Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Habertix (talk | contribs) at 08:46, 22 October 2017 (Marcelo de Castro Tibana). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< 21 October 23 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. This RSN discussion is highly relevant: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 172#Are British Raj ethnographers unreliable?. This page is unsuitable for a redirect/merge unless we have actual reliable sources to confirm either Rajput or Parmar as suitable targets. Thank you to 86.17.222.157 for linking that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pahore

Pahore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any academic sources mentioning the topic via Google Books. Unremarkable, fails WP:N JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:52, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why redirect? Do we have a reliable source that even says that this is a Rajput clan? Many of these articles, and no evidence has been given that this is any different, are simply about a family tradition rather than anything that belongs in an encyclopedia, even as a redirect. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator after additional sources found. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The LeBrons

The LeBrons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG with lack of multiple sources of significant coverage, particularly with few independent sources. This seems mostly promotional from involved sources. There were some news articles about this prior to its launch, but they lack WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Years later, it's difficult to justify any presumed notability this may have ever had, and WP:NOTNEWS is also relevant. —Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:07, 29 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald B. Dodd

Donald B. Dodd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article still a poor one and needs some wikifying, but the title "professor emeritus" is (I think) even in America not given to every retired university lecturer. He appears to be an important historian of his own state, and is likely also to have a significant output of articles, not cited here. It needs improvement, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, that term generally is available to all retired professors. See [3] for a list of all emeriti at Auburn University. WP:PROF has specific criteria for inclusion of academics and this individual appears to meet none of them. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is available to retired professors in good standing, which is most but not all of them. But I agree, it does not indicate any special honor or sign of notability. I have no opinion yet on the actual case at hand. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:AUTHOR. For example, Historical statistics of the states of the United States : two centuries of the census, 1790-1990 by Don Dodd was published in 10 editions 1993 in English and is held by 999 WorldCat member libraries worldwide (Worldcat Identities). Wings of denial : the Alabama Air National Guard's covert role at the Bay of Pigs by Warren Trest and Don Dodd was widely reviewed; samples:
  • Wings of Denial:The Alabama Air National Guard 's Covert Role at the Bay of Pigs (Book). Newton, Wesley Phillips. Alabama Review, Jul 01, 2003; Vol. 56, No. 3, p. 219-221. Reviews the book 'Wings of Denial: The Alabama Air National Guard's Covert Role at the... more
  • Revisiting the Bay of Pigs. Shuler, Eric. National Guard, May 01, 2001; Vol. 55, No. 5Reviews the book 'Wings of Denial,' by Warren Trest and Don Dodd. more...
I can provide these reviews to anyone interested. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 22 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. Michig (talk) 08:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Mercado

Bonnie Mercado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT -- contrary to the text of the article, her roles in the stated movies were all uncredited, thus not "significant". Being an unremarkable contestant on a reality TV show is not significant either. The article contains no sources that are independent of the subject and is mostly fluff. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 06:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:34, 23 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. MBisanz talk 02:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corrin Stellakis

Corrin Stellakis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deprodded with explanation "title is notable". That may be but as we have seen previously that doesn't automatically confer notability. When I went to expand & reference this article I was able to find almost no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish notability --- PageantUpdater (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, according to you, articles on women should be held to stricter than usual standards at Wikipedia? gidonb (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I saw most of those when copyediting the article - generally in past AFDs of this sort of minor local coverage from small local newspapers as you have provided enough isn't enough. They're mainly fluff pieces. But we'll let the community decide. I'm not deletionist by nature but I think this article should be held to the same standards as so many other pageant titleholders who have been deleted with more coverage available (albeit in local papers etc)than you have provided above. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Each article should be judged on its own merits. As I said this is just the tip of the iceberg and all significant coverage. I hope people respect the work of their fellow Wikipedians enough to look through all sources. gidonb (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, the Vietnam magazine is national in that nation's capital. Vietnam has 96 million residents, that's almost a third of the US population and larger than Germany, France, UK, etc. This is website #14 in the entire country of Vietnam! Maybe withdraw the nomination? gidonb (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely doubt the content of that Vietnamese fluff piece ("her dress broke!") is enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG but again the community can decide that--- PageantUpdater (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A little drama also gets covered among all the rest. There were 2 significant articles/coverages in the same magazine in Vietnam in the short list above and not as implied (which was already a new version after it had been supposedly all local)! There is a total of 13 national articles from Vietnam about Stellakis. About half of these underwrite her notability. I am puzzled how your searches were so "extensive" but missed all the national and substantial coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since article subject meets GNG user stood correct to remove the prod. Now when I remove such a label I also include references to justify this. Clearly this was not done and the references in the article are insufficient to prove notability. As a result it looks like prodder, on the other side, sticks to an unsubstantiated opinion that there is a case for deletion, while a simple Google News search supplies enough valid references to meet the WP:GNG. See my exchange above with the prodder/nominator for changing versions, confusion on what is out there, and distraction from the main coverage. gidonb (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep thanks to the nominator for sending me a notice about the AFD because I deprodded it. Have waited to see other's comments and it is clear that Gidonb has found more than enough substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are more than local (although local is allowed) so that WP:BASIC is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Many sources have been shown, including some from the U.S., some from Vietnam, and some from the Philippines.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 29 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. Excepting the nomination, the only other delete !vote referenced local news sources, a concern later cauterised with the provision of further sources. (non-admin closure) — fortunavelut luna 10:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Colepaugh

Chris Colepaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, with some advertorial overtones, about a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable sources to support it: the sources here are a press release, two concert listings calendars and a single (deadlinked) news article in his own hometown newspaper. As always, every musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists -- he must be properly sourced as actually passing a notability criterion, but nothing here accomplishes that at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC link is from the CBC's local news bureau in Saint John, New Brunswick, not the CBC's national news division, and the Telegraph-Journal is a newspaper in Saint John, New Brunswick — but local media very routinely give coverage to hometown musicians who have accomplished nothing that would satisfy NMUSIC, so we can't keep an article about a musician just because it's sourced to a couple of pieces of purely local coverage. And AllMusic tries as much as possible to include a profile of every musician who ever appeared on any record at all — so it's an acceptable source for supplementary verification of facts, but not a source where the existence of an AllMusic profile counts as evidence of notability per se. So if those are the only sources you can find besides pointing me to the section of his own website where he advertorially highlights uncited compliments that various people have given him, then no, that's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying I think he's notable (but he may be), but you really should do a search for coverage before bringing an article to AfD and state what you found. And no, Allmusic doesn't cover everyone or try to. It's a perfectly good reliable source. --Michig (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They do have gaps in their coverage, and they do make mistakes, but they do at least attempt to include everyone. Every single album that has a profile on that site at all includes a list of every musician who was involved in making it, if they were able to locate the credits list at all — and every person included in that list always links to a separate "musician" profile that at least tries to list all of that person's album credits, and often adds biographical information as well if they're able to find any. Again, they do have gaps and errors and oversights, I'm not denying that — but yes, they do at least attempt to have at least a basic credits page for every musician who has album credits at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having a page for every musician isn't the same as 'covering' every musician. They don't tend to write about minor acts of only local interest. The BBC and Billboard also seems to have a 'page' for every artist - that doesn't make the BBC and Billboard useless for establishing notability either. --Michig (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Degrassi - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326445/soundtrack, Traynor Amps - http://traynoramps.com/artists/c/chris_colepaugh/, Ben Rod Electric - http://www.benrod-electro.fr/html/fr/artistes__1/Chris-Colepaugh-Cosmic-Crew,-Shania-Twain_19.html, ... I am having difficulty finding a copy of the Relix Review online, but I have a digital scanned copy, Music Producer of the Year - https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/48986664/capital-region-artists-fare?source=story-related, http://www.chartattack.com/news/2007/12/18/joel-plaskett-emergency-declared-at-ecma-nominees-announcement/ ... I will work on it this week to update it properly and adhere to the guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldaigle (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that notability, for the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, cannot be supported by YouTube videos, blogs, primary sources or IMDb — which means that the vast majority of the links you provided in that wall of text above aren't helping anything. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bearcat. What would be the best page to understand the articles that can be used. I have found several pages, but I am not sure I am on the correct one.

