crisis merge can be done outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second Korean War

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

Per the closure undertaken by me at Talk:Second Korean War#RfC about WP:BALL.Purely procedural.No comments on merit. Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes I think that policy says we should AFD this as it is clear that the speculation is about speculation "If a war were to happen (which it wont) this might happen". This is not sufficient for an article.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect this (as originally to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69)) and delete similar articles on speculated non-certain future conflicts. Fails WP:BALL(1) and possibly (3). A war while possibly likely is definitely not certain and the date of said possible war is even less certain. Procedurally - I suggest moving this RfC to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (and discuss future possible conflicts in general, with the Korean peninsula provided as an example/test-case), ~~and place this article in AfD - which I intend to do~~and restore the redirect in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moot

Not sure we need to do anything more then leave a message at Milhist.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a wider discussion - it really isn't specific to Korea. Should we create Chinese Invasion of Taiwan (speculated), War of the South China Sea (speculated), Shia-Sunni war of the 21st Century (speculated) (GCC vs. Iran)? The arguments for/against all of these (the more notable ones) are the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see, yes I think an RFC on "speculated wars" is a good idea, but not this one war.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not have WP:GNG? The judgement on these future wars seems pretty straight forward, as any other article on Wikipedia.Casprings (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is presumed notable per GNG (no argument - copious reputable literature addresses the possible speculated future conflict), however GNG also states "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. 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 - Specifically failing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not->WP:BALL. Meeting GNG is not enough in and of itself - if you fail on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article and expand it. The speculation itself meets Wikipedia:GNG. It has been ongoing since the end of the first Korean War. When such a possible event gets that much long term coverage from WP:RS an article should not just be allowed, it should be encouraged as it clearly meets the core purpose of Wikipedia.Casprings (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question If WP:BALL means WP:AfD for this article, does it also mean WP:AfD for Korean reunification? Casprings (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be a question for that pages talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You could discuss this there, however reunification is a NK and SK policy goal, with actual government ministries, talks, etc. I don't see how that would get deleted - at most name changed (perhaps - a process tacked on - but I doubt even that) - as this is an ongoing attempted process (e.g. similar to Israeli–Palestinian peace process, or other multi-year processes).Icewhiz (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, yes, but to where? Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69) or 2017 North Korea crisis? The problem with using a time-bound article is that it is or will soon become obsolete. And then, when there's another "crisis" in Korea, this same issue will re-emerge. Perhaps it could be redirected to Korean conflict, but that's not a perfect fit either...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis to Korean conflict#The Trump era is a possibility..it seems a good fit.Irondome (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
per Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) (where this was redirected previously before the usurpation) he Korean DMZ Conflict, also referred to as the Second Korean War by some,[2] was a series of low-level armed clashes between North Korean forces and the forces of South Korea and the United States, largely occurring between 1966 and 1969 at the Korean DMZ; - this was an actual conflict involving gunfire/etc - a few hundred dead on each side - a bit less than War of Attrition... Korean conflict is the first Korean war.Icewhiz (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing really is a perfect fit. But Korean conflict has the advantage that it is not timebound. At the same time time we could remove 2017 North Korea crisis link from the Trump era section and merge 2017 North Korea crisis into the Trump era section. Korean conflict is the closest we have to a political/economic/sociological/military overview of the whole 70 odd year conflict. Remember 1953-2017 is technically just a ceasefire. Irondome (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually this one Korean War is/was, a merge to Korean conflict (which discuses the whole history of the situation form the end of Ww2 to the present day) seems to fit this material, as pretty much this is all, part of the wider issue of the unending war.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Saying there might be a "Second Korean War" is naive. There have been lots of wars during the long History of Korea. This basically "new" article should be reverted to its original purpose, which was a redirect to the mis-named series of 1966–1969 conflicts following the actual/modern-Korean War. How future nK vs sK conflicts might play out is best set forth in Korean conflict. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC) To be clear, my !vote is merge to the original purpose – as a redirect. 18:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure crystal-ball gazing. It seems that every time NK fires a missile or explodes a nuke someone feels the need to create a "what if" page about a second (or third) Korean War. Stick to blogs, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia. Mztourist (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis to Korean conflict#The Trump era as per Irondome and Jack Upland. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Second Korean War and merge 2017 North Korea crisis Article about a possible future event is not appropriate. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second Korean War This sort of page brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Gumsaint (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough WP:RS to meet the requirements for WP:N. It does not make sense to redirect to another article, as Jack Upland noted, it is a time-bound article. LPW22 (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moot !votes.

This isn't what RfC is for. This is what WP:AFD is for. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 01:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. RfC is a wrong venue for this. Take it to WP:AfD if you want to pursue deletion on WP:N or WP:NOT grounds. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not that article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed just now and amended my comment accordingly. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was a redirect to Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969) for many years. It has been hijacked to create this crystal ball essay. The former redirect was correct (at least in my mind) - so AFDing isn't exactly the right venue. Note that the creator of the essay is the one who jumped the gun, so to say, and ran the RFC - and has been since been claiming that the RFC should run its course prior to restoring the redirect.Icewhiz (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. David Eppstein has made a persuasive argument but none of the editors arguing keep have returned to revisit their positions and this debate has now been open for almost three weeks. As WP:RELIST discourages third relists, I'm going to call time. If someone wants to re-nominate this article for deletion in a couple of months they would be well served by taking some notes on David Eppstein's approach when they write the nomination. A Train^talk 08:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Neff

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

doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:BIO on given sources CelenaSkaggs (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BIO, fails WP:CS and WP:PROF — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 14:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is the leading German academic on Mediterranean fire ecology, widely published and works in a relevant field. (pun not intended) I see sufficient evidence to show the subject passes NPROF. This is one of six German 'authors' the nom sent to Afd in 30 minutes, however IHO only 2 of those are worthy of deletion. --@EC Racing: WP:CS is not a notability guideline, what did you mean? Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 14:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Links in the article don't demonstrate this. Under references we have 1) the subject's blog, 2) a page from a university that doesn't even list the subject's name, 3) a dead link to ARD with no page found and 4) link to the subject's blog (again). This is hardly sufficient to demonstrate one of the 9 points listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Furthermore, Google search turns up no independent coverage to satisfy general WP:BIO or notability guidelines. User has a Wikimedia page, if that is of interest? CelenaSkaggs (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The fact that the links in the article don't demonstrate notability isn't relevant at all. You should consider reading both WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST before you nominate any more articles for deletion based on your perception that the links that are presently in an article determine notability. It feels like you're wasting the community's time with many of these noms. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as User:Aguyintobooks said, Nef really does check out as a leading, well-known and eminently sourceable expert on fire ecology. User:CelenaSkaggs, I thik you need ot slow down and run WP:BEFORE you hastily delete articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 19 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) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To test the hypothesis that he is a leading expert on Mediterranean fire ecology, I used Google scholar to look up the top citation counts of papers on the subject. I found:
- 559 for Naveh, "The evolutionary significance of fire in the Mediterranean region", Vegetatio 1975
- 412 for Pausas et al, "Are wildfires a disaster in the Mediterranean basin?–A review", Int. J. Wildland Fire 2009
- 315 for Keeley et al, Fire in Mediterranean ecosystems: ecology, evolution and management, 2011
- 239 for Díaz-Delgado, "Satellite evidence of decreasing resilience in Mediterranean plant communities after recurrent wildfires", Ecology 2002
- 191 for Naveh, "Fire in the Mediterranean–a landscape ecological perspective", Fire in Ecosystem Dynamics 1990
- 187 for LeHouerou, "Fire and vegetation in the Mediterranean basin", Proc. 13th Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conf. 1974
- 157 for Moreno and Oechel, The role of fire in Mediterranean-type ecosystems, 2012
- 157 for Noy‐Meir, "Interactive effects of fire and grazing on structure and diversity of Mediterranean grasslands", J. Veg. Sci. 1995
- 153 for Gimeno‐García et al, "Changes in organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and cations in soil as a result of fire and water erosion in a Mediterranean landscape", Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2000
- 150 for Paula et al, "Fire‐related traits for plant species of the Mediterranean Basin", Ecology 2009

In contrast, among Neff's publications I find one well-cited one on general fire ecology in which he is in a middle position among six authors ("Reconstructing past fire regimes: methods, applications, and relevance to fire management and conservation", and note that without restricting to the Mediterranean the citation counts of other works are also much higher) and then other citation counts much lower (43, 33, 25, and then single digits). I conclude that the hypothesis is not confirmed. It may be that he is the leading German expert in Mediterranean fire ecology, but I don't see why his nationality should be relevant to his notability, especially since one would not expect Germany to be a center of research on this topic (it is not a Mediterranean country). Since that was the only plausible claim here for notability, and in general his citation counts do not show that he is a high-impact researcher in this area, I conclude that we do not have evidence for WP:PROF in general, nor for WP:PROF#C1 more specifically. Without evidence of notability, we cannot keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per Eppsteins's superb analysis.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:02, 6 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 speedy delete. by User:Yunshui as WP:G11, A7. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohani Tea Leaves

