Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 December	23 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and Divorce in Islam

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

Originally speedied, changed to PROD, which was removed. Unsourced, no claims to notability. Author may have a COI judging from username. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, which the author has confirmed in this comment. It may well be proven notable someday, but until then, a Wikipedia article on it, written by the book's author, is just a violation of WP:NOTPROMOTION. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Women_in_Islam#Marriage. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berenice Mulubah

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

Subject is not notable, requesting deletion of article. There are no sources, as per Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Notability. Andrew Sledd (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per G5, this is another DKRJ creation. GAB^gab 15:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and this article is Sockpuppet.Article creator has already blocked by sock puppetry. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 18:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom and comments are spot on. Speedy delete if possible. Lourdes 02:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pribanic & Pribanic

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

Promo article by WP:SPA about a law firm that does not meet WP:GNG. The secondary sources cited either don't mention the firm, or contain a WP:Trivial mention. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a completely ordinary and run of the mill law firm, which fails even my allegedly too easy standards. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched for sources. None worth spending my time to get this up to speed. Like Bearian, I too am generally bent towards putting in effort and improving any savable article. Nothing to save here unfortunately. Lourdes 02:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. And merge as desired by editors. Sandstein 20:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs of War (Warhammer)

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

Fails WP:GNG as no secondary sources cover it in depth. I propose redirecting it to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. See recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skaven (Warhammer). Odie5533 (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy. Un-notable fictional organization, with no real sources. Doing some searches, I'm finding nothing except for fansites/forums and product listings. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinion here is split, but there is opposition to a merge on the grounds of lack of independent sourcing and no particular supporting argument offered I'm closing as Delete. Hut 8.5 11:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump (comics)

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

Non-notable character. PROD declined in favor of a merge discussion. Consensus there was in favor of deletion instead. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. BOZ (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. No evidence of third-party coverage provided, but I'd be open to changing my mind if any is forthcoming (ping me). Josh Milburn (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is nothing to be merged (zero content backed up by reliable third party sources). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Love Needed

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

Originally prodded by User:Fabrictramp with the reason "Book with no claim in article of meeting the notability guidelines. Borderline advert with COI issues. Good faith google search not turning up independent, reliable sources showing notability.", but the tag was removed by User:Sanjeedasabharwal. I completely concur with Fabrictramp's comments, thus I'm nominating this for deletion. IagoQnsi (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still agree with myself. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book - doesn't meet WP:NBOOK nor WP:GNG. In addition it is promotionally written, and once all that is removed not much would remain of the article. --bonadea contributions talk 17:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG Spiderone 14:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything to establish notability either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and definitely written like an adverstisement. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don Jakoby

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

Expired BLP PROD, only referenced to IMDB but looks like could possibly be notable, bringing here for further eyes. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total fail of the general notability guidelines. IMDb is not a reliable source and can be the only source on no articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jawato

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

Expired PROD, but has a source saying he at least exists and plays for that team, but notable? Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NBASKETBALL. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability requirements for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:NBASKETBALL. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Mandich

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

Expired PROD sourced only to IMDB, sending to AfD for further eyes. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, nor WP:NACTOR. I got 96 google hits, all of which are either cursory mentions or IMDb-type websites. Seeing as she only had minor roles and stand-in appearances, I don't expect things to be any better offline; I've had no luck finding her in any newspaper archives. She appeared on Kidsongs, but that doesn't seem to be grant much notability to me, considering the amount of appearances listed in the article. Daß Wölf 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMBd is not a realible source, we cannot have articles based only on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Slim Virgin. Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rosengarten

Question - I'm curious why this isn't being speedied as an advert or A7?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:COI and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). I still question the notability of the topic, but some verifiable content exists that could be merged into another page such as Humour or Humor research. Deletion may be considered once this is accomplished or at least discussed on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny word

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

Apparently original research. No coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from trivial mentions. The concept of "inherently funny" is a matter of opinion, and therefore fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note The most substantive sources used in the article refer to a paper by Chris Westbury et al., which describes "perceived humor" (not inherent humor) as "a quantifiable function of how far NWs [non-words] are from being words". The entire concept of "inherently funny words" is therefore based on a misinterpretation of the source material. Some of the article contents could be merged into the articles Humour and Humor research, but doing so would leave nothing here but a list of trivia, hence the nomination to delete. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Response - your focused definition of "substantive" would hold true in most articles, but in *this* article, the statements of comedians and comic characters can be legitimate sourcing, not just trivia as it would usually be. Those are people who make a living in the field, who study it and understand it. When H.L. Mencken says K words are funny that is at least as legitimate a source of information as a psychology professor's analysis. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion here over what constitutes reliable sourcing. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, articles should be based on "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Fictional characters meet none of these criteria. Assembling a collection of utterances by unrelated people or characters and using them to prove a separate point is original research. This concept for this article seems entirely based on such WP:SYNTHESIS.

Granted, there's more reliably sourced information here than that simply about research. However, H. L. Mencken's essays and criticism are reliable sources for statements directly attributed to him, but scarcely for factual claims. Mencken's opinions on the subject would be an interesting addition to the article about the general phenomenon of humor, but don't demonstrate a given word’s inherent humor, which is supposedly the topic of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all references for psychology/sociology/culture topics could be dismissed as mere "opinion", even if published in a journal. I think you're being a bit academic-source-blinkered not to recognize how the practices of professionals in the field (humor writing), reflected in their statements, is solid evidence that this phenomenon exists and is widely recognized. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there exists significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that address the topic directly and in detail, – not just primary sources such as essays, humor writing, etc. – please provide some references to prove that the phenomenon is so widely recognized, so that the article does not depend on original research to establish the importance of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mencken's piece (and other writings of professional comics) IS a secondary source for this subject that establishes its importance, even though it is also humor writing; that's where you're missing the point (in my opinion, of course). Your idea of what constitutes a secondary source doesn't fit this topic. As we will agree to disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Mencken's list of "joke towns" – owing to having the letter k in their names, which "has always appealed to the oafish risibles of the American plain people" – is what the General notability guideline means by "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Any interpretive claim about Mencken's statement – such as to support the general idea that words can be inherently funny – would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what are the "other writings of professional comics" that address the topic of "inherently funny words" directly and in detail? Please provide some actual citations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Mencken does not say that K words are funny. In his 1948 essay "The Podunk Mystery", he mentions the letter k in the names of "joke towns", including a fictional Podunk, only in passing, by way of explaining "the fate or ill fame of Podunk as a nest of the socially starved and intellectually underprivileged" and "an accepted symbol for bucolic coma". He appears to mean joke as something not worth taking seriously, rather than funny or amusing. This has nothing to do with the notability of "inherently funny words". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This isn't "list of inherently funny words" - which would, indeed, be problematic - this is an article about a concept that is embraced and used and studied by comedians, writers and academics. It has 18 (at current count) references. It could be improved, certainly (like 98% of wikipedia) but it's a legitimate article topic. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that most of the article is a list of words (or numbers) that someone or other found to be funny, with no unifying context provided by the sources – see sections § Words described as funny, § Funny nonsense words, and § Funny numbers. None of the references in these sections address the topic "directly and in detail" per WP:GNG. Juxtaposing such a number of trivial facts – as if to prove that yes, the subject is notable – constitutes original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - And I mean very weak. There are a few actual reliable sources here that actually do confirm that yes, its a notable topic. But about 3/4 of this article probably has to go, along with nearly all of the so-called "sources". A lot of the article is pure OR and Synthesis (i.e. using Webster's dictionary to find out which letters are the least used, and then using an entirely different source to come to a conclusion of the article creator's own design. Basically the very definition of synthesis). And then the article devolves into just pop culture cruft, before going completely off topic and talking about "funny numbers", which is a completely different topic. Most of the sources are not actual reliable, third party sources, since they're things like episodes of fiction TV series. In short, there are just enough reliable sources here to warrant it being considered notable, but the vast majority of the article needs to be removed or rewritten. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this repeat nomination will prod some of us (who, me?) to improve this admittedly weak article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination's claims seem to be blatantly false and, as this is a repeat nomination, it seems to be vexatious per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the content starting with the Star Trek tidbit ought to go, but the topic is notable and easily meets WP:GNG through the first few references in the article. Daß Wölf 01:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Smith (track and field)

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added more sources, but haven't had a chance to go through the 110 results for "Cecil Smith" track in the full text search of The Globe and Mail in the period of his career, or 92 results for the same search in the Toronto Star. He is in his sport's hall of fame, he has received awards from the Governor General of Canada (the representative of our head of state), has a list of accomplishments that I haven't had time to sort through, it's so long, and his time in charge includes the period where some of Canada's top track stars were developed, including former world record holder Donovan Bailey. The national athletics body in Canada called him "a true pillar and icon of the sport." ("Cecil Smith: 1936 – 2016". Athletics Canada. 6 December 2016. Retrieved 22 December 2016.)

Of the ANYBIO criteria, this clearly meets the first (Hall of Fame, award from GG of C) and second requirements (extensive involvement). Just because Google doesn't ooze with results, doesn't mean it's not notable, it just means his accomplishments were largely in a pre-Internet era. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, I use Bing, and second, why would you publish the article without finishing the job first? Magnolia677 (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No article is ever finished, so if people were prevented from publishing articles without finishing the job first this would be a nice and tidy, but empty, encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if they publish an article without including enough information to demonstrate its notability it gets deleted. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia shouldn't allow mobile editing. I created the article on my phone, at a time I didn't have access to desktop, and simply hadn't had time to return to the article to keep working on it. -- Zanimum (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reliable sources added and has contributed significantly to the sport of athletics in Canada. SFB 20:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Almost all contributors who have examined the sources available about this person conclude that they meet the requirements of WP:GNG. It has been alleged that paid contributors have contributed to the article, but apart from the nominator nobody seems to see this as a reason to delete - from which I conclude that consensus is that this problem, if it is one, can be fixed by editing (or blocks or other sanctions, if need be). I must disregard DGG's disconcerting opinion that the person is not notable because "it" [sic] is "nothing worthy of being noticed": This runs counter to our constant practice of using "notable" not as a measure of our own view of how important a topic is or ought to be, but as a term of art with the meaning of "has been substantially covered by reliable sources". Sandstein 23:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Civil