Here is states: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] Works consisting merely of trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases.

http://www.gibson.com/News-Lifestyle/Features/en-us/Canadian-Pride_-New-Gibson-Art.aspx - the official Gibson guitar page / Chris is endorsed by Gibson http://canadianmusician.com/showcase/2003/03/ - Canadian Musician is a National Magazine in Canada http://torontoexclusive.com/awards2007/provincialnominees.html - official award announcement for Toronto Exclusive Awards http://www.earshot-online.com/charts/index.cfm?intChartTypeID=101&dWeekOfID=2016-02-16 - Top 50 Campus Radio ( Earshot is the National Campus and Community Radio Report) For the ECMA awards, there is no archive. I can find an old press release on their site for Entertainer Of The Year and Rock Artist of the Year - http://ecma.com/news/the-trews-chris-colepaugh-the-crew-david-myles-rose-cousins-pick-up-second-music-award-at-ecma

Would another wiki count as a reliable source? http://degrassi.wikia.com/wiki/Lost_in_Love_(1)#Featured Music - for music placement

http://top100canadianblog.blogspot.ca/2016/03/music-review-of-day-chris-colepaugh-and.html - album review http://artsnb.ca/site/en/files/2015/05/Pan-Am-2015_EN.pdf - announcement of performance at Pan Am Games in Toronto 2015 through the Government Agency Arts NB

Also mention in the Daniel Pearl World Music Days as Producer/Guitarist - http://www.danielpearlmusicdays.org/artist_detail.php?id=116 Roch Voisine - http://info-culture.biz/2011/02/28/roch-voisine-et-sa-tournee-americana-quebec-tour/ Working with Kevin Scott MacMichael - http://jam.canoe.com/Music/Pop_Encyclopedia/M/MacMichael_Kevin.html Fontana/Universal - http://www.fontananorth.com/?p=313 http://extreme-vidz.com/mtb/break-cycle - Break The Cycle - film placement http://www.mainstagecases.com/artists.html - Mainstage Cases Endorsement http://www.contacteast.ca/about/awards-and-nominations.php - Winner of Contact East Touring Award https://open.spotify.com/track/1GC6IFVGkUriDhtHvu2W6T - 270,088 spins on Spotify https://www.musicnb.org/en/festival-506/mnb-awards - Music Nominations - MNB Producer Of The Year, SOCAN Songwriter of the Year, MNB ROck Recording of the Year, MNB Musician of the Year https://www.telegraphjournal.com/times-transcript/story/48496672/music-nb-releases-awards - MNB Group, SOCAN & Album

Finding the online source material for a lot of the articles/videos is a challenge! Would you have a suggestions to get links to archival newspaper interviews/reviews etc? Thank you! I also can't find a copy of the Relix article, but I have a copy of the page - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/f2sxe4g5sy6ttag/AABSK8GueIV9QdRMU_s5P8pia?dl=0 https://www.telegraphjournal.com/telegraph-journal/story/100334035/ - Performance with Matt Andersen

For one thing, exactly no number of listens or views on any internet streaming platform constitutes a notability claim at all — we care about media coverage, not numbers of listens on Spotify or Soundcloud, or numbers of views on YouTube or number of subscribers on Facebook.
And when it comes to our reliable sourcing, what we're talking about is media coverage in newspapers, magazines and books, not just "any website at all that mentions his name". For example, having an endorsement relationship with a musical instrument manufacturing company does not support notability, if your source for that relationship is the website of that company — a source has to represent media coverage, fully independent of any direct affiliation with either party to that relationship. It is not okay just because it's technically independent of Colepaugh, because it isn't independent of the company with which he has a business relationship. And by the same token, an award nomination is only notable if and when media write about that award's nominations as news — it is not notable if the source you provide is that award's own self-published website about itself, because the extent to which media do or don't care about that award is the definition of whether that award is notable enough to get its nominees over NMUSIC's award-nomination criterion or not. And playing at any music event or festival only supports notability if it's referenced to media coverage about his performance, and not if your reference for that appearance is the festival's own self-published website about itself. And on and so forth: to count toward notability, a reference has to be media coverage about the distinction being claimed, not the website of any person or organization or event with any form of direct relationship to the thing being claimed. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • UpdateI have connected with someone who knows a lot more about Wikipedia than I, and they are helping me rewrite it - with attention paid to all the requirements. I just need a bit more time to finalize and get the updated version up for review.
  • Very weak keep Wow, those are a lot of references—most of them merely reaffirming existence more than anything else. While I’m a bit troubled that what this subject has accomplished—routine and trivial press, minor awards, small-time airplay, recording and performance history—fails to measure on a scale that would convey significance under most people’s definition of notability, I nonetheless cede to rules of wikipedia criteria. Among the clutter are a few solid sources (such as a review in Relix) that convey’s credible recognition and helps this subject squeak through. This would be an easier “keep” if there was some indication of success (such as chart/sales, perhaps?) or recognition other than “rave reviews” from unimportant sources. That Allmusic profile is unfortunately written in the same kind of advertorial tone they are guilty of increasingly allowing by relying on submitted content rather than doing their own original research. Both it and this wikipedia page could benefit from editing out the hype. Still, there are enough credible sources, even if the coverage therein is trivial, to craft an okay article. Glad to see in this updated comment section that someone is presently working on it. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  I sampled one of the sources found by Ldaigle, and found this quote, "For two decades now Chris Colepaugh has been a staple of the Moncton music scene, an anniversary that he, along with his Cosmic Crew, will be marking with the release of their ninth, and possibly best, studio album ‘RnR’. Having been first introduced to this group with their third album, 16 Second Solace I’ve had the pleasure to watch them grow from early in their career and they just keep getting stronger with each offering."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 29 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asymmetry Principle

Asymmetry Principle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as primary-sourced ad-like for 7 years; talkpage has multiple editors questioning notability. The article doesn't actually assert any notability either. The topic-phrase has multiple meanings that are fairly different from this energy/economic sense, and I can't find substantial independent refs for the topic at hand, so "non-notable economic theory". Page was created by a briefly-active editor whose sole activity was creating a series of pages about the theory's author and his theories and publications. DMacks (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:32, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational India

AfDs for this article:
Mister Supranational India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pageant for men. No in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The article was previously deleted at AfD as Mister Supranational and Mister Supranational 2016 (the male counterpart to equally non-notable Miss Supranational, an article that has been deleted multiple times, and recreated almost as many times). Fails WP:EVENT and general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in a deletion debate so can you please demonstrate how it actually meets notability requirements mentioned by JudeccaXIII above and also if it need more references why not to cite it? Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 03:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Helper V1: I changed your second Keep to Comment, you can't !vote more than once. As I said above every article on wikipedia must meet certain requirements, these include verifiablity, and notability. Please only continue to comment here if you have something new to say. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest deleting this article even though I'm saying upfront, loud and clear that I did not and will not check its notability. This is why. Since the root article has been deleted I believe that, from a perspective of information organization, it is wrong to spin off a subsidiary article such as the discussion per geography or year, regardless of notability. Now the root has been deleted after an AfD. This AfD can be right or wrong, but even if the latter would be the case, problems should be addressed head on. Right now the root AfD should be viewed as the "law of the land". Translated to WP jargon and linking to the relevant articles, since no justification for WP:SPINOFF this article should be viewed as an unjustified WP:CFORK, regardless of WP:N. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please note that the creator of this article have been blocked from editing for advertising only, likely undeclared paid COI and likely sockpuppet of Sky Groove, repeatedly recreating deleted articles from the sock farm. GSS (talk|c|em) 02:42, 30 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic (Cognito album)