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

No independent source to indicate notability. Mar11 (talk) 10:06, 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 redirect to Edward VIII abdication crisis with the suggested hatnote Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdication of Edward

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

unnecessary index set article, for just 2 people DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Abdication of Edward. – Uanfala 09:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 09:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Nonsensical and unnecessary WP:LIST article (masquerading as an unnecessary disambiguation article) with only two entries and no possible future entries. Softlavender (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneeded list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Edward VIII abdication crisis as primary topic and hatnote to Edward_II_of_England#Abdication. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is a list, set index, disambigation page or a redirect there should clearly be something here. Peter James (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edward VIII abdication crisis for convenience of searchers. Softlavender (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect and hatnote per Patar knight above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:06, 16 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) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edward VIII abdication crisis as the primary topic, and hatnote to Edward II of England#Abdication. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:24, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wheel calculator

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

Not a notable neologism. The references don't support any of the content in the article; I find [41] this version from 2010 useful to understand the history of the article. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A wheel calculator is nothing but a circular slide rule. This article happens to focus on ovulation, but it is only one of a thousand uses devised before electronic calculators became cheap and ubiquitous. They are used in flight planning (E6-B), dive tables, and artillery. I will add ovulation to the circular slide rule article. Then we can dispense with the article. Change it to a redirect if you want. Rhadow (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put it out of its misery, especially per the above merge of information into Circular slide rules. A redirect to that section would probably be fine too. (Also note the linked online calculator is defunct). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lifestyle Times of Jenievie Tolentino

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

This article is created by the same username on another website. http://disneychannel.wikia.com/wiki/The_Lifestyle_Times_of_Jenievie_Tolentino There is no sources to the article which will prove it's existence. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sources probably because appears to be made up by user. I can only find it on wikia and a fake twitter account this. KylieTastic (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Trivialist (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted per CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harley-Davidson: Race Around the World

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

Non-notable video game with no hits for reliable sources in search. Appears to conflate directory listings with notability but fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. I'm the author and I requested speedy deletion. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian F. Martin

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

Contested Prod Fails WP:GNG and Declined AFC submission and a paid article created in violation of block and ban.Please refer to this Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Seeknikkihi.Later edited by another paid editor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori .Lacks WP:SIGCOV and The subject's notability is in question, as the majority of the sources cited lack any depth, only mention the subject in passing, or are user-generated content.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, article is very low quality, and as the

nom said, created for the subject in violation of policy. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:PROMO and WP:COI — Preceding unsigned comment added by EC Racing (talk • contribs) 12:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are the sources provided by a now blocked sockmaster at the previous SPI that led to it being kept: Los angeles Times, The New York Times, World Neighbors. The first provides zero substantial coverage and basically only verifies that he wrote a book, the second is a brief mention about a house he was building and the third is a press release. My own searches turned up nothing better than this which again does not provide substantial coverage. WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR are not met. SmartSE (talk) 18:53, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James-J Walsh

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

Non notable. A Labour Cllr who works for a students' union. Danielle1238 (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. He is in the "top 10 most influential LGBT people in the UK by The Independent newspaper's Pink List". Meets WP:GNG and since WP:NPOL does not supersede GNG, this is an obvious keep. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Donald1659 (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How so? DrStrauss talk 13:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG is a measure of an article's sourceability, not of anything that the article says in its text. Of the nine sources here, six are primary or unreliable sources that cannot assist notability at all, and he isn't the subject of any of the three remaining reliable sources — two of them just glancingly namecheck his existence a single time in coverage of something else, and he's the bylined author, not the subject, of the third. This is not how a person gets over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 06:31, 18 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) 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on one of the meriads of "top x number y people in z" lists does not make someone notable, especially since these are usually annaul lists. His actual level as a politician also does not make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 07:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at a superficial first glance this looks like an obvious keep. However, a deeper analysis has led me to opt for delete.

The article lists nine sources. Let's evaluate each of them in terms of how they satisfy notability guidelines.

...is from the BBC, which is a reliable source. However, it only mentions Walsh in passing and does not indicate his contributions to the LGBT community which led to him receiving this accolade - if you can call it that.
...is similarly just a passing mention that just states he is on the list.
...is an affiliated source which confers no notability whatsoever. Notability is established by independent, reliable sources.
...is inaccessible.
...gives him the most coverage of all of the sources but is still woefully short of establishing notability and merely quotes Walsh on a certain topic and then carries on.
...is LinkedIn which does not give any notability.
...is a two-word quote on a blog from Walsh on a standalone issue.
...was written by Walsh himself, again failing the independent source clause.
...is inaccessible.

His inclusion on a list which has gained media attention does not mean he inherits notability from the list.

For what it's worth, it could be argued that this is a one-event case as all the coverage came around the time of legalisation of gay marriage - an argument I myself would not consider to be particularly pressing given the extended source rebuttal I have provided.

Furthermore, his political position alone is a failure of politician notability guidelines so inclusion on that criterion is out as well.

DrStrauss talk 12:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the compelling arguments of DrStrauss and Bearcat. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only as per DrStrauss and Bearcat, but also because with political activists and minor politicians, I like to see at least one profile in an independent source, preferably by a journalist in a widely recognized publication; here, however, the closest we get to an article about him is his linked-in profile and a post on teh organization of a political activism organization. Although it may merely be WP:TOOSOON, Walsh's notability is not validated by WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:43, 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. There's a substantial enough consensus to determine that, not being a UK tabloid, we shouldn't cover celebrity pregnancies just because they are celebrity pregnancies, and that there is just too little encyclopedic content to warrant an article before the birth. The pregnancy can still be covered in any other appropriate article, such as the ones about the prospective parents. Sandstein 08:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

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

This is an article about a pregnancy. A pregnancy that has so far attracted less media attention than Beyoncé's recent pregnancy. Arguments that members of royal families are notable from birth are dubious; that they are notable from conception is absurd and cringeworthy. In case anyone wonders - no, the "third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is not yet in the line of succession.

We did have an article about Catherine's first pregnancy. It was hotly disputed, of course, and even deleted following a discussion. The article was soon recreated by another user, so I expanded it and later successfully nominated it for DyK. The recreation of that article was against consensus and the subsequent indifference of the community should not be used as a precedent for creating and keeping articles about this and other royal pregnancies. That child was called "the world's most famous baby" by The Washington Post. Its notability stemmed from the likelihood of him or her becoming the next monarch of 16 countries. This pregnancy does not involve "the world's most famous baby" or a future monarch.