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

The user is welcome to continue making changes in hopes of improvements but my PROD still applies by the sole concern of the previously removed advertising immediately being restored: When an article cares to blatantly specify everything from her career, and that's also simply in the first few sentences, that's blatant enough; next is the sheer blatancy there's such trivial awards and they're obvious since they themselves say "Not yet notable" especially when they explicitly say "A not yet notable person and is still hoping to establish herself", that alone should've been enough to not enough, especially now that WP:NOT applies, given how closely emulative this is to her own LinkedIn-esque page. Next, is the other sheer blatancy of published and republished PR sources, regardless of publication or name, and the damnning fact searches mirror this, thus there's simply nothing to genuinely (1) suggest an acceptable article to begin with, but then the fact there's nothing to even hope for meaningful improvements. This itself has the signs of being PR-motivated so there's simply nothing to suggest otherwise, worse when this was resubmitted when repeatedly declined with stated concerns. Finally, the advertising in Draftspace was repeatedly removed but restored (another common sign of advertising campaigning), showing the simply outstanding blatancy here. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like it's a case of a not notable person trying to make a name for themselves by creating her own Wikipedia page. Grammarphile (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure how reading the sources or even just the entry itself could give rise to this conclusion. At the time of your comment, the entry contained conflicting accounts even of the subject's own age and birthday, as well as a major error in the chronology of her career (...she was a radio intern in 2002, not 2015). Giving the subject a major demotion is not the stuff of autobiographies. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you explain more about this removing of advertising? What was advertised and where? Delta13C (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SwisterTwister, this is a broad assertion of "blatant advertising" which you fail to support. If you are going to say that someone is blatantly promoting themselves on Wiki than I think you need to show 1) COI and 2) a lack of reliable sources. If there are enough sources to pass GNG, then there is a reasonable threshold that's being met. Did you do WP:BEFORE, or are you going to reject any sources about her "regardless of publication or name?" Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Civil is treated in a non-trivial manner in several RS over time. Here is the break-down: 1) The New Yorker 2016 this is full article just about Civil, 2) Black Enterprise 2014 (sub needed), this is an article entirely about Civil which includes extensive quoting from Civil about her work, 3) Forbes 2015 this is an article entirely about Civil, 4) Kansas City Star 2014 an entire article about Civil, 5) Vibe 2015 covering her philanthropy in Haiti. I didn't include the interviews she has in Essence, Vibe and other RS (since we don't count those as independent). These sources show that she passes GNG and the article can, indeed, be meaningfully improved. Indeed, someone is working on it as I write this. BTW, Thegrammarphile, what makes you think she made the page? The article was created by Imdariusburgan and I'm seeing no connection from them to Civil. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the subject included in the article go above and beyond the minimum notability standard. Nominator has failed to meet the obligations specified by WP:BEFORE to attempt to address issues before bringing the article to AfD. That the article could have been (and was) readily modified to address the nominator's sole concerns best demonstrates this failure; nor for that matter can I see what "blatant advertising" existed when the article was nominated. Alansohn (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources above are clear interviews and it's unfortunate when we must resort "Meets GNG" when it clearly violates WP:NOT policy, which is far important. Also, there was no "failing" of Before, when all I found was clear PR. Are we seriously going to call PR as "independent sourcing?" Only if we want to damn ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SwisterTwister, I have to call bullshit here. "Making Your Own Way: Digital Renaissance Woman Karen Civil Charts a Path as a Brand Ambassador" in Black Enterprise and "Beyond the bling: Karen Civil advises rap stars and the rest of us" in the Kansas City Star from 2014; "From Media Maven To Philanthropist, Karen Civil Builds The LiveCivil Playground In Haiti" from Forbes and "Lil Wayne And Karen Civil Give Back To Haiti For The Holidays" from Vibe in 2015; and "The Woman Making Hillary Clinton Cool" in The New Yorker from 2016 are all equivocally about Karen Civil. In addition to the dozen other sources here, these are all examples of in-depth, independent coverage from reliable and verifiable sources about the subject; they are NOT "clear interviews" as you purport. You only damn yourself with these false assertions. If you continue to fail to follow WP:BEFORE and persist in misrepresenting sources, it seems clear that you should be systematically excluded from AfD. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis - Very well, let's look at each source: the Forbes article itself, regardless of being a staff-article, actually has such blatant quotes as Karen Civil rose to prominence as a master at building hip-hop artists’ profiles and sales online. Now she’s turned her talents to building something completely different....(hold for her "in my home country and childhood quote) .... She knew music was her passion in high school - "I chose to choose my own path .... "Often said to be the next Oprah (yet this is vague, given it simply says "by others" (so this could be anything from a PR webhost or something she paid for herself) .... until ending that. The next one, BlackEnterprise is full of quotes, but the first is Approaching her business and personal life with respect is how she established a valuable reputation for herself and the next, NewYorker, is full of interviewed quotes or immediate name-drops of "Usher, Nicki Minaj, Backstreet Boys, Dre, J. D. Williams and Drake" all in the entire article, something that was itself interviewed, hence not independent or significant. When an article has to closely focus with things such as "At her homeschool at home, she...." or "Her memories of this and that" are only from her own words, not anyone else, regardless of whatever or whoever published. This NewYorker itself is a clear "today's interview"-esque and is itself actually focused about the political campaign and her comparisons of it. The KansasCityStar itself is a localized blog column by a blogger, which says Karen Civil isn’t just the social media genius whom stars like Lil Wayne turn to, she’s a motivational speaker, too (note the name-drop)....She’s often asked how she made the jump from Jersey girl to Los Angeles It-girl and she ran the Backstreet Boys site....Karen wants them to dig deeper than champagne dreams and five-star wishes and the next paragraph each is still literally an interviewed quote: "She said....She's been touring recently....}} until 2 "She says" is closing the article. For God's sake, see the Vibe which says at the bottom: Information via KarenCivil.com. If this is the best we have, that's not substance, that's recostumed interviews and quotes, not substance, worse from a local news blog column (regardless of publication or name) because that's what the contents still are. The first thing I started this AfD was with policy, which we follow, not ignore. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is very biased. Just because a news article is saying good things about her, or dropping names doesn't make it PR, nor does it make it advertising. Quoting her doesn't make an article into an "interview" either. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no bias since I explicitly quoted from the sources themselves including the one that, in bold, says "Information from her own website". We cannot, in a snowball's chance of hell, ever consider that independent. "Because a news source says good things about her" is because it's her own republished quotes and PR, how is that independent? Quoted ng her for nearly every sentence as the highlighted one above show, state clearly it's quote republishing hence not independent. Everything I said above was in policy. I never made this AfD for politics, I made it because of policy, something we follow. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing worthy of being noticed, which is the definition in WP:N. That it has bern noticed anyway is an foolish attempt to pretend to compensate for centuries of prejudice and discrimination which have continued to have a real and detrimental effect of real accomplishments. We are not willing (& perhaps not even able ) to deal with these, so instead we pretend that triviality is accomplishment in order to obtain a deceptive and imaginary balance. Personally I consider it degrading to any honest person in any of the groups discriminated against to do this, and I'm surprised that others don't see it similarly. What I think they're doing, is finding it more comfortable to convince themselves that the problem has been solved, and hide from their inability to prevent the continuing forces of racism and sexism from working their evil Trying to delete articles like this is probably hopeless at the moment, and I think the only possible solution is to stubbify and try again in a year or do. WP is not necesarily driven by rational considerations. But a real encyclopedia should be, and this is one of the many ways we fall short. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, you've completely subverted and twisted the concept of notability into being a subject "worthy of being noticed", by which you seem to mean what *YOU* have arbitrarily decided is worthy of *YOUR* attention. WP:GNG states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Wikipedia interprets that to mean the significant coverage in real-worl publications, which is the standard met here; you've decided that the coverage she has received should be systematically ignored because she is a charity case due to her race and sex or some combination thereof. I have no idea how you have objectively made that determination. We fall short if we allow these kinds of bigotry to determine our decisions. Alansohn (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"worthy of notice" is right there is the guideline. We tend to ignore that part. if it is seen as an alternative requirement "or", which is how the guideline literally words it , it would mean we could cover anyone we think ought to be published about, which I agree with you is absurd; so it must mean "and", or at least a factor to be considered . An example of the incoherent and self-contradictory wording which permeates WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG,It makes no sense that race has entered this discussion. I find this very troubling. For all, please see my comments on the talk page for my suggestions about how to improve the article. I don't doubt that Civil has benefited from being plugged into PR circles, but since this is her field, isn't that to be expected? Delta13C (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought it was time I named the elephant in the room. But I didn't mention race--that's your own interpretation. I meant any distinguishable group with a constituency, and I've seen here a wide range of different ones. I very strongly support trying to get articles on people and organizations in such groups, -- provided the people are actually notable. Including them is what makes up a little for past discrimination. Including the ones who aren;t perpetuates it. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the elephant I saw in the room... It's telling that you did, however, DGG. The subject of the article passes GNG. That's it. It doesn't matter why she was considered worthy of notice by the media: the fact is that she was, and in very reliable sources. It seems to me that you are asserting that the people !voting Keep are trying to keep this article just because either 1) she's black, 2) she's a woman, 3) both. It also seems to me that you are suggesting the media only noticed her because she's a black woman in order to combat centuries of prejudice: not based on her own merit. That's an extremely troubling assertion. How do you know WHY she was noticed by the press? Do you know for a fact they wrote about her just to combat prejudice? Maybe she was noticed because she has done significant work in her field. She passes the bar for GNG: and that should be enough. It's deeply troubling that editors are deliberately trying to poke holes in GNG. Yes, GNG is broad, but it is supposed to be. The fact is that there is plenty of room for anyone who passes GNG to be included on Wikipedia. And since this is one of the largest sources of information in the world, they should be included so that people can have a neutral overview of people who are discussed in the media. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry abundantly meets our sourcing standards for notability. Moreover, the sources themselves explicitly emphasize their view of the subject's significance. The New Yorker: "The Woman Making Hillary Clinton Cool." Forbes: a "media maven" with "a mini-empire in digital hip-hop media and strategic marketing by the time she celebrated her 29th birthday." Essence: "When it comes to social media, Karen Civil is the queen." Kansas City Star: compares her to Lena Dunham as a "voice of the young generation of women." XXL: "industry power player" with repeated comparisons to Oprah. Etc. Any given editor may consider work concerning young women, hip-hop or the internet to be beneath our attention (as an aside: I'm not surprised to encounter bias against the first two, but the third never ceases to amaze because we are having this conversation on an internet project), but, well, I've never been so persuaded of the value of our insistence editors may not substitute their personal opinions for the analysis given by reliable secondary sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is no secret that I consider the GNG outmoded. It seemed a clever idea at first, but it yields very erratic results, depending on the density of coverage and whether one chooses to regard any particular reference as "comprehensive" and "independent". For most ccontested AfDs, I could argue either way on those two adjectives. I know we're not likely to get rid of it any time soon, but even the current wording of WP:N makes it clear there can be exceptions, and that passing it does not guarantee an article;. That leaves us free in any one particular case to ignore it whenever there is consensus to do so. But I normally bring this up only when it yields whatI consider particular anomalous results and my experience is that about half thetime when I do, the consensus agrees with me. Even if the WP:N were not specific about exceptions, there would be anyway, as there are to all WP rules; IAR is the best of all arguments when there is clear consensus to use it. (And of course I nevr make admin decisions on the basis of my own standards, only on what I think would clearly be consensus.)

The standard for accomplishments is the same for all ages and other d personal factors. In practice, in some fields younger people are less likely to have major accomplishments than more mature ones. (In some other fields, of course, it can be just the opposite). If they do attract press notice, it's likely to be because of what the press calls human interest, and I call TABLOID.