Automatic (Cognito album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unimportant album, sold poorly, no reviews that I can find. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:19, 15 October 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, 22 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Obuh

AfDs for this article:
Eric Obuh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found nothing notable about the subject's career. Aside the promotional materials which could not be sourced, the subject has no hit song nor notable awards. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no hit song, zero semi-notable nomination or award. The case of GNG is subjective and should not be considered here. There is nothing noteworthy about this artiste in the Nigerian music industry. Darreg (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that many sources were provided in the previous AfD discussion for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside the dead links, I have gone through the references. I also watched the viral BBC documentary when it was aired. If the BBC documentary happened last year, I would have voted keep, because I could argue that there would have been a strong chance of him having a decent musical career and getting sig routine coverage. But it was was seven years ago! Yet no new significant coverage in RS that isn't overly based in the 2010 incident. WP:ONEEVENT and WP:10YT applies. I ask myself, Q1: What is his occupation? A: Musician. Q2: Does he pass WP:MUSICBIO? A: No. For his birthname to still be his WP:COMMONNAME tells you so much about his musical career. My vote remains unchanged. Except someone wants to say that winning the "Google Africa Connected" award confers notability. Darreg (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and no detailed coverage of life or work in WP:RS Ammarpad (talk) 14:33, 28 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. Ja, usually GNG trumps other notability criteria and not the other way around. Policy based criteria such as BLP or OR trump GNG but notability isn't a policy and policies are not at issue here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hicks (game designer)

Michael Hicks (game designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His game may be notable but there's nothing to show that he himself is. The only significant/reliable mention is the article in The Southern but that alone does not satisfy WP:BIO, the impact of the game is not significant enough for notability by association. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, while writing this I found some good TV sources on him in the Midwest. I didn’t include them because I thought the Wired (magazine) interview and game-specific sources were a better fit.
KTVI in St. Louis aired this interview: http://fox2now.com/2015/02/08/jefferson-county-man-creates-video-game-for-sony-playstation-4/
KFVS-TV in Cape Girardeau, MO aired this on him: http://www.kfvs12.com/story/28161624/illinois-video-game-creator-is-beating-the-odds
WSIL-TV in Southern Illinois aired this: https://web.archive.org/web/20150112030347/http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/Local-Game-Developer-Signs-With-Sony-287990851.html
Also, here’s another newspaper article on him: http://www.register-news.com/news/hicks-signs-game-deal-with-sony/article_a698376b-d7a1-5a1f-9007-eeb2fd338c0a.html
I think these sources fit what you’re asking. If they look good to you I’ll include them on the page. Indiestation (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do think those sources are a better fit for proving notability. I'll defer to others' opinion on this as I haven't encountered this sort of case where local news is used to prove notability rather than the game journalist press, but it does seem more reliable than the previous sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 22 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anju Chaudhuri

Anju Chaudhuri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NARTIST. Few of the claims are sourced and is approaching spam level wording. DrStrauss talk 14:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep as the mentioned WP:ARTIST is in fact satisfied by the Victoria and Albert Museum along with the apparent national museum in her own country. The source for the former is absolutely enough and there are certainly chances sources can be found as by WP:Before; one currently found is a 1968 source. SwisterTwister talk 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED. DrStrauss talk 16:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria of the notability guideline that you invoke in your nomination statement is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums", which is nothing to do with WP:NOTINHERITED. We already have a source saying that Chaudhuri is represented in the collection of one of the most notable museums in the world, which goes some way towards meeting that criterion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have further cleaned up the article to ensure compliance with WP:BLP (diff). DrStrauss talk 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably speedy keep. The specific qualification for notability was present at the time of nomination--for those who thing the GNG is more important than NCREATIVE, it's a sort of shorthand, for it will always be the case that paintings in major museums are critically discussed in publications. The articles was not even particularly spammy for articles of this type---most articles on contemporary artists are much more flowery. If one is going to nominate articles for deletion, it helps to know what to expect from such articles -- and to know the guidelines. We probably have several thousand much more appropriate for deletion, on grounds of both dubious notability, and actually strong promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is a bad argument. DrStrauss talk 21:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, but it wasn't the argument made by DGG. Can you please reply to the arguments made rather than throw irrelevent straw-man links at the discussion like WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:OTHERSTUFF. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
most articles on contemporary artists are much more flowery = WP:OTHERSTUFF. Not a strawman. DrStrauss talk 07:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was ready to support, but could find very few serious references to her and her work. I checked the V&A collection and they do indeed have one of her works. WP:ARTIST says you need several museums though. I do not see notability being met by either mentions in RS or her being in multiple collections.96.127.242.251 (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clicked on books, and yes there are a couple decent refs. However the majority of the sources there are very minor, along the lines of "Illustrations by Anju Chaudhuri. Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company". The few items that are longer are only snipept view so I can't asses them.96.127.242.251 (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer not to get into a discussion about the existence of God, except to say that She or He or she or he is clearly notable despite the doubt about existence, but you make my point here about this topic by saying that we don't know whether these sources are excellent or not, so how can those of us who can't read them say either "keep" or "delete" on their basis? The sources clearly exist, so it needs someone who can read the full text to identify how much coverage there is. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The V&A is only one of several museums that have collected her work, so the subject meets WP:ARTIST. I noticed that sometimes here name is spelled differently, for example, the National Gallery of Modern Art gives her name as Chaudhry, Anju. See http://ngmaindia.gov.in/collections-artist.asp?strLetter=C Mduvekot (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The source given by Mduvekot confirms a pass of WP:ARTIST. I know that we only have two museums so far, but, given their stature, that's far better than being in the permanent collection of the "several" museums asked for by that guideline that are merely notable, rather than two of the most notable museums in the world. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've already given my support for keep, but as I continue to look for sources, I'm becoming suspicious of some of the claims made elsewhere about museum collections. For example, in the french version of the article there is a claim about being in the collection of the Musee d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris that I can't verify even though the museum has their collection online and one about the Musée national d'Art moderne that is incorrect; the Kandinsky library holdings of the museum include a catalogue of her work, her artwork is not in the museum collection. Other collections may also need some more checking. Mduvekot (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chiltan threat

Chiltan threat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable subject. Reliable sources don't mention such thing as a "Chilean threat" as confirmed through a WP:BEFORE search. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 17:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I am assuming this article is referring to environmental threats to Koh-i-Chiltan. The fact that articles currently lack sources, or may not be written in perfect English, is not a valid reason for deletion. We can use our brains and not just Google to look beyond the search term "Chiltan threat" --Animalparty! (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 15 October 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, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:27, 29 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.  Sandstein  20:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha

Abu Aleeha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

cited sources are not RS. fails to meet WP:JOURNALIST Saqib (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources are not RS. --Saqib (talk) 08:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is also UrduPoint source, which is largest and most viewed Urdu website.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OKAT but the source does not talk in detail about the subject. It is not enough to demonstrate the notability of the subject. --Saqib (talk) 16:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Saqib Please let me know, if source like urdupoint talk in detail about subject, than will you remove delete suggestion template? --Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot solely rely on a single source. --Saqib (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Saqib, There are hundreds of search result in English other than facebook, twitter and wikipedia. There are also thousands of search result in Urdu. Sujbect has hundreds of thousand fan following on social media. There is a RS, according to you that is not much talked about sujebct. I think this shoould be enough to Keep the page. However, if you want further RS, please give me some time to further improve the page with RSs. --Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 04:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need RS, not any source. The sources in the G' search results are not RS. We do not care how much fans or followers the subject has on social media. WP:NOFRIENDS. --Saqib (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will upadte the page with RS very soon. Please don't delete in hurry.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will take just couple of days to update page with RSs.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Abu Aleeha is a senior film-maker and director. MShamsudDin (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC) — MShamsudDin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This user is blocked for socking.--Saqib (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dawn source verifies only one film in the subject's name which is not enough to pass WP:FILMMAKER. --Saqib (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for reflection on whether new sources added are RS or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus for any course of action at this time, and substantial improvement appears to be underway. This can be revisited in the future if editors feel that progress has not culminated in a clear showing of notability. bd2412 T 11:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Villand