Sources merely reporting the palace announcement of the pregnancy do not indicate notability of the pregnancy. With the first pregnancy, for example, we had The Daily Telegraph articles about the upcoming birth's expected impact on economy and tourism. That's what made the article at least marginally reasonable, as opposed to outright fancruft. Surtsicna (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no rational argument to have a page about a person who is not born yet. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And who is not even a person yet, according to British law. Surtsicna (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and might never become one, in the unfortunate case of a miscarriage. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is pointless to have an article on someone who doesn't exist yet (and wont for 8-9 months!), who will be 5th in line to the throne. This information could be included in the Duchess of Cambridge's article without losing any encyclopaedic value. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. Gee, thanks for notifying me about trying to delete an article I created ... oh wait. This future person is obviously going to get a tonne of media attention during their lifetime, around the world ... it would be silly to delete it now and re-create it in twelve months' time or whatever. People will be looking for updates on the pregnancy, etc. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing here suggested I should have notified anyone; did I miss something? Anyway, creating an article now because "this future person" might attract attention in the future is simply too soon. The child might never be born. How morbid would it be to have an article about a miscarried embryo or foetus? This is why we don't have articles on stuff that might be notable in the future. Wikipedia contains articles about topics that are notable now. And what updates on the pregnancy can we expect? A sonogram? I doubt it. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Ivar the Boneful: There is no requirement to notify the page creator for deletion discussions(though it is suggested and the Twinkle tool does so automatically); it is expected that persons interested in the status of an article will monitor it(especially if they created it). 331dot (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The same argument took place when each of the first two kids were still gestating. The bottom line is that news of this child will continue to be published and the birth will makes world-wide news and will have a huge impact on the British economy. Once the name is announced, the name of this article can and will be changed just like the other two. So why are we having this argument? Do people not have anything better to do? Eric Cable ! Talk 18:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What more news do you expect to be published before the birth? This is what the article about the second pregnancy looked like the day before birth: 1901 characters, barely anything new added since the creation in September. The article about the third pregnancy is now 1015 characters long, meaning we can expect about two more sentences. There will not be any more announcements, sex reveals, sonograms, etc. So what news are you expecting? The article about the second pregnancy also did not mention any impact on the British economy, nor does the article about Charlotte now mention her birth had any such impact. Are you speculating the third pregnancy will be different?
  We are having this argument because the subject of the article is the pregnancy of a princess. Two sourced, meaningful sentences that belong in another article. Only two. Yet people have nothing better to do than to knock together an article about a celeb pregnancy. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I kindly ask everyone to take a look at Beyoncé#Marriage and children. It's a GA-rated article, and there is more info there about Beyoncé's pregnancies than there is about Catherine's in this article. Like Catherine's, her pregnancies made world-wide news and attracted media-attention throughout the gestation. Unlike Catherine's, announcements of Beyoncé's pregnancies apparently broke several world records. We nevertheless had enough sense not to turn that into articles. Here we have a mere announcement and congratulations, yet it is supposed to be notable enough for an article? If people here cite articles on Catherine's previous pregnancies as precedents, why not also cite restraint and common sense in dealing with Beyoncé's pregnancies? Honestly, I find it sad we've come to debating this. Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, as with the couple's second child, this unborn child became notable just as soon as the pregnancy was announced. So as keeping this article involves no apparent policy contraventions, there are no apparent sound policy-based reasons to delete it. Any doubt as to whether this unborn child is already notable can be quickly dispelled by looking at world coverage of the announcement. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The announcement of Beyoncé's pregnancy received such a world coverage that it entered Guinness World Records. Much more notable than this gestation, apparently. Surtsicna (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beyoncé's pregnancy has no relevance in this discussion. The topic of the article here in question has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so per WP:GNG it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Catherine's previous pregnancies are being invoked as precedents. Why can't I bring up Beyoncé's pregnancy, which received far more coverage and even ended up in Guinness World Records? Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think we need actually precedents to see that we have a notable topic here, we have adequate significant worldwide coverage of the topic to satisy WP:GNG. It is informative though to note that the same happened last time too. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree with your premise, however. What's covered is the announcement. Nothing else. The article consists of two sensible, sourced sentences, and judging by the coverage of the previous pregnancy, it's not likely to contain anything else. Beyoncé's announcement was covered far more, and it's informative to note that we did not make an article out of it. Double standards, obviously, and worth considering. Surtsicna (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep - rare exception of notability before birth. This child will be in the succession order for the throne and the world wide coverage of the announcement of the pregnancy can only be described as international on a large scale. I guess WP:GNG is appropriate as well.BabbaQ (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited (no, not even for "royal families" as a general rule, especially when the child is utterly unlikely to ever inherit any throne; there are literally thousands of minor members of royal families around the world who will never rule anywhere), and especially not for someone who isn't even born and thus doesn't even exist. --Tataral (talk) 03:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how the baby does not exist when it has been confirmed by the couple that Kate is pregnant. Who is media and the Royal family talking about then? Is it nothing inside Kates belly? Do you know something I don't? That reasoning of yours is flawed. By the way, do you have a crystal ball to see if this baby is going to inherit the throne or not.BabbaQ (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK a person comes into existence at birth, as Surtsicna noted. An embryo/fetus isn't a person (especially not in the early stages of a pregnancy, at a point where the mother could still choose to abort the pregnancy for example). Other than that, what on earth has this non-person (embryo/fetus) done to be independently WP:NOTABLE? Also, in the extremely unlikely event that this hypothetical future person were to come anywhere near the throne in question at some point in the future, we would write about them at that point, if it became a relevant issue – in the same way that we don't write about every newborn person in the UK in the event that they might become Prime Minister 50 years later; we write about those who actually become notable when they become notable. --Tataral (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tataral: this article isn't yet about a born person, it is currently about an expected person. And, per WP:GNG, the fact that since the announcement, this topic has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" we can presume it to be suitable for a stand-alone article. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't rely on inherited notability - there is ample and significant worldwide coverage of the topic to satisy WP:GNG in its own right - so that argument doesn't hold. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.BabbaQ (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of what? Of an announcement? That's what's in the article now. We literally have an article about an announcement. What else is covered out there that the article should contain? Surtsicna (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not an encyclopedic article about an encyclopedic topic, but a short press release about a British woman's health (that doesn't really contain much information either). Everything in this article would belong in the article about the woman. --Tataral (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep– Is this sort of thing going to happen for every child that Kate has? It's already been established by the precedent of previous AfDs that an article on an unborn child of Prince William is notable.Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? There are no "previous AfDs" to serve as precedent for keeping this. The consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge was to delete the Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge! Besides, this article is not about a child. Take a look at it; it's about a press release. Surtsicna (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Surtsicna: this article is not about a "press release", it is about an, as yet, unborn child, the announcement of which received significant worldwide coverage. And BTW, why didn't you also mention the deletion debate for child number two, raised by yourself on the date that pregnancy was announced? If you recall, it resulted in a "keep". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @DeFacto: Because Chessrat mentioned "previous AfDs". As if the article about Catherine's first pregnancy hadn't been deleted following a discussion.
      If the article is not about a press release but about a child, why is there nothing in it but the press release? Where is the sourced info about the child? If there is a significant worldwide coverage and notability, why doesn't the article reflect that? Why does it, instead, consist of two sentences that are entirely about the mother? On that grounds I challenge your claim that this unborn child has received enough coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I distinctly recall being involved with the article that became Prince George of Cambridge well before he was born.If a deletion happened it did not stick for long!LE (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Surtsicna: as I see it, the topic has to satisfy WP:GNG, and as the topic is covered by countless independent, secondary reliable sources from around the world, then whether it does, or not, hinges on the subjective question as to whether those sources provide "significant coverage". My view is clearly that they do, as they provide everything we could possibly expect to know at this stage. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @DeFacto: But what is the topic? If it's a child, why are none of the countless, secondary reliable sources cited in the article to support anything about the child? If a child is the topic, why is the entire article about a press release? Surtsicna (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Surtsicna: the topic is the third child, currently unborn, and almost certain to become a named person. WP:VER doesn't specify either an upper or lower limit for the number of sources quoted, just that they are available, although there do seem to be four used in the article at the moment. I see an article about the third child, and can't see even a mention of any press release. The article will presumably grow if enthusiastic editors gets involved, but even as a stub it complies with all Wikipedia core article policies as far as I can tell. If you disagree, please explain which policies you think are contravened. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        You see a title that suggests that the article is about a child. The content is not about any child, however. If you truly see an article about a child, I must say you are imagining it because the article contains no basic biographical information, nothing that indicates that it's about a child, a human, a person. By law, it isn't even any of those things, but that's another matter. You do not see any mention of a press release, but you can see an announcement mentioned three times, once in all three sourced sentences and more often than the child itself. That in itself should be a red flag, but if you want me to name policies which this contravenes, I can easily start with WP:Article titles. The content of this article simply does not match its title. And if the article is indeed supposed to be a child, then it fails the entire MOS:OPENPARA. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Surtsicna: the title will evolve along with the content and compliance with MOS guidelines usually improves as more visitors get involved with improvements. I'm not sure that any of those are strong enough reasons to delete this stub though, especially as we know this topic will have legs. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already explained that this article will not grow. I cited the example of the article about Catherine's previous pregnancy/pregnancy announcement. Barely anything new was added to it from its creation shortly after the announcement to the child's birth. No further information was released by the palace or the gynecologist and we were unwilling to include media speculations about names, due dates, weight put on by the expectant mother, etc. No, this article will not comply with MoS guidelines for biographies as long as it doesn't treat an existing person. It cannot possibly comply with anything in WP:OPENPARA.