As for elephants, I think the current attitude amounts to "pretty good for a ____). I think when worded that way, most people do realize that it's an insult. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find your penultimate sentence very insulting indeed, but not in the way you intend, I don't think. I'll step out now. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but needs massive rewrite: I am not impressed that most of the sources present information that appears to be pushed by PR forces and press releases, but these are also not trivial sources. It may be impossible for us to tease apart this tangle. I think the best we can do is probe for all sources and generate an unbiased article. I am also concerned that there could be paid editors at work here: 1) The picture also appears published in some sources in which she is interviewed; who is the owner of that image? 2) How does someone know her birthday? The date in the infobox contradicts the date listed on her verified Twitter account. I understand these are minor points, but they could be symptoms of some backdoor direction at work. Delta13C (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - An important note is that I've now confirmed the 2 accounts involved with this article, Imdariusdurgan and Dega were in fact paid advertisers based from their contributions and stated involvements, so this itself is a concern and not one to be taken lightly or too unimportant, since the commenters, regardless of their arguments, have not countered the fact this is in fact a paid advertisement; a paid advertisement in which the paid contributors are still in fact active. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that there are paid editors at work here. I had my suspicions, which I wrote in my comment and vote for a weak keep, but with a massive rewrite. Delta13C (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, notice how this currently shown article is overbloated with named mentions and other PR puff; yet the controversy section is only a few sentences and has entirely unconvincing information about triviality. The fact this is still being defended by "But there sources" cannot be outweighed by the fact this this is advertising campaigning.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Stabley

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

"Self-produced" musician with no indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Grammarphile (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete.. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2044

Delete It's a cute article that highlights some young kids who want to be the President in the future. However, it is not encyclopedic. Grammarphile (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. scope_creep (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thegrammarphile. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 04:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FUTURE. "Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." The sources in the article are far too insufficient. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No serious information, the Constitution may be amended to change elections in some manner by then, WP:CRYSTAL. The amount of time that will elapse before then is greater than the age of numerous editors on Wikipedia (including myself). Even United States presidential election, 2024 would be a stretch due to the lack of information, so 2044 is just silly. It also appears that one of the editors of that page may actually be one of the people listed. Dustin (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - we are not a web listing of every cutesy idea. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers born in Argentina who have played for other national teams

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

I fail to see how this is anything other than pure trivia. Please see WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:IINFO. I understand that there is some coverage on individual players (e.g. Mauro Camoranesi, Matias Fernandez and Nestor Ortigoza) regarding their individual decisions to play for countries other than Argentina but this is best saved for their individual articles rather than creating this list. Aside from this, the list is entirely unsourced. Spiderone 17:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lists of this type are unnecessary, as the topic of anyone playing any sport for any nation other than the nation of their birth is not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per unanimous consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. A non-admin closure. - TheMagnificentist 15:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Catgirls in Heat

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria at WP:NOTFILM. Krychek (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the page was created by a sock puppet of the film's production company. Krychek (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added reviews from The Austin Chronicle and Joe Bob Briggs, which I'd argue that they just about meet WP:GNG (significant coverage in independent reliable sources, aka 2 sources here). I agree that this stands on somewhat shaky ground. Daß Wölf 17:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a review by TV Guide and per this, it looks like it was reviewed in Cinefantastique in 1994. I'm not certain about The Independent Critic as a RS, but the others should be enough to establish notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily moved to draft space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of public corporations with a market capitalization bigger than US$25 billion

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

Looks like this falls foul of Sui generis database right, as is is merely a cut out from the full list. The Banner talk 16:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved this page to Draft:List of public corporations with a market capitalization bigger than US$25 billion pending cleanup of excessive disambiguation links. However, please continue with this discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is moot given that the article has been moved to Draft space. There is nothing to delete. We cannot usefully discuss what might or might not get moved to mainspace in the future. This should be closed ASAP. --do ncr am 20:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Herauf

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

Previous nomination was no consensus before updated WP:NHOCKEY (old definition was simply just "fully professional"). This article has no sources that meet WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE coverage (and is currently unsourced outside of a stats page). Yosemiter (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG and does not meet inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN subject whose minor-league career was ephemeral and without distinction. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 01:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sudam Mandlik

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost entirely unsourced. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source in the article isn't even of him.Grammarphile (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I added a reference which at least mentions the subject but not I think in a way that meets WP:POLITICIAN or wider WP:BASIC criteria. (If this article did survive, it would need severe pruning and verification - using the references which do not seem to be available - probably involving removal of the entire "Social and Political Qualities" section plus much of the remainder.) AllyD (talk) 09:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete;Advertorial/promotional article.Subject hardly passes WP:POLITICIAN.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 11:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No properly sourced evidence of passing WP:GNG, but nothing here entitles him to a presumption of notability under any of our subject-specific inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the nominator reverted, without explanation, the addition of several external links that mention the subject in this edit. I'm not claiming that those links demonstrate notability by themselves, but it is disruptive to remove such sources during a deletion discussion, especially with the default "undo" edit summary that implies that their addition was vandalism. Notability-based AfD discussions are supposed to be examinations of the available sources, not battlegrounds where people remove evidence that doesn't support their case. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The external links section of an article is not used to collate additional "sources" beyond those which are present as references. Sources are used as footnoted references, not as external links, while the only thing that goes under external links is the subject's own primary web page if he has one and nothing at all if he doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the wikilawyering. If an article is nominated for deletion and its creator finds some potential sources (although I agree that in this case they are not sufficient to demonstrate notability) then those sources should be available to the discussion, and their addition to the article as external links, while not being the optimal way to present them, shouldn't be treated as vandalism. We don't expect everyone creating content to know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we also don't criticize the people who do know the ins and outs of Wikipedia policy from simply following it. So you'd be well advised to drop the pompous tone and start phrasing your points more politely and constructively. Bearcat (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for pomposity then I suggest that you look in the mirror. And are you, a supposedely competent administrator, saying that it was following policy for the nominator here to treat the addition of potential sources in the external links section as vandalism? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I've been quite polite and haven't shown even the slightest trace of pomposity whatsoever. Just for the record, Zackmann08's been around Wikipedia for five years, and has a good reputation for knowing what he's doing — and having reviewed the links in question, I can confirm that they were not actually adding anything useful to the article at all. One of them was a Blogspot blog, which is never reliable sourcing for anything; four of the others glancingly namechecked Sudam Mandlik's existence a single time each but completely failed to be about him in any way that would count for anything toward demonstrating notability; and the last one completely failed to even mention his name at all. That is not "adding to the potential sources"; it's "filling up the article with an unproductive linkfarm". And incidentally, nobody said "vandalism" except you. Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157, this is a discussion of whether or not an article meets Wikipedia's standards. It is not your personal social media account. Please strike your comments against Bearcat. He's done nothing wrong. You can be blocked from editing for your personal attacks and disruption of this AfD. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL, this thread started with me simply pointing out that the nominator here abused process by reverting the addition of (albeit pretty useless) sources leaving only the default edit summary, which should only be done when reverting vandalism. It was Bearcat who chose to argue about that and to call my tone pompous, when that was a word that I had deliberately avoided using about his previous contributions in the spirit of collegiality. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

86.17.222.157 You might be misunderstanding Twinkle. The nom did not imply vandalism when he reverted the edit here. He has Twinkle, like most of us. He did not use the vandalism buttons. He simply clicked on 'undo,' to revert. If he'd used the vandalism buttons, a warning would have appeared on the editor's talk page. Instead, by using Twinkle, he was able to place an information message on the editor's talk page and welcome the editor to Wikipedia here. If you felt he'd abused Twinkle, you could have questioned him on the article talk page. But not here. It was not an abuse of process. Bearcat explained to you why the revert was perfectly harmless and why external links have no impact. He's an admin just giving you some information. No judgement. It's what admins do. You came back accusing him of Wikilawyering, when he'd clearly not done that. Bearcat has been active at AfDs for a very long time. His judgment is sound and his input here is well respected. He was simply trying to be helpful. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a tool such as Twinkle does not absolve an editor from responsibility for edits, including the responsibility to explain reverts of good-faith edits that might have an impact on ongoing deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: thanks for that and 86.17.222.157 as someone who continues to hide behind an IP that you can change at any time, your accusations carry zero weight with me. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08:. My pleasure. Everything you've done is completely above board. If this continues, it might be worth a block for the duration of the AfD. This is clearly disruptive. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SW3 5DL, nothing is remotely disruptive in my replies. You chose to restart a thread where I decided a few days ago to let Bearcat have the last word, because we obviously weren't going to agree, and I have simply replied to you by pointing out that edit summaries should be given when reverting good faith edits and editors take full responsibility for edits done with Twinkle. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These potential sources were added to the article but reverted by the deletion nominator without explanation:

86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as I noted above, none of these sources bolster the notability claim at all. Four of them just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something or someone else, one of them fails to include his name at all, and the last is a Blogspot blog. They're not offering improved evidence of a WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I noted the same below, but the sources should be available to this discussion because it is possible (albeit unlikely) that someone might be able to use them to find some better sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I said myself the source that was in the article when nominated was not actually about this Mandlik, and none of the others that have been offered since, or that I can find myself, have more than passing mentions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close. The subject doesn't qualify on our notability guidelines. Period. Lourdes 03:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Materialscientist (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Praybeyt Benjamin

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

Notability of film does creating a hoax, I don't see the meet WP:NFP and WP:NFF. Oripaypaykim (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Unsourced and likely hoax. Suspiciously large cast and inclusion of Korean and Spanish languages and allegely a sequel of not only The Unkabogable Praybeyt Benjamin but of five other unrelated films.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Ban

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

No sources that meet WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet any requirements of WP:NHOCKEY (international play was not in the top division and no honors in the lower level minor leagues such as EBEL). Yosemiter (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of rowing clubs in Switzerland

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

Can't see the benefit of this article as a collection of external links. We have an appropriate category with three articles.(category:Rowing clubs in Switzerland Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete’'’ A random list like this is not encyclopedic. The Happy Warrior (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list is WP:LISTCRUFT. This is because it satisfies definitions #4,#6,#7,#8, and #12 which means it should be deleted. KAP03 (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very retro-style wiki article, list for individually notable clubs maybe but not this. Ostrichyearning (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War (Extended Play)

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

Generally I redirect articles which concern seemingly non-notable recordings to the artiste, but in this case the article title is wrong; it should be Straight Jacket Menoirs. Moving it to this & then converting to a redirect seems horribly messy. TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable addition. Love the userbox at the bottom --Jennica✿ / ^talk 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability, not much content at present either. Ostrichyearning (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious and mythological references in Battlestar Galactica

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

All of these are blatantly original research. Not encyclopedic to be useful on Wikipedia Cylon B (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is ridiculous amounts of WP:CRUFT at best, and complete WP:OR at worst. While the article contains a handful of sources, nearly all of them are unusable. Most are either from fansites/wikis, and a lot of them are complete synthesis on the part of the article's author, such as using the Book of Mormon as a reference to support something about this show that was very obviously not mentioned there. As far as I can tell, there is only one, single source in this entire article that is actually a reliable source, which is the article from The Guardian. Even if there are more reliable sources out there that would support an article on this topic (which I kind of doubt), the current article is such a complete mess that it would still be better to delete it and start over. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unneccesary content fork. Any material that is notable can be covered in the main article on Battlestar Galactica.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no stake in this battle, pardon the pun, but even this extended essay is woefully incomplete. For example, I recall there was an episode involving the archangel Gabriel's appearance. Can somebody userfy it? Bearian (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The witch some witch

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

Non-notable self published book. Prod removed by creator. Secondary sources are not reliable (one says "published by the renowned Partridge Publishing," which is an easy tell that the piece is less than genuine, since Partridge is a self-publishing shop). agtx 15:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTE requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and this stub itself notes that the self-published author writes for Daily Excelsior which is one of the references given. That leaves one reference independent of the subject and that reference is just a sales pitch for the book. Justeditingtoday (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recently released self-published book, sources a bit dubious. Ostrichyearning (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Locke High School. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 09:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Locke highschool race riot

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

WP:NOTNEWS TheLongTone (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless evidence can be found of any lasting impact of this incident, I'm afraid I think it fails the criteria. Of course, plenty of news sources can be found from the date of the incident. Spiderone 17:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to existing article Locke High School. Eustachiusz (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Locke High School, this could never stand on its own but it would do fine within that page. GAB^gab 15:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Locke High School, which has no mention of this matter. This received national-level coverage, such as in Time (article). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of lasting impact. No objection to including a few sentences of content on the disturbance at the Locke High School article. (A merge/redirect is unnecessary because the article title is implausible, and the text needs to be rewritten entirely anyway). Neutrality^talk 19:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Locke High School. MB298 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator The merge seems the way to go.TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like enough evidence of notability. Moving the page to another title is a free action; you can also make a move request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laathi nach