Per Villand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just not close to meeting WP:GNG. All the cited references are either self-published or of local, minuscule interest. Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Geschichte, today I have contacted all universities that are named in the page. Already yesterday I found a newspaper article about the disease ALS and Per Villand, searched for external links, found Scholar links, got an email from Terje Johansen, who works at Tromsø university, and who studied together with Per Villand, worked as a coauthor at a paper to get the Cand.Scient degree, and I have added the link as a reference in "Studies".
  • I contacted today the university in Ås (Norges landbrukshøgskole/NMBU) for a similar link to prove the Dr. Scient degree or title. It was difficult for them to search because I did not know in which department of biology Per Villand was studying, so I sent some links and a Scholar list with his name. I asked Terje Johansen to help me find the right department which makes it easier to search in archives.
  • I have worked at all missing details and I sincerely hope, though I did not already get all missing factors, this is convincing Wikipedia that the page of Per Villand should not be deleted, but kept. I do not believe this page should be a disambiguation page, redirected or merged. It has its value in its own, not because of the studies, but because Per Villand was and is beloved by all who have known him. He has inspired and impressed all. Because of his disease and how he handled this insane difficult disease, how he even cooperated with professors to find causes and maybe healing methods, is worth it to share with the world. DutchColours (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here again Geschichte to react on "minuscule interest". The page is about a person who died because of the deadly disease ALS at the age of 44. He created indeed a poor website according to what one is used to when made by a totally healthy person. Per Villand created it with his eye movements, because he was for 99% paralysed, lame, disabled. This is showing strength, a positivity that goes beyond any normal, or even most perfect human power that can create the most wonderful website. DutchColours (talk) --DutchColours (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Geschichte, I removed a sentence about the newspaper in the former message after I have read again the rules: all newspapers seem to be considered as not independent, and therefore not the right source. Today I discussed all around this Per Villand page with others and we concluded that it would be at least a better idea to make it a subpage (redirecting possibility, instead of deleting, or merging) of Hovet, Buskerud, also my project, and yes, Per Villand belongs to this village in Norway. It is important that a link to another Wikipedia page is there, in "Notable residents", to redirect visitors of this Hovet, Buskerud page to Per Villand. To add it on that page as a chapter is not right, because it would take away the attention from the main subject. Today I continue with finding the title of the book Per Villand wrote, the ISBN number, and continue with searching for more references. DutchColours (talk) --DutchColours (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can I say? Wikipedia builds on second-party sources. The current references are: 1) Geni, not necessarily independent. 2) Solhjell, local history, brief mention 3) Hallingdølen, local newspaper 4) Villand, published by the subject 5) journal, can't access, but I'm guessing published by the subject 6) cell.com, published by the subject. You don't really need to find the book written by him, it's published by the subject so not suitable as a reference to Villand. Albeit probably brave and commendable, Per Villand has not been demonstrated to have coverage in the necessary amount of independent sources. But you can try www.lokalhistoriewiki.no. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Geschichte, I have seen wikipedia pages with lesser content than I have created, and with not any link or reference. Pity that I did not bookmark these. How spectacular someone has to be? That there is a book, written by him, is spectacular, because he wrote it with his eye movements, he was for 99% lame, disabled, could not use his hands and fingers. I am not speaking nor writing in Norwegian yet, I live in Norway, yes, and learning the language slowly with my 68 years old memory. You should know Norway better, then you would not direct me to a library for this. The Norwegians in the area where I live (far away from cities and other villages, it is more a hamlet, have hardly any proud, do not talk too much, are in fact always silent. History made them so. It belongs to the Norwegian character. So, to shout around about people, who they were, are, etc. is utterly rare. That is not Norwegian style. The land has been occupied by Denmark, Sweden, and has hardly one hundred years independence. The psychology of the Norwegians is not understood when one never has lived in an occupied country, overruled by another country, and not any law was offering rights. Within this hierarchy is another hierarchy: the people of Hovet belong to a lesser place in the hierarchical pyramid. Created by oppressors in neighbour villages. Not because they ARE lesser, but they were and are the most easy to suppress. The most humble.
Again: I cannot add the information of Per Villand's page to the by me started and maintained Hovet, Buskerud page because I have more to add there and the page will become too long. It is a village with much history, that is hardly to be found somewhere on the web. Wikipedia-English is in fact too modern: the Norwegian wikipedia has, that is obvious for me, by experience, a much milder law system than the English wikipedia version. There is not a Norwegian Wikipedia page about Per Villand. I cannot write yet in Norwegian. But I can try. Is that an option? And, WHAT exactly you want Per Villand to be in his "passport" to be allowed to enter Wikipedia land?--DutchColours (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geschichte, I have read about creating new wikipedia pages. Even a few lines are enough to create a page. I did more. Much more. There is not any rule that makes this Per Villand page worthless. It has the right to exist. I can even start a page about myself. I read in NRC, a Dutch newspaper with excellent research about subjects, that Wikipedia has rules concerning editing. It is not allowed that companies hire people to edit a wikipedia page, to make their name more shining. But these editors are there, they do a payed job, and nobody can do anything about it. This is the power of money. Title of the article: "De schimmige wereld van stiekeme Wikipedia-updates", translated: "The shady world of sneaky Wikipedia updates". there is a lot in that article worth it to be read, I can recommend it to everybody, also you, Geschichte.
It makes clear that what I wrote yesterday about the English wikipedia, is not so far from the full truth. The English Wikipedia is mostly runned by modern state moderators. The modern state is related with all what makes the modern state so "modern", and not so transparent. Modern is not per definition "honorable" or "high quality", on the contrary.
In this case, I write about an honorable person, who was born in a hamlet in Norway, and who got unfortunately a disease that killed him. If not, the man would have been able to continue his studies, and who knows how huge his name would have become. Again: he did something not even Shakespeare did: writing a book, running a website, while being lame for 99%. Writing with modern tools that work on eye movements. Professors from Oslo have been working together with him to dismantle the ALS disease, a killing disease where more and more people die from. He did not get enough time from life. Life became unbearable. The machines were closed, after a well thought decision. Per Villand has proved to be a master mind, controlling his mind by his human spirit that made it able to exist with even a disease like this. The most difficult moments were when he became angry, he told, because indeed, when you are for 99% lame, emotions are still there, and anger creates a hell when you have not any expression form to get rid of it. But he managed it. He is, though a humble man, a human being with high standards, and deserves a place among other Wikipedia people. When even a page about Adolf Hitler is there, and more human bastards, why not about a great human being from Hovet? He is an example for all of us. A source of inspiration in this insane world. --DutchColours (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geschichte, I have been in your user page. I have clicked on Asle Amundsen. This is the text: Asle Amundsen (born 27 June 1952) is a Norwegian politician for the Socialist Left Party. He served as a deputy representative to the Parliament of Norway from Nordland during the term 1985–1989. He met during 52 days of parliamentary session.[1] The first deputy of Hanna Kvanmo, he worked as a farmer in Andøy outside of politics.[2]
Question Geschichte: What exactly makes this man so valuable that he deserves a Wikipedia page, and Per Villand not? I guess that Per Villand deserves MORE a place in Wikipedia than this Asle Amundsen. there are pages that you started with people that are not of a higher value as Per Villand. You wrote even about a footballer. What makes football of such a high standard that footballers, even without any glory, are accepted in Wikipedia, and not a man who has proved to be able to fight against something more heavy than a football team in a competition? Per Villand had his own competition. He is a champion. Though he lost. But he was fighting against a deadly disease, that is something else. No, Geschichte, you have proved yourself with your own pages that Per Villand deserves a place here, and that his page deserves to be accepted. Totally. With or without sources, because I saw that you named a book, written by Anders Gåsland, but you did not mention the ISBN number. Nobody can check if this book really exists. Today I am going to check all pages you created, to compare them with the Per Villand page, and adding notes with questions, what exactly makes these pages more valuable than Per Villand's page. Like this for instance: Good Clean Fun. I also love fun, clean fun, but I cannot see the fun of deleting a page of an honorable person like Per Villand.
Note Geschichte, what you wrote yourself on the top of this page: All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. Your own pages are a proof and I added the links to these pages so that other Wikipedia editors can check themselves. Also for the terms on the top of this page: a disambiguation page, redirected or merged to another article, then consider recommending "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. could be used for several of your own pages, but they survived this and are there anyway. How is this possible? I did not check more pages, until now, I have to do some other work. I expect that you do not delete the page of Per Villand, but I do expect that you delete your note on the top of that page, about deleting. I made a backup of that page, and of this page. To have proof for other discussions. --DutchColours (talk) 07:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note Geschichte, that I am still working at completing this article about Per Villand. Still waiting for more emails from the University Umeå in Sweden and the University in Stanford, USA. Got some, with PDF's and a confirmation, but without a public link. Also waiting for the ISBN number for the history book about Hovet, Buskerud. Written by Per Villand. I cannot force time, I cannot force people. --DutchColours (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Geschichte : Quoting what you wrote on October 17: The current references are: 1) Geni, not necessarily independent. 2) Solhjell, local history, brief mention 3) Hallingdølen, local newspaper 4) Villand, published by the subject 5) journal, can't access, but I'm guessing published by the subject 6) cell.com, published by the subject. You don't really need to find the book written by him, it's published by the subject so not suitable as a reference to Villand. Albeit probably brave and commendable, Per Villand has not been demonstrated to have coverage in the necessary amount of independent sources. But you can try www.lokalhistoriewiki.no. Geschichte (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) MyHeritage. Note: Geni is not the same as MyHeritage. So, a mistake. Check this out. And: Geni and MyHeritage are excellent sources concerning old names, and the history of names, traditions in using names, as in Norway where even the region where one lived is added to the name. check the family tree of Pål Olson Grøt. His name was Grøt when he started living in the area named Grøt. Before his name was Neeraal, because he was born in Hol, in the street Neeraal. And he was named Nerol, because this is the name as people say it (etymology) So: MyHeritage is a library of history. Some people make a mess out of it. Not all of them. the same with Wikipedia: not all pages are really brilliant. Some are even poor, but there anyway. Even pages that you created, dear Geschichte.
2) Note: Solhjell, this is a mistake, it is not local history, it is the history of Hol Kommune, that is not local, but "kommunal". And even IF it was local, what is wrong with local information? Is local news in Norway (you are Norwegian) lesser important than the news from NRK or Aftenbladet, or more of these, Bergen, Oslo, etc? How outdated this view is. And how arrogant. This is discrimination!
3) Note: Hallingdølen, local newspaper? No! so, this is a mistake! It is a regional newspaper. But even if it was a local newspaper you are wrong in making preferences. Again, you discriminate! Local newspapers are important for the facts where the "big" newspapers do not spend time for, not because it is lesser important, but because they do not have enough paper for all the local details.
4) Note: Villand, published by the subject'. Respectless!! The subject is for a "thing", an abstract thing, not a human being. Per Villand deserves respect!! You humiliate! And, Per Villand wrote this while he was ill, with his hands on a keyboard? No! With a pen? No! How? With eyemovements. WHO can write such website? How many have created a website with eye movements? One!! Per Villand. Worth to be watched, and named. Respect!!
5) Note: journal, can't access, but I'm guessing published by the subject. Again: Per Villand is a human, not a subject. Which journal do you mean? I cannot find where you write about. Reference please.
6) Note: cell.com, published by the subject. NO!! HUGE MISTAKE by you Geschichte! this is from the Dept. of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. If you would have clicked on the link there you would have seen this. He was not alone in this: all names: David M. Kehoe, Per Villand, Shauna Somerville. This is published by: © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The names there have links. I consider your examination Geschichte, as shallow and respectless towards Per Villand, towards science, to Wikipedia, to me. I hope some other moderators will find what is written here. --DutchColours (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)....[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note to article creator DutchColours that you should not be formatting this AFD in this manner. a) Geschichte is not the "moderator" he is the nominator b) this bizarre formatting of the AFD page into your various "Reaction" sections has got to stop, and should be removed. Read WP:AFDFORMAT for more information. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the worst of the odd formatting in order to simplify matters. BigHaz - Schreit mich an
Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my comments were relevant. I am sure these have not been read. What are third-party sources? Some examples please. --DutchColours (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried to find the user page of CapitalSasha There is no user profile with information. I searched also for the user page of Rfdpro who has added the first warning. There is no profile. How can I be accused and judged by a team without a face? I repeat my question: what are third party sources? I am still editing the page, and wait for references. There are Wikipedia pages with lesser content, and lesser references than I have. I do not understand 1% of all the threats for deleting. It feels as a power system, towards new users. --DutchColours (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • About: "A cool guy": May I remind you (and you would have known if you would have read the page) that Per Villand is dead? "A cool guy" is a populist term and not respectful for a scientist who lost his life because of a literally breathtaking disease.
  • Question for BigHaz: bizarre formatting? I created a layout that was easier to read, because all my words were necessary to defend the page for being threatened for deletion. The threats even worsen. What is the deadline? If this is an impossible limit, then it is a lost case. DutchColours (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for BigHaz: Have you checked the external links? Really? Can you offer me a comparable page that IS accepted in Wikipedia? WHAT could be third party sources here, how many do you want (because there are wikipedia pages with hardly any source, and just some lines), so that I can LEARN by studying WHAT is accepted by Wikipedia? Thanks. DutchColours (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for BigHaz: Can you explain to me why the utterly poor Asle Amundsen page is accepted totally as a mature Wikipedia page? Thanks. DutchColours (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for BigHaz: It could be an idea to reduce the content of the Per Villand page to exact the same total of words, and exact the same amount of references. DutchColours (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses. Firstly, one ping is more than enough (I watchlist AfDs I've contributed to, so in this instance I would have seen your response/s anyway). Four pings is manifestly excessive, regardless.
1) I can't speak for anyone else, but I've not said that your comments were relevant, irrelevant or otherwise. I've read them and digested them. There's a lot of them, and you'll find that concision is normally a virtue (do as I say, not as I do, here!), but I for one have read what you've written. "Third-party sources" are those independent of the subject of the article and/or their close associates. Unlike many terms used frequently on Wikipedia, this one is used precisely as it is out in the "real world". If you've not done so as yet - and I don't mean to point the finger at you if you have - I'd recommend starting with the notability policy for a description of how and what I and other editors are looking for. As Villand was a published academic, you also might want to look at the notability guideline for academics, which combines with notability in general as well. In the case of Villand here, one example I could think of in relation to his academic career would be other scholars citing him extensively and favourably. That's just one example, of course, and I'm sure there would be plenty of others.
2) Rfdpro doesn't presently have a user page, which would be why you can't find it. Not every user has created one, and they're within their rights either way. The user page of CapitalSasha loads fine for me when I click on that user's name in the signature on their comment, and contains what I would consider plenty of information (a subjective assessment, but there we are). I don't know whether your comment regarding "a team without a face" is a reference to the lack of anyone's real names being on their pages, but users don't tend to list those unless they wish to - I don't have my real name anywhere on my page either, and never have done. Leaving aside the fact that there's nothing to be gained by "repeat[ing] [your] question" within an hour of asking it (I'm in Australia and was eating dinner at the time you asked, hence my ability to respond reasonably rapidly - catch me overnight my time and you'll obviously have to wait longer), I think you may have the process slightly around the wrong way. The object of the exercise is to have the sources before creating the page, rather than acquiring them later. Many users prefer to create their pages as Drafts first, to avoid them being tagged for deletion "mid-stream", as it were. The fact that there are pages with less content, fewer references and more problems doesn't really stack up as a reason to keep this particular page, as it frequently means that nobody has seen the article in question and proposed it for deletion. If there's an article you're sufficiently concerned about, you're entirely within your rights to nominate it accordingly. If you're having difficulty with the process (any part of it, from article-creation to where we are now), please feel free to comment on my User Talk page with any questions you have. I'm more than happy to assist where I can. Just remember, though, that there is a time difference and my assistance may involve referring you onto other areas rather than giving you a definitive answer. I've been around here for a great many years, but the project is truly immense and I can't claim to be a specialist in every part of it. I'd suggest that those comments go to my User Talk so as not to complicate matters here.
3) [I'll leave the response regarding "a cool guy" for the user who made it] I used the term "bizarre" for the formatting because that's what it is. While the format we use here may not be to your liking, it is precisely that which has been used for any number of years, as the link from Shawn in Montreal makes clear. Administrators (I'm one, although I won't be closing this discussion) rely on the format being followed to make the call on whether the article stays or goes. Discussions which vary from that format risk the wrong outcome being implemented, which is to nobody's advantage. You'll notice that the reformatting hasn't removed a single letter of what you or anyone else wrote, so everything you contributed to the discussion is still there. Nobody is making any "threats", either. The discussion is about the merits of this particular article (not Villand himself, who I'm sure was a perfectly lovely gentleman) versus the policies which exist governing articles here. It may be of use to read WP:OWN on this point, too, since the discussion isn't about your merits, either. The deadline for an AfD is usually in the neighbourhood of 7 days, but you'll note that this one has been "relisted" as there wasn't a clear consensus earlier, so that gives everyone another 7 days or so.
4) I've given you the general overview of what a third-party/acceptable source would be earlier. If you have further queries on this point, I'd suggest that's a good question to move to my User Talk page, and I'll do my best to assist there.
5) As indicated above, the state of another article really doesn't have much bearing on whether this one should be deleted or kept. That said, Amundsen's page indicates (and, as far as I can read the Norwegian sources, cites a source confirming this - at least, he's second in the list of members of his party) that he was the deputy leader of a major political party in Norway, as well as simply being elected to Stortinget. Generally speaking, there is a standard which says that elected representatives at a national level - to say nothing of leaders and deputy-leaders of national political parties - in any country are going to be notable.
6) It could be an idea, but that won't necessarily address the issues here. To return to notability, the article can be as long as a small Russian novel and still get deleted if the subject doesn't demonstrate notability. Conversely, it can be one simple sentence and demonstrate tonnes of notability. That's why comparison between "this article I want kept" and "that article which isn't too great" is never an exact science. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to BigHaz: I like your information, and the tone in it, very much. I feel calmness in it, taking time to explain, and that avoids adrenaline in me to stress, to avoid deletion, to keep where I am working at. I would like to start discussing on your talk page about this, when you have found this comment and commented on it. The most important for me about what you explained is that I should keep a page as a draft till all is ready. I did not find the button for keeping it as a draft, so, I saved it, and on that moment it is published, obviously. I would like to make it a draft, now, to have the time to add all I need, because it needs a lot of time to get answers. Maybe some people are on a holiday, universities have many departments, and since it was public, I felt the stress growing. Reading the warnings for deletion created fear, and even more stress. This could have been avoided if I would have known how to save a page into a draft, to work at it behind the screens, that you control it, and when you have read and agreed with what is there, to publish it. This feels great for me. Thanks in advance. Greetings to Australia. DutchColours (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond on your Talk page, since we're probably moving away from the topic at hand, but to what I hope will be a more fruitful one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean any disrespect by use of the term "a cool guy"; I only meant to say that it appears he had lived an admirable life and I would like to learn more about him. Nonetheless there can't be a Wikipedia article without substantial sources independent of the subject. CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CapitalSasha Of course you do not disrespect him, but some words do not fit within a certain atmosphere. There is also a difference in using words by older people, and the younger generation. It is a matter of awareness. Some words just do not fit everywhere. DutchColours (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New updates, October 24, 2017:

  • I, the creator of the article "Per Villand" have added yesterday new references in "Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis". These are third party sources.
  • I am emailing intensively with Terje Johansen from the University of Tromsø, who was working together with Per Villand. He is cooperating with me in finding third party sources for his Cand.Scient degree and his Dr. Scient. degree. Problem is that the email address of Professor Terje Traavik (University of Tromsø) is not working, and therefore Terje Johansen of the UiT forwards my email for Professor Terje Traavik to him. Terje Traavik was Per Villand's supervisor. Professor Odd-Arne Olsen of the NMBU university has not answered my emails yet, and Terje Johansen is therefore also contacting him about Per Villand, and for third party sources. Waiting for an answer from the Michigan State University, USA. Per Villand worked there and it seems that all the official third party links are not accepted as okay. So: I work very intensively at it.
  • I have contacted Sigmund Krøve-Velle from the Hallingdólen newspaper about the book, he mentions in his article. Waiting for his email back. I have called the library in Geilo about the book, and wrote an email after the telephone call, for exact information, and questions. As soon as possible I am back here to update the progress of the page.
  • I am in a debate with user BigHaz (Schreit mich an) about this page on my own talk page to learn more about deleting, drafts, and how to keep a draft, and how to avoid deleting. DutchColours (talk) 10:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wouldn't use the word "Debate" for the interaction we're having - certainly not at the moment, and hopefully not ever! But I'm definitely glad to see that you've taken me up on the offer of assistance. All these years under my belt must be useful for something. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have got an email from Terje Johansen, UiT, with a PDF file, an official statement of the University, a confirmation that Per Villand has completed the degree Candidate Scientiarum on January 1, 1990, department medical biology. It is undersigned and has a stamp. There is the official logo of the UiT. I can upload this file in Wikimedia Commons and refer to it from the article-page. I wait for the agreement of the university. Obviously there is no other way to make it more official, since I had added already a link, a reference, but this was not accepted by user Geschichte. The same procedure has started about Per Villand's Dr. Scientiarum degree. We do not have more possibilities left to prove this. Did not get an email from MSU in USA. DutchColours (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added references to "Umeå university, Sweden": the links direct to official papers, when checking the first link: (US National Library of Medicine) search for the link "Author information", click on it: then opens a screen with this information: Department of Plant Physiology, Umeå University, S-901 87 Umeå, Sweden For the full list of Per Villand: Click on Per Villand, then opens this page. DutchColours (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Updates, October 25, 2017