        When the child actually comes into the world, the article will be entirely revamped. Nothing currently in there will remain, judging by how we handled Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 3 days before and a week after she was born. There is absolutely no continuity between what the article looked like before and what the article looked like after the birth. Why? Because the article went from being about a pregnancy [announcement], part of another person's biography, to being an article about a new person, a biography. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: this isn't yet a biography, it is about an unborn child. As a stub, it clearly won't conform with all the ideal style characteristics as recommended in the MoS guidelines you mention. None of what you say is reason for deletion per the WP:DEL policy. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, an unborn child. I.e. a pregnancy, and information about pregnancies of notable women belong to the article about said notable woman. --Marbe166 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marbe166: no, an unborn child is not a pregnancy. If it were, I might agree with you. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you resorting to arguing semantics already? How can this article (or anything else!) be about an unborn child if it's not about a pregnancy or vice-versa? Surtsicna (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Surtsicna: it's not semantics. As Marbe166 stated, the pregnancy is a state of the mother-to-be, however this article is (until birth) about an unborn child, which is a state of the child (not the mother) prior to birth - so this content is in the correct place - in a new article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have been ignoring this plain and obvious fact all along: this article is not about any child. Its title suggests it is, but its content makes it clear it is not. Only 1 of the article's 5 sentences has "the child" as its grammatical subject (and it is the unsourced one). Only 3 out of 5 mention this child at all. The pregnancy announcement is mentioned more often than the "third child" itself. So tell me, please, what makes you think this article is about a child and not about a woman's pregnancy? Surtsicna (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        As I've said (more than once) this stub is the start of an article to be about an unborn child. After the child is born it will be about the child. Clearly if it was to be about nothing more than a pregnancy, it could be added to the mother-to-be's article. Can I respectfully suggest that as it's obvious the article needs improvement, that we devote our energies to improving it, rather than wasting it in this futile tussle - as we all know that even if it is deleted, this article will bw back again. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        And I've said more than once, and even proven citing the previous pregnancy article, that this stub will never be more than a stub. We will not get any more information from the palace. We will hear nothing from the expectant mother's gynecologist. The article about the previous pregnancy barely expanded from the announcement to the birth. It remained a stub, a few sentences about a pregnancy, until the child's birth, when it finally became a proper, sensible article. Why do you expect this one to be any different? Surtsicna (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Northernhenge (talk) 22:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to elaborate. Otherwise null and void.BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong, they clearly said they endorsed Surtsicna's argument above. That's quite sufficient and comments don't become "null and void" because BabbaQ disagrees with them. --Tataral (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whatever the case, I too would like to hear more of Northernhenge's opinion on the matter. Surtsicna (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll quote from the nomination "This pregnancy does not involve "the world's most famous baby" or a future monarch. Sources merely reporting the palace announcement of the pregnancy do not indicate notability of the pregnancy." I see no evidence that the pregnancy, in itself, is going to change anything. The article about the child should be created when the child is born. There is no need for an article about a pregnancy unless, as a pregnancy, it becomes notable in itself for some reason. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Northernhenge: I think you're confusing pregnancy with unborn baby. Details about the former belong in the mother's article, but the latter topic is a valid candidate for a new article if, as in this case, notability is clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - BabbaQ (talk · contribs), I expect you're thinking of WP:DISCUSSAFD "The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments." However my recommendation was based on the nominator's arguments so I don't think I've contravened the guidelines. If I have, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a bio article about a zygote, is a tad premature. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How?BabbaQ (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because it doesn't contain (and cannot contain) any bio information, I suppose. Surtsicna (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @GoodDay: surely that would only be true if the zygote was no already notable per WP:GNG - or is there another WP policy that would support your assertion even with notability established? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see this bio article as necessary, until the Duchess of Cambridge has the child. As a compromise, this article could be re-directed to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete far too soon. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Far too many Drive-by Delete !votes here. And the extended rationales are still of the character IDONTLIKEIT. Or too soon, without further explanation. BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nobody here said they didn't like the article and nobody merely voted. Since there exists a frequently cited essay on notability called Wikipedia:Too soon, saying "too soon" obviously refers to precisely that, the idea that "sometimes it's simply just too soon for some topics to have an article". I do not see why you would misrepresent other users' arguments like that, especially since the too soon essay was linked early on. Surtsicna (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. this is a violation of NOT TABLOID. There is no possibility of any significant content until the child is born. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. While members of royal families are inherently notable, a miscarriage would not be; it's WP:TOOSOON to have this article. I oppose a redirect as the title is not a plausible search term; Catherine,_Duchess_of_Cambridge#Motherhood_and_children would be a plausible redirect target if it were. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Far WP:TOOSOON. I pray for a healthy pregnancy but there is no guarantee that this child will even be born. All we have here for the time being is tabloid news coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because I really procedural oppose. The obvious ATD is a merge, which is what I proposed on the talk page some time ago. No crystal ball necessary, msot babies survive birth in this day and age.L3X1 (distænt write) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content into the article on the Duchess of Cambridge. bd2412 T 03:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the current standings being 5-8 in support of deletion, after examining this discussion carefully, I have concluded that there is not yet a solid consensus. More participation will be welcomed, and I feel that this discussion will attract a lot of attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. KMF (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Catherine's page until the child is born. This is a notable topic, but about her pregnancy and not the unborn child itself. It can be covered on her page until the child is born. 331dot (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Catherine's article. This is a difficult one. On one hand the child will be notable when they are born. On the other hand they may never be born because of any number of unforeseen events. On yet another hand none of the sources actually cover the unborn child (and how could they? The fetus is roughly the size of a lemon). Given these conditions, I think following WP:BLP1E is our best bet because 1) RS only cover this fetus in the context of Catherine being pregnant. 2) "Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge" is likely to remain a low-profile individual. (N.b. The child will be notable under the name they are given, not this pseudo-title). 3) Catherine's third pregnancy is likely to not be significant on its own. As such, the event of the pregnancy should be covered within Catherine's article, and then split off (at the very earliest) when we have a name for the child. menaechmi (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it might not be born. They may never have a third child.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speculative child (pregnancy may end in miscarriage, etc. - in which case this will clearly be non-notable standalong) - per WP:BALL. Does not meet notability guidelines. Writing about the pregnancy should be done at the mother (and possibly father). If and when the child is born, and assuming he/she meets GNG (likely), then we should create an article (which will probably be created immediately, though no harm to Wikipedia will be done if we wait until the sixth birthday or so - but it's a lost cause).Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! the other two children of this couple each had sustained prenatal articles--only if there is a miscarriage is deletion warranted.If born this child is guaranteed an article for life so no reason to postpone the inevitable.LE (talk) 02:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not temporary. If the embryo is notable now, then it would stay notable even in the case of a miscarriage. If the embryo is not notable now, as we believe it isn't, it doesn't warrant an article. Whether or not other "prenatal articles" existed is irrelevant; the first embryo article was recreated without consensus after the community decided it should be deleted, and the second never made it past a few lines about the mother's pregnancy announcement. Surtsicna (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news coverage about the pregnancy clearly pushes the article topic above WP:GNG. WP:BALL does not apply here, given that the pregnancy, and various facts related to it (e.g. place in succession) are not unverified speculation, but well-sourced statements. The title may not be the best, since the "child" does not yet exist, but the pregnancy certainly does, and that's notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So you suggest a title such as Third pregnancy of the Duchess of Cambridge? That would at least be fair (i.e. not deceitful) to the readers but it begs some questions. For one, if the article is about a notable pregnancy and not about a child, should we not retain the pregnancy article after the child is born and create a new article for the child? Past examples show that, no matter how notable people argued the pregnancy to be, everything about it was deleted once the child was born and nobody cared about the pregnancy anymore.[42][43] So are Catherine's pregnancies encyclopedically notable or are they just news? Yes, Catherine's pregnancy is in the news, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If the plan is to delete all of this in a few months, why not delete/merge it now? Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The plan,obviously,is to develop the article into one about a live infant once the pregnancy comes to term,with the article aborted if it does not.I felt the List of British monarchy records was incorrect when it treated Queen Anne's 17 mostly-miscarried/stillborn pregnancies as giving her the most "children" of a queen regnant,but just as you don't count your chickens before they're hatched you don't discount your eggs before they're cracked.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that is obviously the plan. That means, however, that the present topic of the article (i.e. Catherine's third pregnancy) is not notable, since everything written about it now will be discarded once the pregnancy ends. If her illness and cancelled engagements were deserving of an article now, they would be notable in a year as well. But they are not and will not be. In other words, WP:NOTNEWS. Surtsicna (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Both articles of the couple's current children begin the bios with information on the pregnancy announcement.12.144.5.2 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is what the article about Catherine's second pregnancy looked like few days before the childbirth. This is the same article two weeks after the childbirth. The morning sickness, cancelled engagements, good wishes and similar nonsense gone and nobody batted an eye. So what's your point? That this article should be reduced to the one sentence about the announcement, as that's the only notable part? Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS's Who's who. & WP:RECENTISM. All references were published on 4 Sept only. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, per WP:NOT#NEWS. I know that that policy is routinely ignored by many editors in AfD discussions, but if it is to be ignored then a proper discussion should take place at WT:NOT to deprecate it rather than continue with the current situation where people repeat the "it got into loads of newspapers so we must have an article about it" nonsense. News reports, by any definition in the real world outside Wikipedia, are primary sources, so not sufficient to be the basis of encyclopedia articles. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Mfarazbaig made a good point about all references being published on 4 September only. That's precisely what makes this pure news. There is no on-going interest in the pregnancy. (There is no scholarly interest in it whatsoever, as far as I can tell.) She is pregnant, and that's it. I have shown that nothing new will be added - until the day this is all deleted anyway and replaced with more sensible content. I have also started to wonder if this is going to be relisted until the estimated date of confinement. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that was the day of the announcement, but there have also been various related items and stories in the media most days since. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - And why are these various related items and stories in the media not in the article? Is there any encyclopedic value in them? Surtsicna (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason that none of them are in the article is that no-one has kept the article up to date. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Or could it be that none of the "related items and stories" belong to an encyclopedia by any stretch of imagination? The article about a child was created the day it was announced that an embryo was growing inside a woman's uterus; that certainly dispels the notion that there are no people keeping royalty articles up to date. Please prove me wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles are often enthusiastically created as soon as news breaks, but it isn't uncommon for them then to become out of date as the topic develops. That doesn't mean there's nothing worth adding, just that no-one has added it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you stating that new information worthy of addition to this article is still appearing? Has the expectant mother or her gynecologist spoken out about the subject of the article (the pregnancy, the embryo, whatever)? Can you give us some examples? Surtsicna (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Several more pieces of information have now been added, and I'm sure there is more to come. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything that you have added is utter drivel: nothing like what belongs in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Prince William said they were not getting much sleep? Prince Harry gave thumbs up? Trending hashtags and bookies? Silly home birth speculations by infamous tabloids? I am not even complaining, as I have been arguing from the beginning that the topic and the content are not encyclopedic and this just emphasized that. Pure WP:NEWS, nonsense that will be deleted as soon as there actually is something to write about. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The subject is receiving almost daily cover, across the spectrum of media markets. That is almost unprecedented for an as yet unborn child. That goes to show just how notable the subject is and how much it is going to be covered. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Catherine's dietary habits receive daily cover too. You have shown what kind of publications cover this. Notorious tabloids, including (but not limited to) Daily Mirror and Daily Express. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Prince Harry's thumbs up is not enduring notability. Neither is the rest of that junk. Surtsicna (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to the article on the mother until the child is born. There is very little we can say about the child at present and that will likely remain the case until it is born. If the pregnancy doesn't end in a miscarriage then the child will receive huge media coverage throughout his or her life and we can certainly have an article on him/her then, but if the pregnancy does end in miscarriage then I doubt we will maintain a standalone article at all. Hut 8.5 14:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe this project needs something like the WP:TPHL for babies, "If the name and gender of a future birth are not yet known, the unborn child is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia" -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have intended that as a joke, but it doesn't sound half bad! Surtsicna (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - A wise idea - how many BLPs contain information about the mother's pregnancy? --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't forget: this isn't a BLP, yet. Currently it's an article about an unborn baby. And because of the unprecedented amount of world media attention that this unborn child has received since the announcement, is a valid candidate for a new article in it's own right as notability is very clear. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - The WP:BLP policy clearly applies here, the living person being the Duchess of Cambridge. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure we have to comply with WP:BLP for information in this article about the Duke or the Duchess, or anyone else - but this article is specifically about an, as yet, unborn child, and not anyone else. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you joking? Where is the basic biographical information about the "third child"? The article is entirely about a woman's health. You could title it "2017 London earthquake" but its content would still show it's about a woman's health. Surtsicna (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I'm emphatically not joking. The article is clearly about the unborn child and the background to, impact of (including the effect on the mother's health), and reactions to, the existence of the unborn baby since the announcement. -- DeFacto (talk). 15:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. There is religious, philosophical, scientific and even political disagreement about if and when an unborn child becomes a living person in its own right, but pretty well everyone agrees that an unborn child is either a living person or part of its mother, who is a living person. Either way this is an article about a living person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The article is without doubt currently about the unborn child and will surely morph into an article about a born child if and when the child is born. I'm not sure either when WP:BLP applies to the unborn child, but it is of no consequence as the subject (currently unborn) satisfies WP:GNG anyway. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        So are you retracting your claim, which kicked off this whole subthread, that this isn't a WP:BLP? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Let me clarify what I meant there: it is that this isn't the classic biography of a living person - because the subject "person" is, as yet, unborn. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Let us do a count then. The purported subject of the article (the "third child") is mentioned 11 times; it is the grammatical subject of 5 sentences. The parents are mentioned c. 20 times; they are the grammatical subject(s) of 12 sentences. In what universe does that mean the article is about the unborn child rather than about the parents? Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @Surtsicna: the article is about the unborn child, and I cannot understand why you are doubting that. Clearly the parents, particularly the mother, are intimately involved in everything that involves the child, and that will remain the case for a long time after the child is born too. But that doesn't change the fact that the primary subject of the article is the child - the article wouldn't exist if the child didn't exist. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete The child doesn't exist. The fetus does. The child doesn't, in the eyes of the law, start to exist until the day it is born. Until then it is a part of its mother and any information about it can be placed in the article(s) of the parents. --Marbe166 (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have given you the numbers which show that the article is primarily (or entirely) about the parents, so of course I doubt unsubstantiated assertions that it is about something else. Surtsicna (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:HOAX. Just a simple WP:BEFORE D1 using the first two links on Google shows that this is a fake title. The first link uses future tense for the current pregnancy, and the second link states, "Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge (1833-1897) was the third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge". Editors have also testified that there is no intention that the current material is intended to remain in the encyclopedia, which in policy terms is both unencyclopedic and notnewspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete we should at least wait until after someone is born to create an article on someone. miscarriages can and do happen, and if this child dies before birth they will be non-notable. This is not to say we need an article when the child is born, but we clearly do not need an article at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we actually have the two notable sentences on the subject of this unborn child (whose sex seems not yet known) in the article on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. Having a seperate article on this person should at least wait until he/she can survive in some way seperate from his/her mother, and probably longer than that. Not every member of a royal family is default notable. Do we have articles on all living descendants of Elizabeth II? Georige V? at what point does it stop?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I lost track of where the odd comment "most babies survive birth in this day and age" was. If the pregnancy is in as early a stage as some suggest, than no, in Russia the majoirty of babies die before birth. Actually, most conceptions results in spontaneous abortions (miscarriages, specifically very early term ones), but this pregnancy is almost certainly beyond that point. However miscariages up to time of birth, and still-births are still occurances, maybe not at levels seen in the 19th-century and earlier, but they do occur. At least in the US maternal mortality is by some measures higher than what is experienced for soldiers in a modern war zone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject to more than enough coverage, with further development a certainty. While a “merge and redirect” to mother is justifiable (is it the mother’s pregnancy or the baby’s gestation?), a separate article at this stage has the advantage of cleaner article histories. The pregnancy stuff belongs in the early history of the child’s article, not lost in the long history of the mother’s. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll start with what I think is most important here, that is, notability is not inherited. This is an article about an unborn child, it's not an arguable position to say that the non-person (as yet) is notable. As it is, there isn't a guideline for dealing with the notability of people who are considered royalty, and, there is even less of that for a person who hasn't been born yet. In that regard I have to go with the most basic criteria available; People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. In this case, the subject of the article comprehensively fails all of the above. The person has not received any coverage independent of it's parents, the Queen, or any other persons, and, the pregnancy itself is the subject of the sources and not the child. Furthermore, WP:NOTNEWS, exists for the very reason this article does. This entire article is stitched together by minor press releases. I mean for god's sake; a) Early media speculations were that the baby will be born at St Mary's Hospital, London, were the couple's other two children were born. <- The media engages in WP:CRYSTALBALL big woop. b) On 7 September 2017, Prince George, the couple's oldest child, started school. Because of severe morning sickness the Duchess was unable to accompany George, who arrived at school holding just his father's hand <- random WP:TRIVIAL fact that has naught to do with the supposed subject of the article. and c) On the day of the announcement, bookmakers started taking bets on the baby's name. Alice and Victoria emerged as favourites <- are you serious? this is plain indiscriminately collected unencyclopaedic material. Take away all of the garbage from the actual article and you are left with no more than is present in the lede; The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are expecting their third child. Kensington Palace made the announcement on 4 September 2017 and the baby is thought to be due in March or April 2018. I don't want to say WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, but, there is naught in the article or in the sources presented to suggest that the subject is notable. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:17, 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 delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Huda