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

Subjects lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google, this appears to be better known in English as the Tharu people's "stick dance." The disambiguation page Stick dance makes no mention for it. It's mentioned in passing in Meghauli with no mention at all in Tharu people. But a Gsearch (and Gbooks search) for Tharu stick dance yields good enough results that I think we could consider moving to Stick dance (Tharu). It's a folk dance that we seem to have missed so far and it's the sort of thing an encyclopedia should have. That said, the article is of course in terrible shape and unless someone wishes to fix it, I daresay WP:TNT might apply, until such time if ever that someone wants to create a real article on it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Shawn in Montreal's findings, and now try also:

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

Deletion for purpose of TNT would be wp:DISRUPTIVE. I revised the article somewhat. --do ncr am 20:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, doncram's tidied it up to the point where it's not an embarrassment, and while the article still has no references, the topic is encyclopedic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding it to the Stick dance disambiguation page. --do ncr am 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Hall (basketball)

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

Article creator contested PROD. Non-notable basketball player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the Yugoslav First Basketball League is on the list of "presumed notable" leagues (point #1 of NHOOPS), and the Macedonian First League (which arose from the Yugoslav league) would probably fall under that category as well. However, I can find nothing even remotely reaching coverage about Hall himself; the one reference on the page is about as detailed as it gets, aside from stats pages or "Hall scored X points". If more sources pop up then it might change my opinion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Endowment for Democracy

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

This appears to have been an academic exercise in protesting the National Endowment for Democracy. It lacks citations demonstrating notability, and the website has been defunct for some time. When the website last contained content, it looked more like a statement or petition than an organization, and I can find no evidence that an actual incorporated organization ever existed: https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20100412163946/http://www.iefd.org . If there is information worth preserving here, I suspect it should be placed in the articles about the individuals associated with it, or perhaps in the article about the NED itself. Eloquence * 13:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the evaluation from Eloquence seems fair: academic experiments with no lifetime, seem inappropriate for Wikipedia, Sadads (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yee (meme)

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

Not notable enough Dr. Neurosis (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unless some actual reliable sources talking about it are found. I could not locate any in my search, only coming across things like Youtube videos, or entries on non-reliable sites. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find coverage and there already exists a substantial article for it at knowyourmeme.com, the site best fit for it. Mr. Magoo (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Garuda Cup

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

Contrary to this article, the Garuda Cup appears to be a youth football tournament per [1]. Google searches for Garuda Cup and 2017 Garuda Cup do not show that it will even happen, and even if it does, it fails WP:NSEASONS, as the tournament itself isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: despite an actual tournament called "Garuda Cup" exists, it isn't notable to have a page here. MYS 77 ^✉ 13:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable tournament (only youth if at all, language is another problem...). Kante4 (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a hoax (at least the 2017 event). This ("official"?) Facebook page gets comments about how the posts are hoaxes. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to hoax concerns and a complete lack of any reliable sources Spiderone 15:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unreferenced and multiple reliable editors have not managed to find any reliable sources. --SuperJew (talk) 16:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 17:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible hoax, certainly not notable. Giant Snowman 19:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable.Obviously hoax. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(✉) 23:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously BS. I swear people create articles under the hope the hope that officials will read it and make it suddenly happen... - J man708 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chetan Cheenu

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

Non-notable actor, minor roles in (usually) non-notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR. Yintan 18:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Needs stronger sourcing to support notability. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Sources as identifies in the article are: [2] and [3]. Both are independant, secondary sources which I consider enough to pass WP:BASIC. They arn't just passing mentions - they are wholly about the person in question. I don't consier them to be promotional or affiliated with him. Failure at WP:NACTOR is not enough for a delete !vote - it is overridden by the WP:GNG. The sources are far from comprehensive, but I do feel they are enough to esablish notability in this case. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trivial interviews-- and the other sources are even less usable. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosucre Flight 4544

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

Cargo plane crashes are very common and usually not notable. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This is a large aircraft and many articles have been published in the newspapers so the article should be kept. Wykx (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is about a fatal aircraft crash, and such crashes are always newsworthy. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Commercial aircraft incident involving a fatality, certainly meets WP policy of notability --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I am even surprised you nominated this for deletion.. crew members died in this crash, involved a hull loss, and was even video taped. It meets all criteria to have a wikipedia page. If you say these cargo crashes are common, then what is the difference between UPS Airlines Flight 6 or National Airlines Flight 102 for example? Just because they involved a 747? The UPS crash only killed two crew members. This accident is most certainly worthy of a wikipedia page. --Martinillo (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep I've said it before and I'll say it again. Lack of deaths ≠ lack of notability. We have a large airliner written off with the deaths of most of the crew. That it was operating a cargo flight is neither here nor there. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nom's rationale is nonsensical. Are cargo jet crashes "common" as compared to passenger jet crashes? Does the nom have the statistics to back up this assumption? Does that mean that a fatal jet incident is non-notable due to what the payload is? This AfD is just weird. The incident does pass WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It made the international news, even Boeing has released a statement, and like others say, the small number of deaths does not necessarily make it non-notable. If that was the case, then the crash of the demonstration TU-144 would not be talked about today. (Antonio rotten little brat Martin) (what what?}) 01:04, December 23, 2016 (UTC)
Speedy Keep The deaths combined with the hull loss, and coverage makes this one notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all above. What does "very common" mean exactly? Please give us an annual average number, so we can use it for future reference? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Produced no valid or relevant points for deletion... Cargo plane crashes are well documented across Wikipedia, for good reason. This incident is especially notable due to the fact that the events leading to the crash were recorded and well-publicised. It will arguably become an iconic piece of aviation video, thoroughly deserving of a dedicated page for reference. --Roardle (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. The article does need a bit of expansion but Deletion is not Cleanup. This was also the second or third aircraft incident in Colombia this year. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hull loss and casualties make this crash a notable one.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 23:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments that there is insufficient significant coverage are stronger than those that the subjects meets WP:SOLDIER. J04n(talk page) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Escribano

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

Article created by a subordinate of this Army general, constructed entirely from Defense Department handouts. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SOLDIER, and reads like a resume because it is based entirely on Army handouts. A diligent search has failed to show any articles in independent secondary sources sufficient to demonstrate notability. The only independent source even mentioning him is this article, in which he warrants one paragraph that simply repeats what's in his official bio. Coretheapple (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He passes WP:SOLDIER#2 but I believe that CTA is saying that isn't enough in this case. Regarding WP:SOLDIER#8, he was cited in this book. Looking for more sources.--v/r - TP 00:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a notable source in Puerto Rico's Elnuevodia. It lists Escribano as one of 10 notable Puerto Ricans in the US Army.--v/r - T P 00:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Military article, but has significant coverage.--v/r - T P 00:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite is actually the same one I linked, the single paragraph in elnuevodia.com, put through Google Translate. The second is a primary source. As for that book: come on. He is listed in a footnote. I think this link would be more useful. You're claiming that his being cited in one footnote in one book for an article he co-wrote in 2000 makes him notable, that and press releases? Coretheapple (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an argument, I'm not !voting. I'm just listing what I found.--v/r - T P 01:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I'm surprised there aren't sufficient sources, but that's how it is sometimes. Even his place of birth cannot be confirmed and is omitted from DoD press releases. Also, it should be noted that WP:SOLDIER is an essay, not a notability guideline, but it clearly says that primary sources alone are insufficient to establish notability. Coretheapple (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of the article in question meets WP:SOLDIER. Moreover, subject meets WP:GNG receiving significant coverage in reliable sources such as here, & here. Is there significant work to be done to improve this article; sure, but see WP:IGNORINGATD and WP:DINC. Furthermore, SOLDIER IMHO is equivalent to WP:WPBB/N. While CTA suggests that the USFK.mil is a primary source, it is not written directly by the subject of the article, and thus appears to be WP:SECONDARY.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite [4], which I mentioned in my nom, is an article on several people that contains all of one paragraph on the subject, clearly lifted from a DoD press release. I'm surprised that you would argue that the second source http://www.usfk.mil/Media/News/Article/993194/officer-embraces-the-borinqueneer-spirit-through-respect-for-those-who-came-bef/ is an independent secondary source sufficient to sustain this article because the general himself didn't write it. Come on. It is an "article" on the website of "U.S. Forces Korea" written by "Michelle Thomas | USFK Public Affairs." The subject not only doesn't meet GNG by a country mile but even the "SOLDIER" essay requires secondary, which is to say, non-military-PR sources. Coretheapple (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SOLDIER. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AustralianRupert (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: from what I can tell the requirements for significant coverage are not met. For instance is there information on his date and place of birth? Where did he go to high school? Did he commission through the ROTC program? etc ... (Equally, there is a lot of uncited information in the article, which as a BLP, really should be sourced or removed). While the subject's rank is equal to many others who are notable, it doesn't mean that he is automatically notable. That is the point that WP:SOLDIER tries to make. Potentially, there is a presumption of notability, but as that has been challenged, it should be shown to be the case through the provision of reliable sources. If significant coverage can be found, I would be more than happy to change my opinion. Regarding the guidance at WP:IGNORINGATD: from the look of the subject's postings, I'm not sure if there would be any valid merge or redirect targets, but would be happy to consider this as an option if one could be identified. The most notable posting was probably as the commander of the 501st Military Intelligence Brigade (United States), but it would be hard to merge to that article without breaching WP:UNDUE. Still, it is a possibility, which probably could be explored (maybe as part of a list of commanders, so long as it could be sourced?) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:SOLDIER, which means that he is presumed notable. Date of birth is often hard to find for military BLPs. People tend to be nervous about publishing it these days. (Athletes don't get a choice!) Nothing wrong with an article being created from Defense sources, or by a subordinate, which in fact we encourage. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at T:COI, such editing, specifically for this article (that is how I became aware of it) is paid editing governed by the TOU and in fact actively discouraged. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said before, you have the consensus of a dozen editors at most on that guideline that you curate so well. Guidelines of the community are supposed to reflect community norms. You cannot change community norms by pushing changes through guidelines.--v/r - T P 03:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. I didn't express a particularly firm opinion (I said it looked like paid editing but "I am not sure") and no one talked about a change in the guideline.[5] You should actually read a discussion before flying off the handle about it, and in any event it is not a central issue here as COI is not a reason for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about any of that. I'm talking about your dispute about whether it is encouraged or discouraged. Inside MILHIST it may be actively encouraged. And that is because the Military has it's own history departments which have huge archives of information that the public may or will never have access to because the military cannot afford to digitize it. Sometimes there is no better way than to use books or articles written by the military on military topics. Just see how many military sources I used in Ford Island.--v/r - T P 20:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are sources anywhere that meet WP:V, by all means cite them. All that exist for this subject are press releases with limited information. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. There are droves of information in archives that not anyone can access. Just like NARA. Without a Wikipedian in Residence, which doesn't currently exist, all we have to gain access to this material are Wikipedians who are in the military or work for the government.--v/r - T P 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources (i.e. WP:GNG). He seems to have had an accomplished career but has not received the level of coverage to date required to meet threshold. That said I do not agree with the COI concerns, nor do I see an issue with the use of Defense sources in general (especially for facts about his career and basic biography) as they will no doubt be fairly accurate. However, for coverage to be considered "significant" I would expect there to be coverage beyond such sources in references which would potentially provide more detail (e.g. some of the details Rupert mentions above). Whilst it may be argued he passes WP:SOLDIER it is clear that MILHIST cannot and does not make any special claims of status for that essay and it is merely intended as guidance to editors thinking of creating articles as to which subjects are presumed to be notable under policy. In his case this presumption does not seem to have been proved when challenged. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. General officer. Passes WP:SOLDIER, which, essay or not, has been the accepted standard for military biographical notability for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I'm not overly concerned about the use of "official" documents to verify certain things in the biography, but such sources are not independent of the subject and aren't useful for demonstrating notability. What we do have that is independent isn't very much. I do disagree most strongly with the notion that we should throw the WP:GNG out of the window in favour of "presumed" notability for certain classes of living people. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per Anotherclown above, just not notable at this time and the fact he is a general officer alone is not enough for a keep. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 10:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping in Kuala Lumpur