  • Got information from the MSU university US:
  • Hello, Could you provide the failed email address used to try and reach MSU Human Resources? Here is their official contact information as listed on 'hr.msu.edu':
  • Email = SolutionsCenter@hr.msu.edu
  • Office Phone = 800-353-4434 (Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EDT)
  • Since Per Villand was a biologist at MSU you could try and speak with Biological Sciences program using this contact form:
  • >> https://biosci.natsci.msu.edu/about/contact/
  • Biological Sciences is also part of the larger College of Natural Science, so another avenue is to contact them. Here is a link to their contact page:
  • >> https://natsci.msu.edu/about/contact/
  • Phone = (517) 355-4470
  • Beyond that I have no other resources to offer; MSU employee records are maintained either by their respective departments or by our central HR office.
  • Thanks,
  • MSU IT Service Desk DutchColours (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The email has been sent. Got two PDF's with confirmations. 1) Candidatus Scientiarum / University of Tromsø 2) Doctor Scientiarum / Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), these are uploaded in Wikimedia Commons and used as a reference. These PDF's were sent by Terje Johansen, University of Tromsø. Email for verification: terje.johansen@uit.no Both PDF's contain names and email addresses, telephone numbers, and can be used to check.
Was in the library of Geilo (Hol municipality) and they have indeed the book and the DVD. There are references added to this library, via a link. DutchColours (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • On this moment, the evening of October 25, 2017, there is only 1 reference not complete. This reference is the Michigan State University, USA, and this will be filled in as soon the email is in my inbox. DutchColours (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