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

Non-notable politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article subject has not accrued the significant local coverage needed to be considered notable, as the only claim of signifigance the subject has is that he was elected alongside the first Australian Hijabi Councillor. SamHolt6 (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 07:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteKeep. Meets WP:GNG, failing WP:POLITICIAN is not a reason for deletion when the subject meets GNG. only just meets GNG, not to sure about this Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the status of Canterbury-Bankstown Council, I see no reason to have a separate page on him. I removed a reference about Nadia Saleh^[1], Power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "My Salaam - Nadia Saleh is Australia's first elected hijabi councillor". mysalaam.com. Retrieved September 14, 2017.

Delete Local politician with a couple trivial mentions in The Daily Telegraph, a passing mention in MySalaam, and a short piece on a dodgy-looking WordPress-powered website. Searches of the usual "find sources" types found nothing more significant. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the GNG. The sources used are either unreliable, or not independent (the Daily Tele article merely republishes the candidates' own responses to a questionnaire). Kb.au (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A politician holding office. Article is a stub but should be kept and possible expanded.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment INDIAN REVERTER is a new account whose posting history is almost entirely "Keep" submissions to AfDs. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 23:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liza Koshy (actress)

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

This article subject is not notable. An article about this subject has been deleted about nine different times under various names, the last being in April 2017. See here: [44] The article includes various unreliable references including IMDB, facebook, instagram, famous birthdays, bustle and youtube. It is said she will be on two shows starting in October 2017. (In the future) Those two items look to be the main additions to the last deleted article, plus one minor web award. Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC) Antonioatrylia (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the last deletion discussion, Koshy
- Continues her starring role in season 2 of the Hulu original TV series Freakish, after the series' award-winning success last year. Season 2 will be released in October 2017.
- She recently received a recurring MTV hosting gig on the series reboot of Total Request Live.
- Appeared as a recurring character in season 2 of the web series Escape the Night.
- She played a role in the feature film Boo! A Madea Halloween, among other film appearances.
- Her main YouTube channel is one of the most popular YouTube channels (also one of the fastest-growing in history), with more than 11 million subscribers to date, and even her 2nd YouTube channel is extremely popular, approaching 5 million.
- Her Instagram following is also fast-growing, with over 13 million subscribers to date.
- Her social media penetration is approximately 45 million followers across all platforms.
A Google News search shows 8,320 results, including articles by The Los Angeles Times, Variety, Entertainment Weekly, Teen Vogue and The Hollywood Reporter, among other entertainment industry news sources. These WP:RSs are now referenced appropriately in the article, *and* the article has been re-written for encyclopedic tone and is better organized than when it was previously deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Info: At Liza Koshy is a deleted article about her, with 349 edits, dated from 23:11, 14 February 2016 to 11:00, 25 April 2017. It has been deleted several times, and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy; but Talk:Liza Koshy says "This person now has sufficient notability due to TV acting and hosting appearances and is, in addition, one of the fastest-rising social media personalities, with social media penetration of more than 30 million followers. All of this can be referenced by WP:RSs. Would an admin please unfreeze the page? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)". Liza Koshy (actress)'s history starts at 19:32, 6 January 2017, so the two pages are WP:Parallel histories and so cannot be completely history-merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not sure why several entertainment press mentions and starring in a Hulu show is considered non-notable. The article is certainly as fleshed out as some for minor Canadian actors I've seen and no one is trying to delete those, so this feels like a bias against people who started on YouTube or social media. I'd be the first to jump in line to say "delete" if this person was only present in that medium and solely a self-promoter but that is obviously not the case here. She has held widely-recognized show business-related jobs that are documented by reliable sources. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG (articles in Variety and Hollywood Reporter are a good pointer), as well as broader media. - SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the acting and hosting credits shown in her article, as well as her unusually fast-growing social media interest and her web acting awards, I think she is clearly notable. Jack1956 (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, for all the reasons stated above. Somambulant1 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I strongly urge Antonioatrylia to reconsider this nomination. My reasons for reinstating this article are plainly detailed on the talk page for Talk:Liza_Koshy_(actress)#History_and_notability and I will excerpt them here now for ease of use.

A prior article at Liza Koshy was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2017, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liza Koshy. Other than the nominator, it received two "delete" !votes, and one comment favoring a keep. The AfD was closed and the article was deleted on April 24. Five attempts at recreation in the 24 hours after deletion were summarily deleted.
Previous to April 2017, I can see that this article was deleted by admins 5 times in October 2016. Also, Elizabeth Koshy (actress) was deleted twice in October 2016. And Liza Koshy (entertainer) was deleted three times in April 2017 and three times in January 2017. (Note: ALL deletions except for the poorly attended AFD in April 2017 were without discussion -- and nominator's suggestion that the multiple deletions show some strong consensus is disingenuous)
I have reviewed this person's covera ge as of September 2017. I do not have access to the prior deleted content. I became aware of this article due to the fact that Hank Green tweeted today that he had worked on it. [45].
Since the last deletion in April 2017, Koshy has been named the host of a major MTV show [46] and won a teen choice award [47] among much other coverage. I think there is no doubt she is notable at this point, no matter what she was before. She probably was close to notability before, this reminds me of when I had to prove The Annoying Orange had become quite notable despite past deletions.
An additional comment- the youtube views for this person are quite amazing. Once again I see a case where mainstream press coverage was delayed compared to actual popularity among teenagers -- the same story of youth culture trends since the Beatles, really. This is why the article kept getting recreated by less experienced editors; they assumed she was notable without having a firm grasp of our notability requirements.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment One question Milowent. Why did you not publish the AFC draft for Liza Koshy in the usual manner and AFC process? Was there a problem with so many of her likely titles having been salted by admins? Instead uou just bypassed the AFC processes and unilaterally moved the draft into article space. It had been rejected by numerous editors since April 2017. I did read over the deleted article back in April. The two main additions to the current article are about her being named as the host of TRL. The source states sMTV's TRL reboot will bow Oct. 2 and feature multiple hosts including rapper-comedian DC Young Fly, Chicago radio host Erik Zachary, DJ-actress Amy Pham, TV personality Lawrence Jackson and writer-producer Tamara Dhia. Multiple hosts. The show has not yet even begun to air. The second it is a minor web award. Also, I note here there is some quick participation here, likely due to the canvassing and cross posting of this AFD at multiple editor pages, article talk pages as well as notices at appropriate WP project pages. I ask that any closing administrator will take the canvassing under consideration. Antonioatrylia (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFC is sometimes baloney, though it is a good thing for newbie editors sometimes. I have written hundreds of articles over the past 10 years and never had one deleted that I am aware of. I saw this subject was plainly notable when a friend on twitter posted about it; i also saw that the prior draft had been substantially rewritten and that bureaucracy creep had overtaken things. So I was WP:BOLD and thought the chance of an AfD was only 50/50 and that you were probably the only editor that would bring one if it happened. If you are right that the subject is not notable, consensus will go that way, and the closing administrator will judge all !votes on their merits, not numbers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please tell me this AFD is a joke ? ... If not then as per the above - Thousands of sources on Google establishing notability so meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment The statement above by Milowent, nominator's suggestion that the multiple deletions show some strong consensus is disingenuous is untrue. My exact words were An article about this subject has been deleted about nine different times under various names, the last being in April 2017. I made no suggestion of a strong consensus at any time. That untrue statement needs to be stricken. Antonioatrylia (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a court of law. We don't "strike" things. Your references to multiple past deletions of the article suggests that there is some prior strong consensus for deletion, instead of just a ton of speedy deletions and one poorly-attended AfD in April 2017. Let's just judge the article on its merits. The good thing is that this AfD will likely end the debate either way.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment People do commonly strike things out of their postings. I have seen it done many times. What you posted is not true, yet you do it again. I stand by my nomination. I would rather see a poorly attended AFD than one with many canvassed participants. Antonioatrylia (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonioatrylia, given that the article's talk page already showed the efforts of two experienced editors to revive the article, it is outrageous that you nominated the article for speedy deletion. Your bringing this AfD, while I must assume it is in good faith, is frankly puzzling. This one is not even close to the line, if you would stop and look at it rationally. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – She has enough notability to maintain an article. JE98 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple, high-quality sources. Clearly she meets WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject's roles meet WP:ENT, and sufficient coverage exists (e.g., Variety, Hollywood Reporter, LA Times) to satisfy WP:GNG. gongshow talk 01:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW. Tubefilter, LA Times, Deadline, and Variety show that notability is met. GeoffreyT2000 ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:28, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep. Per Geoffrey and his many brothers. Plenty of sources.--GRuban (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that this subject has a large number of YouTube subscribers doesn't hold much weight in establishing notability. There is a good article about this here: https://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability Donald1659 (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald1659, No-one is relying solely on YouTube subscribers, but the GNG met by coverage in Variety, Hollywood Reporter, the LA Times, Deadline and Entertainment Weekly. Her career outside YouTube is as notable as the one on the channel. I'm not a fan of YouTube stars and I've previously voted to delete those that are only visible in that medium, but this is a bit different. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the above, the extensive coverage in reliable sources and the industry recognition, I agree that this article should be kept. UWS Guy (talk) 06:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course I am sure you all know that for GNG to be met the subject needs to receive significant coverage in references deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards. Many of the multitude of sources here certainly do not have significant coverage of Liza Koshy. For instance, look at the 4 or 5 references listed in Variety. A reliable source no doubt. One article is a list of finalists for the upcoming Shorty awards. Koshy has a brief mention with her name once on a list of finalists. Second is an article about the show Freakish. Article is about the show not LK. She has brief mention explaining her role the show. Thirdly there is another article about YouTube red. Several different people have brief mention including LK in the piece. Fourth is one with a review of Freakish again with only a brief mention of LK. Fifth is another list from the Teen Choice awards where a brief mention of LK in a category of nominees and a winner of a minor award. That is just Variety. Most of the other references are brief mentions. This subject does not pass WP:GNG. Did everyone here that kept parrotting passes GNG passes GNG actually read through and check each of the plentiful references? I did. Some editors who may not have, should really do so now, and be really well informed. You may shocked by what you find. Donald1659 (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, and I'm sure many (most? all?) others did too. Please WP:AGF about what others have done in regard to their decision making process. Several smaller references to a person build up incrementally to the point an individual passes GNG. We have a case here where the several references all build up to a position of passing GNG through those many, many references. Yes, she passes GNG not by virtue of being a YouTube presence, but that and her acting career too. - SchroCat (talk) 08:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What Donald writes above is substantially misleading: the article cites numerous sources that are entirely about Koshy or contain substantial discussions of Koshy. One example is from Variety: "Liza Koshy Signs With AwesomenessTV Network". Another source: "Social Media Superstar Liza Koshy Signs First-Look Development Deal with MTV". Here is The Hollywood Reporter: "MTV's 'TRL' Enlists Social Media Star Liza Koshy as Host" (see also this). Los Angeles Times: "L.A.-based company Giving Keys taps YouTube personality Liza Koshy...". Teen Vogue's write up about her, though brief, is glowing. Quartz magazine: "The biggest star on the new “Total Request Live” might just be its host from YouTube". Deadline.com: "MTV Sets YouTube Star Liza Koshy To Co-Host ‘TRL’ Revival Under First-Look Overall Deal". Also see "YouTube Megastar Liza Koshy Hits 10 Million Subscribers In Just Two Years" and "Liza Koshy To Co-Host ‘TRL’ Reboot As Part Of Overall Deal With MTV". Other references are cited to verify specific facts, so of course they are not primarily about the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I only asked a question. I made no accusations. I always show AGF. Please direct me to the policy you speak of that says it is OK to have mostly brief mentions if there are quite a few. No significant coverage needed? I would really like to read over that part of the policy if you have time to put a link. Thanks. Donald1659 (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald1659: see WP:BASIC. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is misleading is to change your posting here after it was replied to. And for the purpose of casting an aspersion at me by adding in "What Donald writes above is substantially misleading".