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

Article written in the form of an essay and/or a travel guide. Poorly sourced and mostly original research. It contains a list of shopping centres that can already be found at List of shopping malls in Malaysia therefore it also acts somewhat as a content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think the article needs to be substantially rewritten because it's mixed promo, lacking in npov and actual sources outside of 'visit here' type pages but I think Shopping in Taipei, Shopping in Hong Kongor Shopping in Chennai are good guides in the future for writing articles like this to avoid promo/guidebook like articles. (That is if it is warranted) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

Keep Notable topic. For example, see The Consumption of Kuala Lumpur or Shopping for Antiques & Collectibles: Singapore & Malaysia or Shopping Centres in Kuala Lumpur: Structural Change of the Malaysian Retail Market. Andrew D. (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was about to !vote for a merge to Kuala Lumpur, but it appears that "Shopping in" articles are acceptable here. But more importantly, there does appear to be several books and other sources about shopping in Kuala Lumpur: enough to establish notability and to write an article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Andrew Davidson; the article is poorly written but this is best addressed through improvements rather than deletion Spiderone 12:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - been there, done it. Other than a couple of mosques and skyscrapers, the only thing for tourists in that city is the malls and the Chinatown markets, and boy are they something to behold. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy and remove from articlespace. Essentially delete, but since the article creator asked for userfication I shall do so to User:ArsenalFan700/List of current Indian Super League players Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Indian Super League players

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

Firstly, there is no prose and no context whatsoever to suggest why this is a notable topic. Please refer to WP:LISTCRUFT #1, #3, #6, #11, #12 and probably even #10 due to the lack of sources. This list will require updating potentially every week and serves no purpose except arguably a navigational purpose. WP:LISTN strongly states that lists are not inherently notable and that sources must be provided to back the article up. Spiderone 09:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we don't need a 'current' player list. No evidence of notability and high risk it will go out-of-date/be inaccurate. Giant Snowman 19:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: I don't mind it being taken out of the main space but I would like to keep it as a userfied page. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN. Possibly mirrored from another source. Ajf773 (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was actually all me, not just a mirror, but fair enough. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN. Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700:-You can probably create an user subpage or use your sandbox for the purpose.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 10:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of current North American Soccer League commentators

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

Please bear in mind that this is not an all-time list but a list of current commentators; it is therefore in need of constant updating and is probably out of date already. I can't see any evidence of WP:LISTN and it fails on WP:LISTCRUFT #1, #3, #11, #12 amongst others. Spiderone 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list of commentators is current as of the end of the season. It meets notability guidelines in that it provides information for a major sports league. It provides multiple resources showing the accuracy, and it can't be updated until the next season is scheduled to begin, in March when new information would begin. If it fails all the items you mention, then so does the list of NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB announcers. Bigddan11 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; for the record, I think that those lists you mention are also not notable and fail WP:LISTN. I'm nominating this first as football is more my area of knowledge compared to those. Depending on the outcome of this AfD, I'm happy to nominate those as well. Spiderone 10:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of USA-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable topic. Giant Snowman 19:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Commentators are not inherently notable, and in this case most of them are not. WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devi Ever : fx

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

Non-notable guitar pedal company. More well known for controversies surrounding the owner then anything else. References are to now closed store fronts, non-notable blogs, and kictstarter. Ridernyc (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a specialty company going about its business; I don't see any notability or significance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last Tribe (American band)

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

Does not meet notability requirement for Music. Cannot find any secondary sources on this band. Only find club videos on youtube. Rogermx (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to support passing WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus DGG ( talk ) 10:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Time Service

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

Promotional article lacking references/in-depth coverage in independent RS. Some of the references given don't even mention subject. Fails WP:NCORP MB 04:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not pass WP:GNG. As the nominator said, some of the sources don't mention the subject. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find sources. this for example, doesn't mention the subject. Neither does this NYDailyNews. I guess this can be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly one significant reference, and I'm not sure about the WP:RS status of even that. Were there more than business listings etc. to sustain the article, it might be worth going to RSN but as it is, there aren't multiple sources so that's moot. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milo & Otis (Band)

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

Non-notable band CapitalSasha ~ talk 10:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage seems limited to music blogs. The main claim to fame is supporting Skrillex on some dates which would be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED, many non-notable acts support those that are at some point. KaisaL (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources available are blogs, Soundcloud, social media, etc. Nothing in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - AFD's becoming a waste of time so I shall withdraw and gut the entire article with everyones blessing. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Griffiths

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

Prev AFD closed as "no consensus. - No prejudice against speedy renomination due to low participation" so am renominating again,
Non notable actress, found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Fails BASIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like easily passes WP:NACTOR. Was one of the principal cast members of Waterloo Road specifically as the role of Chlo Grainger. Also was in multiple episodes of Casualty and a supporting role in all three episodes of Hatfields & McCoys.--Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a few notable programmes is great however take away IMDB and you have 2 BBC sources which are only mentions, And with the greatest of respect she's been acting since 2008 so there should be something substantial, ofcourse if you can find anything substantial I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR since she had roles in "multiple notable TV shows". Both Casualty and Waterloo Road are notable shows. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said anything about NACTOR - As I said she still fails BASIC & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The WP:NACTOR guideline was developed to assist in determining whether an artist/actor is notable and merits an article. Although you may say that every article should pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, we'd only be trotting out debates that have been had numerous times in the past as to why actors are a little different and that "episodes" are effectively publications, etc, etc, and that is exactly why the WP:NACTOR guideline was developed. Rest assured I've no intention of rehashing the old arguments. Suffice to say, Ms. Griffiths in an actress and meets (and exceeds) the criteria set out in the WP:NACTOR guidelines and for me, I've no need to look beyond that in this case. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have no idea about the past discussions and like yourself I'd rather not get in to a whole big debate over it but atleast IMHO all articles should pass BASIC atleast, I agree with you episodes are like publications however there should be substantial/in-depth sources aswell .... Take away IMDB at present we have 2 episode sources which isn't good enough, All articles are expected to have more than 2 episode sources especially when they've acting since 1999. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The nomination here seems to be caught up in the red tape of contradictory policies rather than the obvious reality that a main actor/actress in a series like Waterloo Road is inherently qualified. The fact that she hasn't had newspaper features about her or similar is irrelevant, unless you are arguing this is a WP:HOAX. If individuals meet clear criteria, we don't need to dig for links for them, and to start a precedent of this would be a time drain. AFD nominations should solely be for cases where notability is in question, and so this would be better solved via the article's talk page. KaisaL (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't become notable just for being in one film or programme, All BLPs on this project are expected to meet BASIC atleast which this unfortunately doesn't, We have statements in the article like "Katie Griffiths was born in St Albans, Hertfordshire and attended Garden Fields Primary School." and "born in 6 April 1989" - Not one source is available to back these up so therefore could well be untrue and so can any of the other info in the article, That's the entire point of this AFD - There is no notability, I've said this elsewhere but I don't expect millions upon millions of in-depth coverage however for someone who's been acting for the past 10 years there should be something better than just 2 small mentions. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, I'm afraid. Katie was in four series of Waterloo Road as a main cast member. This isn't a case of someone playing an extra in one episode, it's a full cast role in a prominent series (not one I care about, but it is). That alone means no other qualifiers are needed, else we're acting outside of the specific policies on figures in entertainment. If the other information is not referenced and you're unhappy about that, you're welcome to remove it. There's a big difference between non-notable and not being high-profile, her performances in that one series are more than enough. In short, you're holding her to higher standards than our policies require. KaisaL (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I disagree with you, I know she was and that's great but like with any other articles BLPs need adequate sourcing, The article has been here for the best part of 8 years and the sources have never improved since (because there's nothing on her) and lets be honest here the article won't be sourced from hereon in, I appreciate she may meet NACTOR in terms of what she's been in however BASIC still needs to be met (I usually go for GNG however I'm trying to be as lenient as I can here), If you believe she's notable for being in WR then why not Redirect to WR instead and that way the articles history can be preserved?, I've sourced many non-prolific BLPs and it's easy as pie when the sources are there (even if they're harder to find it's still more or less easy to do) and I appreciate not everyone gets something written about them but the issue is there's not even mentions let alone in-depth stuff, If there was mentions I would be happy with that and wrap this up but unfortunately there's absolutely nothing, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm old school and feel that AFD is for cases of notability, not an article with limited scope for depth and improvement. I'd rather a two sentence stub for a notable subject than discussing the possibility of deleting them entirely. It doesn't seem like you really dispute her notability, just a lack of references, which for me isn't an issue for this process. KaisaL (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would say they're still non notable tho, In a roundabout way there's no evidence of notability here other than her role in WR, Ah well, Thanks anyway, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, has had significant roles in multiple notable films Accepted. - TheMagnificentist 15:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Márta Lacza

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

New BLP Article, with BLP-Prod removed by SPA account Ali ACER - 2. No references. scope_creep (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hebrides (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPROD cannot be removed without adding a reference, and the editor who did so could be warned. I've done so. There's no harm at all in bringing the matter here, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've done some work on this article, expanding, adding references, categories, wikilinks, etc. It now includes coverage in several independent secondary sources, details of solo exhibitions over twenty years, and of illustrations in a number of published books and, in my opinion, sufficient detail to satisfy notability concerns. — Hebrides (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please CLOSE. Article has been updated drastically with sources and now has a valid authority tag within it. Please CLOSE. scope_creep (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I nearly closed but given the improvements apparently show no collections or reviews, that's still questionable for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 18:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No special claims of notability. Sources are gallery catalogue or library catalogue entries. Ghits appear to reveal nothing else. Article on Turkish WP has similar sources, Azebaijani WP article is unsourced. 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Speedy Keep Most creative article are notable, as the creative event is unique, misunderstood and quite special and notable within WP. Ton of work done the article to build on. Article series is much is much more healthy per refs. Whats not to like. scope_creep (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep are you withdrawing the nomination? Mduvekot (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did a fair bit of work on this article, but it is definitely still "work in progress". I stumbled across the stub when it was first created and did some searching – decided the artist was notable enough, but it would be quite a challenge to write the article since most of the sources are in Hungarian. There is a lot on Hungaricana (141 hits) including a number of newspaper articles, and I was hoping that someone with a knowledge of the language could maybe come in on this and help to put enough into the article to demonstrate notability. I find that what I can glean from Google translate is quite patchy with Hungarian. Apologies if I haven't yet managed to make the article a "finished product", but the collaborative authoring aspect of Wikipedia is one of its strengths, and it would be a shame if this topic was snuffed out at this stage because it has not had enough time to reach the required standards. Can some of you work with me on this over the coming weeks and see if we can incorporate the necessary evidence of notability?