DutchColours, I feel that there is some miscommunication going on regarding reason for the need for sources. The point is not about the verifiability of the information on the article, it's about the notability of the individual in question. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove all words, that are not controllable. DutchColours (talk) 08:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly not the point. Wikipedia doesn't contain articles about all information that can possibly be verified -- we only include articles when enough notice has been taken by reliable sources to establish that the subject is generally notable and thus of interest to potential readers. Your goal should not be to dig up verifications of every minute claim made in the article -- rather we need to find that notice has been taken of this individual by reliable sources outside of Wikipedia to the point that the general notability guideline has been met. CapitalSasha ~ talk 18:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understood in the conversation on my own talk page, opened by BigHaz title=User_talk:DutchColours&action=edit&section=13 more about the notability. Question: can you explain me, dear CapitalSasha the notability of Asle Amundsen? For the full discussion about this I copy here what is written on the opened discussion section on my talk page: .........................I see your point as well. And therefore again: how can you defend the existence of the page Asle Amundsen. WHAT is the notability of that? Being an invisible little politician somewhere? What is his contribution to the world? He is an unknown Norwegian politician. What is interesting about this one for the world? I would like to know you answer. About the page with ALS patients: I know that this exists, I have already added Per Villand there a week ago. What you said yesterday: "Don't give up!"...: I gave up already, I have lost my appetite, the energy, the heart, the spirit, because it is insane how huge the constant attacks and in my opinion unfair argumentations are. I am working now anyway with it. I am searching for the name of the instrument, connected with Per Villand's head, that he used to handle the keyboard of the computer, to write with this tool, not with his hands: these were paralysed, not with his toes, these were paralysed, Per Villand was for 99% paralysed, lame. With that 1% that still was not paralysed he was writing on his computer, via that instrument, and I am finding out how that worked, and when I know I will name that instrument exactly and explain it. Note: with this instrument he created even a book (does not matter if it isn't interesting for the modern world that is coming to it's end, as the Hopi Prophecy is foretelling and what we are witnessing more and more because of the climate change and the decadence everywhere), he could contribute to the human world, he has even offered his entire body to science, in fact to humanity, to conquer, battle this disease, so, his life had not become meaningless, and that is, in such a circumstance, a notability for all humans, who are in different but also in future-less circumstances. Question: would that page be notable for a Norwegian version of wikipedia, the Bokmål version? If so: again, why this Asle Amundsen got an English version? WHAT is his meaning for the world, the English language world of Wikipedia? Wasn't it enough that this page was there in Bokmål? This is utterly bitter to notice................... (end quoting) .........
The term notability is not exact, even Wikipedia cannot name it exact, it is an "about", approximately, a vague term, it is a philosophical term, not able to become exact ever. On a university this would belong in the Gamma section, not Alpha as mathematics are. Mathematicians want everything to be proved by exact numbers, and because Alpha scientists are working with numbers and formulas, exact in that way (mostly, because economy is not an exact science!), they assume without realising that they are not per definition exact, because they work mostly with numbers, and exact. This is self-deception. In this case, about notability, it is IMPOSSiBLE to be exact, to be "Alpha". Sasha, you are an alpha scientist, and here you judge, analyse my work, while using not exact formulas. If there are, these can be compared with all what is related with the term quantum physics, because they are intertwined with the one who researches the subject. Therefore it is impossible to filter personal views from notability. With this I have tried to explain how subjective and not objective you are, dear Sasha, because again: Asle Amundsen is there, in Wikipedia, and there are many more, with the same shallow or an even lacking notability. .............
In the past the notables (high notability level) in a country, city or village were those who achieved a lot within the values of that time. Common people were not notable because they were not high enough in that hierarchic power system, a power-pyramid. In the time we live in, a lot of the past is now seen with other eyes, eyes with a deepened awareness, and therefore lots of so-called common people, without notability, are seen now as not so common at all, and had in fact more notability than was seen in that time. While a lot of so-called notables, those who were/are accepted for their notability, were not notables at all, and if, below the zero level of notability. Discrimination because of wrong values born out of narrow minded indoctrinating media and other power-systems, is very difficult to dismantle.
As long the Asle Amundsen article (what a term for two sentences) exists, I am allowed to consider the deletion of the Per Villand article can be categorised as (though not intended) discrimination, because of unseen (the awareness does not see it) values and unseen high levels of notability. There is hardly any clear coaching this person, me, to be able to work with some exact rules, because these exact (!!) rules do not exist, and therefore the policy is so vague that it took all the weeks that this discussion exists, to try to make Wikipedia aware of this problem. And I fail in it.
My energy is totally gone, I am tired, so immense tired and so deeply disappointed. This is an insane discussion between a 69 years old woman against a wall of scientists, who want me to be exact while they are not exact themselves, even not able with the best will in the world to be exact. The deletion of the article is therefore based on vague terms, and not any scientist in the world can make this a fair play. I am in Wikipedia court, with not any lawyer to defend me. In exact words: I have not any chance.
To think about for all: in how far in depth the popularity level, the being accepted in the society, even worldwide, as a star, a successful person, in sport, music, business, name it, who won gold or lots of money, time to be on TV and other media, or having a title that internationally is accepted as notable, so again, how deeply the popularity level is intertwined in wikipedia with the term notability? If this is the case, then it is time for a more efficient policy: before wikipedia users want to start an article, it should be checked by a commission of a filter, if this has enough credits to be accepted as notable. This avoids loads of hours as loss of time.
It proves not to be efficient at all only to mention what is NOT accepted, not good, not this not that. Like: The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by citing reliable secondary sources (I DID) that are independent of the topic (I DID) and provide significant coverage of it beyond its mere trivial mention (I DID). If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Per Villand" – news (I DID)· newspapers (I DID) · books (I DID) · scholar (I DID) JSTOR (October 2017) The one who arrived after JSTOR was Geschichte and turned the page into "delete". All his arguments are battled, but still one finds stones to throw with.
A way to what it has to be exactly is to offer help, by showing the way, the right direction, by being exact oneself as a Wikipedia supervisor. After I did ALL what was asked, there is STILL not enough notability?? WHY there should be a five hours lasting documentary about somebody who is not notable? In my opinion there is a lack of common sense here.DutchColours (talk) 09:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Keep, per educational value of the article in raising awareness about people with ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, and to uphold the humanitarian and ethical mission of Wikipedia as a community-generated compendium of knowledge. Since the person in question represents a vulnerable population of people with disabilities, the criterion of notability cannot be applied in the same way as with regular populations. This case presents a notable example of coping with an incurable disease and aiding medical professionals to better understand it. Furhtemore, the person's scientific accomplishments as a molecular biologist, including publications (Google Scholar; VIAF) and patents (Patents) are worthy to mention. --Taterian (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked the links offered by Taterian and created a new paragraph: Scientific accomplishments. Changed the paragraph title "Literature and Film" into "Literature and Visual Education"
Have seen the page about Jason Becker. This page tells me that he is still alive. So: his ALS disease is lesser aggressive developing as Per Villand's ALS. I notice that Becker has a more spectacular profession, concerning popularity, populism, etc.: he is a heavy metal composer. There are computer programs to compose. I know this because my own son is a composer. One can compose on a chair. There are no computer programs to create patents about research in molecular biology: a molecular biologist "composes" his compositions in a lab. The popularity of a micro biologist is, I am sure, almost zero, because there are no fans, only doctors are their fans, and they are too busy to be in the media, on YouTube, Instagram, Twitter. It seems that Per Villand's page unfortunately has been checked and judged by Wikipedia users that have not any, at least not enough, affinity with biology, neither with ALS, not any, or hardly any insight in the disease, in being disabled, and in what is ethical within this concept, what belongs to awareness and showing respect. Also from out of the point of view that disabled people are already discriminated, and yes, here in Wikipedia as well. Except by user Taterian. Especially user Geschichte is respectless, as I wrote, he even uses the term subject when it is about a human being. User Capital Sasha has proved to be not so exact as is so highly needed here. But she is consequent in rejecting the notability of Per Villand, without being informed about the heaviness of a the disease, that obviously seems to be different from the one patient and the other. Discrimination does not belong in Wikipedia, and therefore one must judge with an eye for differences, and value. Values are not exact, these are related with the present or not present awareness of the one who judges, and therefore Wikipedia users who judge can (while being wrong, not enough developed in awareness) contribute to wrong decisions about pages. This is a serious mistake in the system Wikipedia uses for users to be able to judge about notability. Users who have the possibility to judge and delete pages should have an awareness check before they get the permission. Awareness goes far beyond rational intelligence. Even professors can have a total absence of awareness. And here in wikipedia one can add everything on the profile with only a nickname, a user name, and not any proof about what is written there about their education. Also this is utterly dangerous for the development of Wikipedia. Yes, I have my full name there, and websites. It should be like in Airb&b: a passport check, that the account is verified. DutchColours (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added It might be helpful to refocus the discussion on the contents of the article in order not to slide into WP:AADD. There are issues that require attention according to WP:MOS as explicated in H:TMM. Specifically, the article would benefit from:

Taterian thank you! I did all you advised. About the licenses: I have asked, before uploading in Wikimedia Commons, all who have sent me papers, photos, for permission to upload according to the Wikipedia licenses for sharing, etc. I got their permission. Question 1: please check the infobox scientist. I am not sure all is filled in on the right place. Never did this before. Question 2: In the category Molecular biologists the name Per Villand is categorized under P, not V. It should be V. Don't know how to change that. DutchColours (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. --Taterian (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the deletion discussion, I think that the documentary about Per Villand is key to establishing notability: I would say the article should be kept on the basis of that. CapitalSasha ~ talk 21:19, 29 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. Michig (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twiztid Presents: Year Of The Sword

Twiztid Presents: Year Of The Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Pre-emptive article so little coverage has been given, suggesting that its only purpose is to advertise the album. DrStrauss talk 22:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 22 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shivasri Kanchi

Shivasri Kanchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested speedy. Fails WP:FILMMAKER only in 2016 did he make his debut film .Fails WP:NACTOR none of his roles are significant and could find anything to meet WP:GNG.Being the brother S.S. Raja Mouli does not make him notable and notability is not inherited. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 29 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dulam Satyanarayana

Dulam Satyanarayana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG .Subject is currently working on his debut feature fiction project and and has only done documentry film and a promotion film upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON not notable currently.A case of apparent paid editing as well. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 01:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meghraj Rajebhosle

Meghraj Rajebhosle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not much in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 09:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:22, 29 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrique Jarrett

Tyrique Jarrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP. The following message was posted at WP:HD:

I don't know where to go to ask someone to propose an article for deletion. I came across the article for football player Tyrique Jarrett and it seems clear that he doesn't qualify for notability. He was not drafted in the 2017 NFL Draft, is currently on the practice squad of a team, and has never played in a game. WP:NGRIDIRON says playing in at least one regular or postseason game is required to establish notability. He played on a college team but, per WP:NCOLLATH, he's clearly not notable for that. The only sources in the article are mostly just some general roster listings and media guides from his college and NFL teams. I know there are a bunch of different reasons and ways to propose deleting an article but I have no idea which route is best, and the process is too complex for me to do anyway. I thought maybe I should ask about his at a particular board but I didn't know if it should be one with expertise about the NFL, sports in general, BLPs, or some other place. I just want someone to look at the article to see if they agree this person is not notable and then propose it for deletion if they agree with me. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was looking for evidence that he played in at least one game. How do I withdraw this nomination? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can just state here that you've withdrawn it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I just did haha. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:51, 22 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maineartists (talk • contribs) 18:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Crane

Cynthia Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP non-notable requirements for WP:MUSICBIO Maineartists (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is a clear WP:CIO with this article. Maineartists (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO via coverage in The New York Times ([5], [6]), New York Daily News ([7]), Rapport ([8]), Cadence ([9]), Jazz Times ([10]), BroadwayWorld ([11]), and Allmusic ([12], [13], [14], [15]). --Michig (talk) 09:39, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really? and that's all it really takes these days for inclusion at WP? an article that has only a lede and no content; which was started and continually monitored by the subject themselves, and the only notability claims are a Ponzi scheme and selling a piano? I'm sure all the countless musicians that have had 40 plus year careers that have been mentioned in newspapers yet rejected articles in WP for "non-notable" reasons, will be interested in this support. A quick google search of the name hardly even brings anything up for first hits except WP and Facebook. If this is a "keep", this article fails in all other aspects. Maineartists (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an article that has only a lede and no content; which was started and continually monitored by the subject themselves, and the only notability claims are a Ponzi scheme and selling a piano?" - you are discussing the article, not the notability of the subject. We're not here to assess the quality of the article. The subject is notable. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, hi Maineartists, please have a look at WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.", also, i'm curious about your comment about "the countless musicians that have had 40 plus year careers that have been mentioned in newspapers yet rejected articles in WP for "non-notable" reasons", please leave a list of these musos on my talkpage (with news sources if possible) and i'll have a look at them for possible wikiarticles, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least two references provided above meet the criteria for establishing notability (NYT, NY Daily News, Broadway World). -- HighKing++ 13:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is wonderful. I'm actually quite pleased that this AfD discussion is headed toward a consensus that I will be able to reference in the future. It's refreshing to hear the simple defense that I have been lead to refute by certain editors disqualifying on the very grounds you are now championing. Thanks. I appreciate your input. Maineartists (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure your sarcasm sounded better when you moved your lips while typing. Not appreciated here though. Your AfD would progress better if you made your arguments based on policy/guidelines. For example, what parts of WP:MUSIC do you believe this article fails? -- HighKing++ 17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Maineartists:, what you should learn from this AfD is that a deletion argument is not based on the lack of references in the article, it is based on the lack of articles in newspapers, etc that COULD be used as references. If you have seen articles fail at AfD it is likely because such newspaper articles could not be found, or they only mentioned the subject in passing, whereas the articles that Michig posted above are actually ABOUT the subject. Having said that, I have seen many deletionist editors put up articles for deletion that have plenty of valid references, so I do hear you. Robman94 (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not arguing at all. There are dozens of nightclub / lounge singers that have more coverage than articles from 1989, 1990 and 1997 or notable within their fields for selling a piano and are on sites that are generated by reviewing sign-in users and not considered reliable (Broadway World / Allmusic) on WP for musicians. I'm just content with the fact that so many editors are voicing their support. Glad to see it. As I said, will reference this discussion when supporting others. Obviously, I should not have proposed this for an AfD. My mistake. Thanks again. Maineartists (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you do try referencing this AfD, or the presence of other articles, folks will likely cite WP:OTHERSTUFF in response. As for this AfD, if you have changed your mind, you're welcome to withdraw it in order for it to close. Robman94 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the articles that Michig found. The OP is correct about the article having a COI problem though, as it does appear that the subject has done most of the editing. Robman94 (talk) 18:34, 23 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 deleted. Consensus is clear. No prejudice against future creation of a list article to which all such titles can be redirected, if properly sourced. bd2412 T 15:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VC C23 Company

VC C23 Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 30-man Viet Cong unit is unreferenced and doesn't seem to have accomplished anything particularly notable. I see one passing mention in this book. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for essentially the same reasons:

VC C25 Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VC C41 Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

According to its article, VC C41 fought in the Battle of Binh Ba, but is not mentioned there.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 25 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 WP:G11 and salt. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo de Castro Tibana

Marcelo de Castro Tibana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and article has been deleted several times:

Habertix (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_October_22&oldid=806480221"