You need to comment on content not the contributors.

Something else that is quite misleading is the ongoing reference padding with brief mentions, names on lists and announcements and PR propaganda in order to attempt to make a subject appear to have notabilty when there is none. This article is beginning to be quite suspect and borders on promotionalism. Perhaps there is a problem with COI here. Who knows? Donald1659 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im really, really struggling to parse "I always show AGF" with accusations of COI editing. I think, to quote something else you've written, you should "comment on content not the contributors". Personal attacks, even against an unnamed suspects, have no place in this discussion.

I'm also struggling to comprehend how all those articles about Koshy from reliable sources, many of which are about her, rather than just passing references, do not add up to GNG. Never mind, there are enough people who agree that's the sources weigh up to GNG, that we need drag thatquestion out no longer. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made no accusations nor any personal attack. I was just putting up ideas for discussion. BTW, we're you able to find a link to the "tons of brief mentions leaves no need for significant coverage" policy? Donald1659 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've made a sear against people who have worked on the article, which is very poor. Please do not quote things people have never said. If you want to use quote marks, quote the actual text. If you want to make things up, don't dress it up as a quote - it is something else misleading. I'm going to drop out of this now, there is littlesmileyone point in discussing your questionable approach, and when nearly everyone else also sees the GNG, I'm happy that my judgement that this passes the threshold is in line with others. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make things up huh? Verbatim with a diff. [48] Still no link for the pretend policy? I thought not! Donald1659 (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eerrrmmm... Sure you got the right link there? It certainly does not link to the "tons of brief mentions leaves no need for significant coverage" you claim I have written. Please try to be honest when dealing with other people. (And to cover your much repeated point about sources, when there are several references that back up more heavy-weight references (as is obviously the case here) GNG is obviously satisfied. Do youreally need a link for that? - SchroCat (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you have not ever seen an idiomatic phrase contained in quotes. I never said I was quoting you. You made a mistake with your understanding. I am always honest. Take your own advice. Donald1659 (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Balls. Quote marks are for quotes, not for things you like to make up. If you wish to 'loosely translate' something into a misleading statement, don't disguise it as a quote, use 'single quote marks', and make it clear you are not quoting. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so now you admit there is no policy like that. I was wondering why you are so hostile, so I took a look at your block log. Five or six blocks for varied harassment, personal attacks, and even sock puppets. You are still well skilled in the personal attack department. I understand now. Good morning. Donald1659 (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again... "You need to comment on content not the contributors". I'm really not sure what my block log has to do with you being unable to understand the measure of GNG, but your passive-aggressive approach really is rather distasteful - (particularly as within your sub-450 edits, you've got no idea on how to 'read' such a log: once you've been here a little while and actually find out what you're talking about, you'll see how many of those were closed quickly because the admin erred in judgement (not that is anything to do with this and fuck knows why I have to explain this to someone like you) - SchroCat (talk) 11:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good... canvassing - and here. Nice. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, folks, please? I don't know why the heat over a fairly well settled question. There is no chance of this closing as other than a Keep, the support is overwhelming. We don't have to kill each other over this. --GRuban (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The notability of the subject seems to me to be thoroughly established by WP standards, and to be honest I can't quite work out from the claims set about above why a couple of editors are so energetically, and not perhaps all that emolliently, pressing a contrary point of view. Tim riley talk 18:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lots of canvassing going on here, with Hank Green tweeting about the topic and everything. Sources are good, though. No reason to delete if there are so many sources about someone. She even won a pretty decent number of awards. Subscriber count is irrelevant, of course, but we don't have somekind of anti-Youtube bias going on on Wikipedia, do we? Basically a WP:SNOW keep right here. ~Mable (chat) 18:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: I have removed a series of "this editor was canvassed" tags from this AfD page because the template was used inappropriately. Several of the editors whose comments were tagged are among the main editors of the subject article, and would have been aware of the AfD from the notice on the article without any reason to believe they were canvassed. While general comments about outside publicity or unbalanced canvassing for an AfD may be appropriate, a specific editor's comment should not be tagged unless there is a specific reason to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another procedural comment - to expand upon this, the second parameter of {{canvassed}} is used for "evidence", i.e. the diff where they were canvassed. For the purposes of this rather contentious AFD, canvassing templates must have this evidence. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in fact, WP:snowball. What can't people get about: she. is. notable.? Antonio Tony X Martin (what what? 13:17, 20 September, 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 16:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infernus (band)

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

Fails WP:BAND. A7 declined on grounds of article age. DrStrauss talk 15:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 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) 15:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 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) 04:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People are so interested in this discussion... (delete per nom) Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any suitable sources, notability was questioned in 2009 (per discussion on the talk page). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:17, 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) 19:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gode family

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

Not a notable family. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 14:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 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) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so far only one person seems notable and not anyone else in the family. [[WP:BIOFAMILY] says "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable. See also § Invalid criteria." This family would fail criteria just because one person is notable. Capitals00 (talk) 05:56, 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 redirect to Philip Powers. ansh 666 18:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1M1 Records

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

The PROD was removed but the issue remains the same. An editor added sources; however, after an investigation into them, one will uncover passing mentions: no significant coverage. There is an attempt to associate them with awards won by the artists for album work but that is both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTINHERITED. Once we cross out all the sources that have these issues, all we are left with is the label's website -- a WP:PRIMARY. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philip Powers, co-founder and main record producer for the label. I dePRODed the article after providing sufficient references to show the label does exist and does release soundtracks for archival film scores. If coverage from the refs is deemed to be not significant enough for a stand-alone article then a redirect to Powers' article will allow a subsection on his label to be created.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:32, 26 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, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect name only to the article on the founder, Philip Powers. Not independently notable, and no need to preserve article history, which is promotional spam anyway. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 11 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) 04:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, upon consideration, to Philip Powers as a valid search term per WP:ATD-R. This also leaves the possibility of a selective merge open, which could be performed to enhance the redirect target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, without merge, to Philip Powers per K.e.coffman. Ifnord (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to In Death and disambiguate. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 06:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roarke

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

nn fictional character, no RS Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make into disambig- there are enough real people named Roarke that this title is plausible as a disambig. Obviously the current content is unsuitable for the encyclopedia. If it seems likely that people will edit war to restore the fictional content, deleting first is an option. Reyk _YO! 07:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into In Death and replace with disambiguation. The article on the series contains almost nothing but a list of books, and it's entirely reasonable to expect that the two characters who are the central figures and who tie the whole thing together (the other being Eve Dallas) should be principally described there. And the comment above is right: there are a lot of Roarkes—Mr. Roarke is surely better known. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:05, 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) 04:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate I am surprised this slightly promo article is filling such a useful disamig spot. Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) - 07:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into In Death and replace with disambiguation seems like the most appropriate course of action in this case. Aoba47 (talk) 15:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raid (2018 film)

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

See film notability guidelines. The guidelines state that films that are still in principal photography are only notable if the production is itself notable. Neither the references nor a Google search indicate in-depth coverage of production.