Just for the record, I have no connection whatsoever with the subject of this article, with the other contributors, or with Hungary in general. I never get paid for anything I contribute to Wikipedia. I've been editing for over ten years, but must admit this article is one of the more difficult ones I've tried to work on, mainly because of language difficulties. All contributions and help would be appreciated. — Hebrides (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I discovered that you get more search hits if you put the surname first (I think this is a Hungarian convention) – searching for "Lacza Márta" instead of "Márta Lacza" — Hebrides (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: since the comments above, I have done further work on the article; I've also added two more references (one of them a two-page feature article in a magazine) and improved the URLs for newspaper articles in the Hungaricana archive so that they go straight to the right page and highlight her name. There is a lot more material about her online which I could add to the references if there is a consensus that any particular facts need citations. All feedback welcome. — Hebrides (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yip I'm like to draw the nomination down. There has been a load of good fast work on the article by Hebrides, and indeed the whole series of 195 articles created by Adem20, 78 when the Afd was opened is now is a much better condition, all with references, which I was hoping for. I'm happy. Speedy Keep. scope_creep (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have checked all the references again and made a new search on Google. I still find nothing that looks like a WP:Reliable source. Social media, entries in gallery catalogues or online book stores do not assert notability. All other mentions a fleeting. There is bo in-depth coverage of this artist in ndependent3rd party sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A valid authority tag makes it makes it safe though, does it not? I've made the mistake of trying to delete other articles with authority tags on them in the past and they have been reverted, specifically for that reason. Although I'm not sure, I think probably a major piece of work has been created at some point in the past by the artist and which you may not necessarily have a reference, but WorldCat/Viaf has certainly taken cognizance of it. It's got to be notable by definition? Unless the tag is faulty, but the D.O.B matches, so I can't see how. I think it is notable. When I nominated it on the 22nd Dec. the tag wasn't present, so I think the work has been done. scope_creep (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: Since "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" (WP:ARTN), I suggest our first priority is to establish the notability of the subject, working initially to a baseline of the General notability guidline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

With this in mind, I suggest we consider the following sources (all available online) against the criteria of significant coverage (described as "more than a trivial mention"), and for the reliability and independence of the source publication.

A substantial two-page article (turn to pages 6 and 7 in this magazine) titled Közel kerülni a természethez Látogatóban – Lacza Márta és Dékány Agoston képzőművészeknél ("Visiting close to nature - Lacza Martha and Dékány Agoston artists") about Márta Lacza and her husband. At over 2000 words and including photographs, this is "more than a trivial mention". The source publication is the March 1999 edition of Tehetség ("Talent"), a quarterly publication produced with the support of the Ministry of Education (see information box on page 11 of the magazine)
A 270-word article about the artist and her exhibition (link) in the newspaper Pest Megyei Hírlap published 20 July 1982, titled KISZ-galéria – Érdekes kiállítás – again, more than a trivial mention
A newspaper article of about 450 words titled Folytatja munkáját a nemzetközi régészkonferencia – Megnyílt Lacza Márta és Dékány Ágoston kiállítása (link) (which Google translates as "Continue to work with international archeology conference - Opening of exhibition Lacza Martha and Dékány Augustine") in the 30 September 1986 issue of the newspaper Szolnok Megyei Néplap. The article includes a photograph of the exhibition room.
A quarter-page newspaper article of about 260 words in Somogyi Néplap (19 September 1986) titled AZ ÖRÖM ES FÁJDALOM EGYLÉNYEGŰSÉGE Lacza Márta kiállítása Kaposváron, a Bernáth-teremben (link) about her exhibition in the Bernath Hall in Kaposvár, which includes a photograph at the exhibition
A periodical article of about 200 words dated 18 October 2012, with colour photographs, titled Művész házaspár kiállítása a Csepel Galériában ("The exhibition of the artist couple Csepel Gallery") (link – turn to page 14) which fills two-thirds of a page. The article is featured on the front cover as the lead article.
A newspaper article of about 190 words in Dunántúlt napló (8 July 1981) titled Lacza Márta és Dékány Ágoston tárlata (link)

These are not all of the same quality or significance, but I am satisfied that they are all "more than a trivial mention". Establishing "reliability" and "independence" is open to discussion, but I am at least satisfied as to the credentials of Tehetség (#1) and Pest Megyei Hírlap (#2); regarding the other newspapers, we will have to take a view. I have not yet cited all of these sources in the article, due to time pressure (real life, etc), but I hope they will help our discussions on this page, and also act as a resource for others who play a part in developing the article in the future. Thank you all for working with me on this. — Hebrides (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have also placed this list of sources on the article's talk page to help other editors who work to develop the article. — Hebrides (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY I had my doubts, but Hebrides has done enough to convince me. Thanks Henrides! Mduvekot (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great work on the article, and finding valid references for this notable WP:ARTIST. Dream Focus 04:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in the light of new evidence (changed vote from delete). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:G4. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esom School of Music

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

Declined A7 and G4 since content is not substantially identical to prior article. Per last deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESOM School of Music, still non-notable school with minimal coverage in reliable sources. I don't see any more than the sources linked here, and neither appear to be particularly more than press releases or marketing. Appable (talk | contributions) 08:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article has been recreated multiple times (see User Talk:Esom Music)), I would also suggest creation protection should the outcome of this discussion be delete. Appable (talk | contributions) 08:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G11 blatant advert, also COI & probable sockpuppetry. Other variants also need salting ESOM School of Music, Esom school of music... Cabayi (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPI raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Esom Music. Cabayi (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't count it as G11 simply because it was declined on a previous version of the article, and this version is no more promotional than the last one that was deleted at AfD. Appable (talk | contributions) 09:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to keep the article. If Victorino Noval is eventually created and it would be helpful to merge the contents of this article, just ask me. czar 22:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victorino Noval Foundation

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

The Victorino Noval Foundation was suspended by the State of California. It is not an IRS recognized non-profit. The organization didn't do the things they stated they did. The person behind this fake foundation is Victor Jesus Noval aka Victorino Noval who is a convicted felon. He swindled HUD out of $60,000,000. See the references I just added to the page. He is using this page and other fake foundation pages to make him appear to be legitimate so people will invest in his current real estate "deal." He is being sued in bankruptcy court over the Vineyards Beverly Hills property which he does not own.Mary Cummins (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorino Noval. I have read about Noval in The Beverly Hills Courier for the past few years. He appears to be notable as an investor and philanthropist. His BLP could include a subsection about his foundation.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing this AFD. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The foundation does not appear to be notable, having no substantial third-party attention. The few articles I find in The Beverly Hills Courier are just snippets from press releases. The foundation's namesake seems to be mainly notable for his criminal history and fails WP:SUSTAINED. RichardMathews (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's also a film producer. I think we would pass GNG.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Victorino Noval. All of the things stated by the nominator would not make him non-notable. If anything, they would tend to support his notability. We don't judge whether some-one id a good person or not, just whether they have generated reliable source coverage. There is at least reliable and ongoing coverage of involvement in a serious allegations of misconduct. That passes WP:GNG, but for the person, not the foundation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)
Delete Clearly written to make a point, but the organization is blatantly not notable, nor has any Wikipedian produced an article about the principals thereof. Imdb is a wretched source for the purposes to which is it used here, and deletion is the simplest and best course at hand. Redirecting to a non-notable BLP which does not exist is out of the question in this case. Collect (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -

The article seems to have a number of sources that would not fit the definition of reliable, secondary sources - like IMdB and ancestry.com. It's also a very weird page, with different information in the intro than is in the body of the article. Based on this, and the comments above, it seems a good case for "delete" or "merge" to me.
I don't understand the comments about merge to the red link Victorino Noval. Is that because it was recently deleted? Or, rather than a merger, is the suggestion to create an article about Noval and include some information about the foundation?
Lastly, the nominator has more than a passing interest in the deletion of the article, per her edit here, in which she says in the edit summary "removed defamatory item posted about me", which I agree with, that should not have been posted for a number of reasons (it came from a blog (not a reliable, independent, secondary source), it has no encyclopedic value, and it was soley meant to hurtful).—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Yes, I think we should create: "Victorino Noval is a Cuban-born American film producer, real estate investor and philanthropist...". He passes GNG and there are lots of reliable third-party sources on google. Obviously what we have right now is a horror show (and an attack page?), although this version was not as bad.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, you may want to look at: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Victorino Noval Foundation.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zigzig20s, That is helpful background information - and the version you provided looks like it would be a better place to start to merge the information into a new article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reply to CaroleHenson who is now stalking all my edits on Wiki since I edited a mural page she's watching. The user added false and defamatory info about me in the Victorino page in retaliation for my removing false information about the foundation and its founder. I have nothing to do with the foundation. No information about me should have been included in their page. Mary Cummins (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cummins, I am not stalking you, I am trying to understand what is going on, per Talk:Pomona Envisions the Future#Removal of citations and images and your past history mentioned on your talk page. I have commented on two of your edits. One that I became aware of from my watchlist. As you can see, regarding this article, I agreed that the information should have been removed.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as usual in this situation DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ginsburg

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:Politician and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and potentially WP:Promotion - Self-Promotional, as Noel Ginsburg Headshot, the headshot of Noel Ginsburg, is credited as Own Work, and the author being Noel Ginsburg. Wasn't sure if deletion would be the correct decision, so I didn't immediately propose it for deletion and am putting it on AfD for comments. Cyali (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is about a recently announced Colorado candidate for Governor and contains 22 references in order to meet WP:GNG, WP:Politician and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. More references will be added as more news coverage develops. Atxscholar (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: If more references will be added later to demonstrate the notability of the individual in question, then you can create the article later. As well, being a candidate does not necessarily mean that Noel is noteworthy. Right now, the question is whether or not Noel is currently notable. As well, having a higher quantity of references does not demonstrate notability. A person could have a hundred sources from irrelevant mentions in the media and involvement in random events, and they would still be largely non-notable. Cyali (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side-Note: Please note revision on Commons by User:Atxscholar, changing |author=[Noel Ginsburg] |author=[User:Atxscholar|Noel for Colorado], further indicating the potential for WP:Promotion Cyali (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Please note Colorado gubernatorial election, 2018. All candidates listed have corresponding Wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atxscholar (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Once again, running as a candidate does not entitle individuals to their own Wikipedia article. I quote number 3 of WP:Politician: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". Using the fact that other candidates have their own Wikipedia article does not further the notability of Noel Ginsburg. The notability of other candidates does not equivocate to the notability of Noel. I am concerned you have not read the three linked policies. As well, I will note that the other candidates listed in the article linked have held higher office, and therefore already qualify in terms of notability. Anybody can ultimately run to be governor, but it does not mean that that they are notable. If I ran for governor of Colorado in the Democratic Primaries, does that automatically qualify me for a Wikipedia article even if I have no press coverage, am largely ignored by the media and am only mentioned in passing in a few small trade journals? Cyali (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all of the candidates listed in the 2018 election article have their own separate articles — and of the ones who do, every last one of them has already held another WP:NPOL-passing office, such as the state legislature, the US Congress or the lieutenant-governorship. Nobody bluelinked in that article has a standalone BLP because candidate in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Also fails WP:NPOV. Being used as vehicle for promotion. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, especially when they're only candidates in a primary. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for campaign brochures about political hopefuls — with extremely rare exceptions for candidates who can make a strong claim to passing GNG for the sheer depth and breadth of coverage, a person has to have held a notable political office, not merely have run for one, to get an article on the basis of their political activity. And the referencing here is based almost entirely on primary and unreliable sources, with the legitimate sources not being substantive or numerous enough to show preexisting notability for other reasons independent of his candidacy (which is the only other way for a candidate to get a Wikipedia article before he wins the election.) We do not preemptively create articles about people who might garner more coverage in the future — we wait until GNG has already been met before we start the article. So no prejudice against recreation in 2018 if he wins the governorship, but nothing here already gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete under both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. If he wins a primary for an election two years away, then he will certainly become notable. If he even makes significant impact in the primary, he will likely become notable. Mere announcement of candidacy for a (relatively) distant election, however, does not connote notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mociology

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

Appears to be entirely invented; has no sources and never had any. It needs TNT at least. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. The lack of sources is evident. The only page I can find referring to this is wiktionary:mociology, which appears to use a fake reference (see https://www.wired.com/2006/06/jargon-watch-51/ - there are no other Jargon Watches for Feb) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyali (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:ONEDAY. The only source that I found that even touched on this was this Mother Jones article, which briefly mentioned it in one sentence. Fails WP:N Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there appears to be some WP:CIRC going on here, too; the first (and only?) paper GScholar offers references this article. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

W. F. Turner

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Faithless electors aren't inherently notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At a first glance doesn't seem too notable, but looking him up I found many sources: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Tribune academic journal discussing him [15] [16] A book [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] York Times [24] [25]. Honestly this guy has been covered so much, I didn't even include the ones on the article. I think he passes WP:GNG easily. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind - I removed "liquiseach" from your list above. That site is a simple mirror of Wikipedia and it undermines your position. Kuru (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Turner's actions had historical significance, and as AlessandroTiandelli333 showed, he was and still is widely covered by reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gannon Sinclair

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

As far as I can tell, he doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH; played for a small college and has been on the practice squads of two NFL teams. Just routine sports coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While calling Missouri State University with 26,000 students a "small college" is a total abuse of the term, being a player even at top ranked football colleges is just not enough for default notability. The coverage of Sinclair is just not there to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Geez - I had no idea it was that big. I learn something every day. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails all relevant forms of notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But would not object to recreation if he ever plays in an Arena Football or NFL game.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. General consensus is for the article to be retained and for Ben Greenman bibliography to be merged into the subject's article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Greenman

Ben Greenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ben Greenman bibliography (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)

Per WP:PROMOTION. Only three refs included in the main article, and all they tell us is that the subject received favorable reviews of his books. Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews in independent reliable sources are the usual way to determine notability of an author. Why should it be different in this case? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's different here because the article gives many other details besides "so-and-so praised the book". There's also WP:NPOV in cherrypicking only positive reviews. Surely not all of his books received unanimous acclaim?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they did receive unanimous or near-unanimous acclaim in reliable sources. If not then the way to deal with the matter is to cite some other sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't his bibliography be nominated as well if the person himself is up for debate?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the propriety of adding another article to the discussion after the main article has been nominated, but if that is OK I don't see any reason for a separate bibliography article so, if the proper process is followed, would say that it should be merged. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Greenman article but merge his bibliography. There is enough coverage for the author; it just needs to be rewritten. He is not however notable enough to have a standalone bibliography.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the bibliography. There is little reason to separate this content for the reader. The rest of the article is brief enough for it all to be unified. Weak keep on the bio. He seems to have a presence that meets WP:GNG (sort of).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the bibliography. Author has more than ten published works - see Author Bibliographies guidelines. Sunwin1960 (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ya sh ! 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dinmore Hill Woods

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. It's a forest. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 21:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that we have overlapping articles about Dinmore Hill and Queen's Wood Country Park. There would seem to be some potential for merging. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Text seems to be copied from source cited. It looks like the Open Government Licence may apply, but if it does then this should be mentioned somewhere on the article or its talk page if kept. Peter James (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article failed to mention that it is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). (I have just revised the article to say so, and put it into the relevant category, etc.) Yes, it is a forest, and apparently a notable one. It is an item listed within List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hereford and Worcester. This list with many red-links and some stub articles is not as well-developed as, say, Featured List List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire, which has well-developed articles about each of its SSSI's already. There must exist significant sources/studies about this forest to make it an SSSI, so I believe best outcome here is "Keep". But if not keep, then merging/redirecting to the list-article would be far superior to outright deletion, enabling re-creation without loss of edit history. --do ncr am 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable as a SSI as detailed above, expand the article rather than deleteAtlantic306 (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Thereshould be more sources to be found . DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice find doncram, as an SSSI it meets the conditions of WP:GEOFEAT: Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned ... protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable. Agree the sourcing needs improvement. I'm going to tag the article as such and do some quick cleanup while I'm there. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it looks to trend toward keep, it's not an artificial feature as per the mention of WP:NGEO; relisting just in case. slakr^\ talk / 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slakr, in response to your relisting comment, it may be poorly-worded in the WP:GEOFEAT section of WP:NGEO, but I'm basing my interpretation of the section by the page's own 'nutshell' summary, which states Places with protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) ... with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. In this case, the feature could be considered 'artificial' in the sense that the borders of an SSSI, and other protected areas, are determined by people, as opposed to a 'natural feature' such as an island or river where nature has set the boundaries. However it is not a 'populated place' so the legal recognition clauses from WP:GEOLAND do not apply. Basically, legally established protected areas fall through the cracks at NGEO, though the nutshell summary suggests otherwise. It may be worth bringing this up at WP:NGEO. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the bar is rather low for GEO notability and it's meet here with the SSSI designation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus after two relistings is that she does not meet the notability standard DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara E. Mink

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

BLP for Ithaca, NY artist who has only been covered locally. I'm reasonably certain this fails notability but would like to hear others' thoughts. Pinging @Hmlarson: for the counterpoint. -Jergling _{PC Load Letter} 18:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist with no more than local recognition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well known figure in the arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabhpaul1986 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This keep argument is meritless and comes from a likely WP:SPA/sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I found no actual major museum collections and what's suggested in the article as that is actually vague hence delete, as none of this amounts to genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing in GNG says that local coverage isn't a RS. She's been covered in RS in NY and Ithica in particular over time and non-trivially. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need for museum collection to pass WP:ARTIST. She has quite a strong coverage, through local, so she's passing WP:ARTIST 4(c) and since she exhibited on local level, but with known local galleries, 4(d) as well. As Megalibrarygirl said, local coverage is okay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This local coverage is so local that the main publication which had articles about her, Ithaca Times, does not even have a Wikipedia article. I respectfully disagree with User:Arthistorian1977 that the coverage as present passes ARTIST 4c (significant coverage), and 4d (since the part about where here works are displayed is poorly referenced), and the only institution named that has her collection is another seemingly non-notable body, State of the Art Gallery at Ithaca (also, the article states "where she has been a member-artist" which suggests COI - she is a co-organizer/worker/etc. there, so she likely gets preferential treatment there - no proof her works were displayed anywhere else). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just local coverage of a minor nature. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The coverage here is a bit too local. Heck, there is nothing in NYTimes or NYPost or any of the more notable New York publications. I do not see any collections in galleries of notable museums or any other WP:ARTIST pass. In addition, the Ithaca Times seems to be a local community newspaper and these cannot be useful for GNG - otherwise as someone said, their dog would become notable for chewing the gardens in the neighbourhood. The problem with local sources is that they can be influenced and often give a disproportionate amount of importance to a certain topic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Piper Stoeckel

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

Stoeckel does not pass the general notability guidelines nor does she pass the notability guidleines for biographies. Miss Arizona is not a significant enough award to show notability. The sources in the article consist of 1-a hype article from Tucson where she lived when she was made Miss Arizona, 2-an article from here hometown newspaper, this newspaper had previously published an article on her getting a scholarship at high school graduation, and would publish an announcement of her engagement. I question this as a reliable source, but clearly not usable towards notability when we have one event concerns, 3-an interview by the U of Arizona Her Campus affiliate. Not a reliable source coverage. 4-an article on Stoeckel from the University of Arizona newspaper. Campus newspaper coverage of university students is not enough to show notability. I did find an additional photo caption in the same Tucson paper about her, but nothing substaantial there. The fact that her being Miss Arizona was not even enough to get her coverage in the Phoenix based newspapers shows that it is not even clearly a notable title within Arizona, and in general awards need to be at least national level to be considered notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Additionally, any additional information can easily be added to her box entitled "Notes," on the Miss Arizona Wikipedia page.TAG (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have multiple, sourced events from being Miss Tucson Valley (and returning a year later to MC the contest for her successor), Miss Arizona and coverage of over a week of activities in the Miss America pageant. Plenty of sources available for all of the events. Trackinfo (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a state-level pageant win is an insufficient claim to notability. Also: "Interviewed by the Daily Mail, Stoeckel revealed how she uses duct tape for extra lift and support"? Wikipedia is not a tabloid to include such trivia, and there's not much there otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The superficial coverage of her beauty secrets is what you would expect as content for a beauty pageant contestant. The point of including that source shows International coverage of her from the domestic USA event. The intent is to show all of these contestants achieve WP:GNG for the mass of coverage during the week Miss America pageant process. Trackinfo (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is a tabloid; Wikipedia generally does not cite to tabloids for notability purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition the Daily Mail article is not about Stoeckel, and it does not provide indepth coverage of her. It provides a passing one line mention in an article about the general actions of beauty contestants. It is not indepth coverage that adds towards GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Coburn (catastrophe modeller)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Sources cited in article are not independent, and I was unable to find independent secondary source coverage. agtx 22:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found a New Scientist review on Coburn's book Earthquake Protection - "This book is not aimed at professional engineers who can, at a price, design to withstand earthquakes, or at geologists whose objective is to understand earthquake mechanisms, but at government officials, planners and indeed anyone who might be involved in the siting of towns, designing relief strategies and, at a local scale, constructing properties. The book is well written, well illustrated and easy to understand and is recommended to anyone who is interested in abating the effects of earthquakes."[26], it appears to be the "go to" book for this subject if library holdings (about 700) indicated by Worldcat is anything to go by, so the book may almost be notable, also found a mention of Coburn here - NHQ: Earthquake Damage Analysis - A Joint Approach - "In early 1997, Dr Robin Spence, of Cambridge Architectural Research and Dr Andrew Coburn, of CARtograph, visited the NHRC and discussed the work they had been doing with the data contained in the EEFIT report", but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I feel disinclined to support this incompetently written BLP until it is made clearer what name he publishes under so a GS search can be made. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

What reason do you have for thinking that he publishes under a name other than Andrew Coburn? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many people do the same. Look at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, there are people with the same name, or at least the same first initial and surname, who have published academic articles. How is that a reason to suppose that this subject might publish under a different name, or anything connected to the topic of whether this article should be kept or deleted? Do we refuse to evaluate articles because a subject's name is not unique in academia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We evaluate when we have found out what they have published. I haven't yet. Please help. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:TNT, and WP:NOTRESUME. The page uses peacock-y terms such as "is known for". By whom? For what? Why? Bearian (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 12:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added earthquakes project to article talkpage so project participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient publications and reviews. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Reaper Eternal. Reason: Speculation. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State Starting Offense to Skip Bowl Game To Prepare for Draft

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

Non-notable scenario/event. Should be deleted per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. PK T(alk) 03:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Had accidentally prodded this myself without noticing the previous one. GAB^gab 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be completely inaccurate. Nobody from Ohio State has announced they will skip their bowl game, and contrary to this article, Ezekiel Elliott criticized the idea of skipping a bowl game to prepare for the draft. [27] Even if there were any truth to it, it ought to be covered in 2016 Fiesta Bowl (December), but this shouldn't even be a redirect because the title is untrue (besides being an implausible search term). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be a clear consensus. —Grammardoc— ^talk 04:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inaccurate, no evidence.[28] Crepepayments (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest speedy deletion of the article, although when I first saw it I couldn't see which criterion might apply. PK T(alk) 15:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unsourced hoax. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment. On further reflection, this is also possibly susceptible to speedy deletion per WP:G10 as a wholly unsourced (and unsourceable) page reflecting negatively on Elliot (and arguably McCaffrey). I tagged it as such using Twinkle, which resulted in blanking the page--perhaps that's overkill for the probably satirical article at issue here, but since it appears that the story is in fact false, I didn't unblank it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been speedy deleted by Reaper Eternal, so this AfD could now be subject to a procedural close.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process says procedural close shouldn't be used that way. Only when the page doesn't exist or has been deleted prior to nomination. Closing as procedural close usually has the AfD bot tag the AfD in question as null. It's messy. I've usually closed as "speedily deleted" which makes it a bit clearer that I didn't delete (should be obvious in any case). I haven't added "by [name]" before because I didn't want to send them a notifcation and I remembered there having been a no-notification template, but couldn't remember it exactly. It's {noping|username}. I think I'll start using it from here on with "speedily deleted by [name]". Mr. Magoo (talk) 07:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Discounting some socking, there's a clear consensus here that this is WP:TOOSOON, but scattered support to preserve in non-mainspace, so moving it to draft per WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Lawson