Start of principal photography is a necessary condition to film notability, not a sufficient condition. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator's statements are true but the three articles in two newspapers discuss the film directly. Keep, because the starring roles feature Wikipedia-notable actors, and further coverage is to be expected. Revisit one week after release. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Has enough references to support notability. Would revisit later based on whether film is actually completed and released. Shelbystripes (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't get the nominator's view !!! The reference clearly state that the principal photography of the film has started. There is no point in nominating for deletion of this article. I further included more references about the commencement of photography. NIKE 01 (talk)
Keep With the added references this article passes WP:GNG and shows notability. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pneuron

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH; article is promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CORPDEPTH states "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." A majority of of the sources provide a level of attention that extends well beyond a routine announcement. The Huffington Post piece is a full profile. Forrester Research is a giant in their field. App Developer Magazine is a profile as well. Add to all the above a piece from Tech News World [49] that isn't cited in the article, and I think clearly Pneuron meets WP:CORPDEPTH. If the piece feels promotional in nature, that's easily fixed with an edit, as there is obviously enough useful information about the company to merit inclusion and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. ScooterSponson (talk) 02:37, 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 03:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications of notability for this company that announced at the end of August that it was ceasing operations. Article is entirely promotional and fails WP:SPIP. The Huff Post article appears to be the source of some of the text here and as such, this article is a copy violation. Not only that but much of that article, in turn, appears to use quotes from the website (available on the wayback machine) as inspiration. There is no independent opinion or analysis provided by the journalist on the company, just a summary of the marketing information already available on the website. It therefore also fails WP:ORGIND. The forrester.com report is not freely accessible and therefore I cannot comment on that. But typically, I would be inclined to allow analyst reports as meeting the criteria for establishing notability although I'm aware other editors are not so inclined. appdevelopermagazine.com article is typical churnalism and relies exclusively on information provided by the company complete with a photo of the CEO and a list of "Key Features". If fails as a reference for establishing notability since it is not "intellectually independent" and provides no independent opinion or analysis. Finally, your technewsworld.com article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH since it is more a mention-in-passing with no details on the company. The article itself even states "This is less about Pneuron than about the need to step back from time to time and check whether we are full of crap" since the article is really discussing "Big Data" problems in general. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don'tthink it's notable, but this must be removed in any case. It's a pure advertisement for the company. That it happens to be for a company that is going out of business doesn't make it less of an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 17 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Book (Rebus)

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

Redirect to Rebus (TV series). This unsourced articled does not establish notability and contains information about the tv episode that is adequately summarized in the article about the tv series. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 12:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages to be redirected to the same target for the same reason:

Well, I would oppose this, obviously; the reason I set these pages up in the first place was because I thought they were useful additions to the project.

The rationale for deletion is that the article “does not establish notability” and that the content is “adequately summarized” in the series article.

First, the notability guideline for television says that “an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience” The article already stated that it was made for STV when it was tagged for this, so it already met this requirement. All these episodes have been shown numerous times by STV [50], and ITV in England (on a continuous loop, it seemed, a few years ago), and more recently on Drama [51] , as well as overseas.[52]

Second, that they are adequately summarized in the series article. Well, I would expect that; the purpose of having episode pages is to extend the information on them beyond a summary, which they did when they were written. If the series page has more information now, the remedy would be to expand and improve the episode pages, not collapse them back down to the summaries. I would suggest that would be a better course of action, and also to create pages on the episodes that don't yet have them. Swanny18 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've just deleted the notability tag from the Black Books (Rebus) article, as it meets the criteria for the guideline linked. Swanny18 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why is this and the others here for deletion, the nominator wants them redirected, this discussion should be closed and redirect discussion taken to the talkpage. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 1 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)}}} 04:48, 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) 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Dean (writer)

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

The only source in the article is just a listing for the subject's book and does not contribute to establish notability. I could not find any in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources to meet our general notability guidelines and it also fails WP:AUTHOR Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found some coverage of two of his books @ newspapers.com: [53] [54] [55] [56], especially the first one is quite detailed. There is also this from NY Daily News, a review by Kirkus Reviews, some coverage by NPR, some coverage about the proposed movie. No full-page article solely about him but I think sufficient non-trivial coverage to pass WP:BASIC. Regards So Why 10:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Congratulations on finding those sources, I did not know about Newspapers.com. It seems like a great tool. As you point out the sources presented are not centered on him. In most cases they just mention him as the author. the first source that you found seems to be the only one that has some in-depth coverage beyond mentioning him as the author, it does not say much more though, just that he was a journalist writing his first book and some of his answers about the dog in the book. The sources I could find were either not independent or included just mentions of the subject and were only focused on the books or on the taking of the submarine. The sources you uncovered are a step in the right direction, since the first might be regarded as more than a trivial mention, but my feeling is that we probably still need more sources with in-depth coverage of the subject himself. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:20, 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 03:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not Nom's fault, really. Nomination of a lightly-soruced, new article about a writer was not unreasonable. Thing is, Dean's new book is hot, hot, hot. (gNews search here: [57]). And he is a respected journalist, just needs a better article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Coverage of this author's works in multiple reliable sources, which satisfies WP:AUTHOR #3. gongshow talk 01:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.L3X1 (distænt write) 03:31, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Self religion

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

Delete This article fails Notabilty. It is based on the theory of one author, Heelas and the other references used to support the article are passing and mostly citing Heelas' single use of this term. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I will add that I think this article also violates WP:SYTH in that the sources used are tangental and do not agree. I also think it is significant that this article was created by two former administrators who were both found by arbitration committees to be abusing Wikipedia as part of a well documented POV campaign. As a result both are no longer admins. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 21:39, 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 02:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the main article for Category:Self religions, too. If this goes then the category should be addressed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 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) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 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. Seems like we don't have enough substantial sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tavares Bowens

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Appears to be a COI editor. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Power~enwiki: judging from the text, with its references to linebackers and running backs, this guy is involved with the sport of American football, whereas the notability guideline you cite above is for the sport of association football (known in the US as soccer). You may wish to pick a more appropriate guideline to cite..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources: [58][59][60] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not ready to go either way right now, but the article itself needs editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:33, 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) 03:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently it's an unsourced BLP, which is a serious (but seemingly resolvable) issue. Absent that difficulty, this is an article about an assistant coach who has worked under a notable figure - Gruden - and played for another comparatively notable one in the college ranks. I don't see anything establishing his notability per WP:NGRIDIRON, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it passes WP:GNG? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he would do so if referenced, no. The references you've provided above are more of the "local boy makes good" variety, which I don't take as a GNG pass. Considering the lack of big-time media coverage for anything below the NFL and top-flight NCAA programs, I'm leaning in that direction. Happy to be proven wrong, of course, but that's where I'm leaning pending more developments. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:COI with editor, fails WP:PROMO and WP:NFOOTBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --EC Racing (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC) EC Racing (talk • contribs) 13:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those three reasons are necessarily reasons to delete the article. Do you think it passes WP:GNG? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of the poor state of the article and any COI issues (as well as the wrong NSPORT listed in the nomination), this guy only has some local routine and run-of-the-mill sports coverage (as in he did not receive significant independent coverage from multiple sources). As to his level of involvement in American football, his highest position was an assistant for the Arena Football League, arguably the third most covered pro league in North America after the NFL and CFL (also below NCAA Div. I). Assistants are specifically mentioned in WP:NGRIDIRON as to not be high enough to presume notablity. His highest head coaching position was in a very low professional league (with some teams more on the semi-pro side of the line). Yosemiter (talk) 13:30, 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) 17:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment WikiOriginal-9 no it does not meet WP:GNG and clear WP:COI with author. --EC Racing (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI isn't necessarily a reason to delete the article. Also, you accidentally registered two delete votes. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry WikiOriginal-9, edited from 2nd vote to "comment" --EC Racing (talk) 16:29, 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 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 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 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. 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 [61], 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 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 [62], [63], [64]... 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

AfDs for this article:

(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 [65].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 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 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. — 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 [66], 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: [67].

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 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 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 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]

[68]. 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]
    - [69]. -- 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]
  - [70]. -- 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: [71]. -- 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]
- [72]. -- 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.

[1] ttps://www.newspapers.com/newspage/206801098/

[2] ttps://www.connect.media/qa-affordable-housing-development-local-economy/?cm_mmc=Act-On%20Software-_-email-_-White%20House%20Proposes%20Entrepreneurial%20Immigration%20Rule%20-_-News

[3] ttp://cem-az.com/gorman-company-inc-selects-rainbow-housing-as-service-provider-for-one-of-the-first-section-811-multifamily-housing-developments-in-arizona/

[Salaam-4] "My Salaam - Nadia Saleh is Australia's first elected hijabi councillor". mysalaam.com. Retrieved September 14, 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]