AfDs for this article:

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

We just had this debate less than 4 months ago. The consensus of that debate was a clear delete with 5 editors and the nominator (myself) agreeing that she was not notable enough yet and the only keep !vote coming from the creator, which as the closing admin said was "not based in any policy or guideline". JDDJS (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like I said in the G4 decline rationale, the article is not "substantially identical" enough to qualify for speedy deletion; the deleted article was just the lede sentence and a small table of acting credits; there's significantly more material here. Nevertheless, a basic search isn't finding any real sources to support notability; the roles lift the article above the low low bar of A7 for me, but ultimately I think the issues from the first AfD are still true. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - nothing has changed about this person in the last four months. Topic still fails WP:ENT. Ibadibam (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - I still don't think this should be a keep, as nothing has changed since the previous consensus reached by JDDJS, KalamCStone, John Pack Lambert, Hamiltonhamilton, Tjeffersonkk, TonyBallioni and myself. But based on the trajectory of Lawson's career, I think it's likely that Lawson will achieve notability in the next few years. And given recent improvements to the article, I'd prefer to hang onto the content as a draft in userspace. I would be happy to host it, unless MonroeHarless would prefer to do so. Ibadibam (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with that. If she gets several more Broadway credits or becomes part of the original cast for a new Broadway show, she can easily become notable. She's just not there yet. JDDJS (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can agree to this and would be happy to host the article as a draft in user space myself. However, I still believe that the article should be kept published. If it is taken away, she will be the only PRINCIPAL cast member of Hamilton without an article on Wikipedia. It is obvious that she is not completely irrelevant, so including her in Wikipedia only increases the amount of information the search engine can provide to users. MonroeHarless (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC) MonroeHarless (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC) 03:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI ran another basic search and added additional sources to the article that proved Lexi Lawson to be notable. According to Wikipedia:Notability, a performer is considered notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. In the case of Lexi Lawson, stage performances would be applicable. She is performing as Eliza Schuyler Hamilton in the musical Hamilton and is considered a notable replacement according to the show's wikipedia page. She has also performed in two other national broadway tours. MonroeHarless (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is listed on the Hamilton page because she is currently playing the role and took over it from the original performer. As you said, they are notable if they have MULTIPLE roles. She has only had one role on Broadway, which is a replacement, not multiple. Having roles in tours are not generally a major indicator of notability, and even if they were, she only has two tour roles, and one of which is also a replacement. She might be notable eventually, but she is not yet. JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are we counting as significant roles and notable productions? Looking at Broadway World and her resume, we've got:

Hamilton: replacement in a leading role on Broadway
In the Heights: replacement in a leading role in first tour
RENT: leading role in later tour
Fame: leading role in later tour
American Idol: passed regional auditions, withdrew before national round
TV guest spots, supporting film roles, regional theater productions

I'd think that tours are not notable productions. Serving as a replacement on Broadway is minimally significant, but there's only one such credit. And the tv and film stuff doesn't seem notable to me. Ibadibam (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With tours, I think originating a role in the first tour would be somewhat significant; however, none of her roles fall into that category. JDDJS (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an actress myself, I can assure you that tours definitely qualify for a person's notability.MonroeHarless (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being an actress does not make you specially qualified to judge if other actresses are notable enough for Wikipedia. JDDJS (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC) I never said was specially qualified, you just made a rather abrupt assumption. I'm simply stating that this area is my specialty and offering my point of view. No where in there did I state I was "specially qualified" as you wrongly assumed I meant. 99.119.114.151 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You did not say that it was your opinion that they were notable. You said "As an actress myself, I can assure you that tours definitely qualify for a person's notability." JDDJS (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS (talk) 02 so where in there did I say I was specially qualified? MonroeHarless (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You said "as an actress myself, I can..." You clearly are claiming to be specially qualified, otherwise you would have not bought it up. JDDJS (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 02 I apologize if I came across in a way that caused you to misinterpret my comments, as this is not the case. I brought it up to present an alternate point of view and stated that I was an actress to present where I was coming from. I am in no way putting myself in authority above anyone else here. However, the topic being debated here is not over this, but rather the notability of Lexi Lawson, so let's get back to discussing that.MonroeHarless (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per her imdb page. She doesn't have a lot, but she has some marks on her resume at the highest levels of her profession, which should count for something. South Nashua (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua What are you talking about? Most of the roles on her imdb page aren't even named roles. Her only Broadway role is as a replacement. JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS (talk) Yes, she was a replacement. The significance was that she was a part of Hamilton (musical), which can be considered a very large part of 2016's pop culture. If this page is removed, she will be the only principal cast member of this show without a Wikipedia page.MonroeHarless (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, that is not true. Seth Stewart who plays Jefferson/Lafayette and Nicholas Christopher who pays Washington both do not have pages. Second of all, while Hamilton itself is a very large part of current pop culture, that doesn't mean that everybody involved in it is automatically notable. JDDJS (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Actually, it is true. Neither of those actors are playing PRINCIPAL cast members, which mean leading roles. Lawson, however, is playing a principal role.99.119.114.151 (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional information on Lexi Lawson, including her work composing movie score and additional television roles. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." There are clearly many cited sources that include information regarding Lawson.99.119.114.151 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a Google News search for her, which yielded 7,290, which sounds impressive. However, going through the sources, you find that almost all of the results are about Hamilton and only briefly mentions her. Out of the ones that are actually about her, most are just press releases about her taking over the role. That just leaves us with an interview with Javier Muñoz on Metro Focus (which I never have even heard of), a puff piece about what she and her co-stars look like out of the show, a brief basic bio of her Broadway.com. and the article about her in the Stir (which while it is a very in depth article about her, but is just one article). That's simply not enough to prove notability. JDDJS (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS Funny you say that. You must have forgotten these articles. I found many more, but these were just a few I selected that covered the most information. Songwritersmarketplace.com's in depth interview with her, Women Around Town's marticle and interview with her, her own website http://www.lexilawson.love/, and All American Speakers article on her. MonroeHarless (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Her own website means nothing for notability. Do you have links to the other articles you mentioned? JDDJS (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JDDJS Her website could serve as reference for her contributions, as long as likely bias is removed. The links are https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/Lexi-Lawson/398737, http://www.womanaroundtown.com/sections/woman-around-town/woman-around-town-lexi-lawson-hitting-the-heights, and http://songwritersmarketplace.com/keeping-up-with-lexi-lawson/. I have also found additional articles that I will organize and share shortly. MonroeHarless (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue was just providing sources to cite the information in the article, those articles would be enough. However, what we need here are sources to prove notability. These articles are from more obscure websites and do not count as significant media coverage. JDDJS (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you guys discuss it. Lawson was in those things. Peripherally maybe, but she was in them and she got a credit and they considered to be productions at the peak of the profession. Good enough for me. South Nashua (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua I still don't know what you mean. Tours are not "considered to be productions at the peak of the profession." A production at the peak of a stage actor's profession would be the original cast of a Broadway show, which she has never been a part of. She a small unnamed part in one notable film and she guest starred on one notable TV show. That is nowhere near being the top of her profession. JDDJS (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for reasons given.--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NACTOR as shown by MonroeHarless. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl What do you mean by NACTOR?MonroeHarless (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR. Ibadibam (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, use {{ul}} or {{ping}} if you want to mention another user in your comment. Ibadibam (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has presented an enlargement on this page for nearly 48 hours and the majority of users want to keep the article. Can we proceed to conclude this discussion?MonroeHarless (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:NotEarly AFD's are normally allowed to run for 7 days. Shearonink (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as articulated in the essay WP:PNSD, a majority does not decide the outcome of an AfD, but rather a consensus formed in harmony with the broader consensus inherent in Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This allows administrators to consider the strength of arguments without the potential of being compromised by canvassing. Ibadibam (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Meets WP:NACTOR, barely. The role in Hamilton is significant and attracts enough of a following of people interested in her previous career as found in reliable sources, making those jobs relevant, too, for our purposes. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 04:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User:MonroeHarless/User:Cannady212, who is the article author and the main voice arguing for this article to be kept has been confirmed by checkuser to be using sockpuppets and has been indefinitely blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cannady212. User has used one sock to improperly close this AFD. She has used the other sockpuppet to support Draft:Mitchell_Hope becoming an article, despite the fact that it had been rejected several times due to lack of notability. While this does not invalidate any points that she has made during this AFD, closing admin should keep this in mind when making a final decision on what to close this discussion as. JDDJS (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lexi who? Grammarphile (talk) 18:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy seems like a good solution to me. I just added a couple details with additional sources but agree more is needed--but I also think this is one where it's reasonable to guess we may see more very soon, so with offers on the table to host the draft, I think that's a good route. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Replacement roles do not indicate notability under WP:NACTOR and otherwise falls short of WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently she does not appear to pass WP:GNG (at least through my searches), and she clearly does not pass WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Not currently notable, for the reasons onl5969 states. But there is potential for notability in future. 1292simon (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This is a borderline case, with the actress attracting some notoriety for her multiple touring performances yet not getting the kind of sustained coverage that a good article needs. I'm somewhat swayed by the arguments to keep this. However, the whole situation seems to be, to put it bluntly, 'too soon'. There are reasonable points made to push this into some kind of draft space or something like that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Sundaravadivelu

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SELFPROMOTE...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 12 is too low for WP:Prof#C1. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete actually as I had removed the Speedy since there was at least a Royal Society membership but, by searching, I am unable to find anything else better, no significant citations or library collections which is not at all surprising here. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think being a fellow of what appears to be his country's main academy of engineering, the Indian National Academy of Engineering (search his name here) is enough for WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

INAE appoints up to 50 fellows from academia, industry and government every year. I don't think we can have an article for all of them just because of that membership. It doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. If it is then we are opening a Pandora's box...Rameshnta909 (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of academies in India. Not all of them are as worthy as others. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting that there was a lot of refs added midway through this discussion that caused a number of opinions to sway from "delete" to "keep". Disregarding opinions calling for deletion because the subject is not "serious" or a "joke", there's still not enough to fish a clear consensus either way out of this rather complicated discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Alom

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

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

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

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

Doesn't meet instruction for Biography and also unreliable links Anhgamat (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already had to revert the article twice since anons seem to like adding all kinds of nonsense to the page. Hopefully it won't get so bad as to require semi-protection. No opinion as to whether or not the article should be kept. Feinoha ^Talk 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is becoming a nuisance with unreliable links and multiple instances of vandalism. ^Talk 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The article two links, both Prothom Alo and The Daily Star are reliable sources. What is an unreliable link?- Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Article semi-protected for the next 12 hours. Clerks, please consider that IPs and newly registered users will not be able to improve the article during this time. Thank you. Samsara 06:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear in any national TV drama or any movie. non-notable according to, WP:ENT. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of recent information. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep and improve~~ Strong keep The above deletion rationales are correct for the name spellings given in the article. But I'm seeing multiple significant coverage of him in WP:RS, when searching for "Hero Alom" in Bengali: হিরো আলম. I get the impression (via Google translate) that he's notable as a meme in Bangladesh, rather than as someone for whom we should be looking for straightforward notability as an actor. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Semi-protected for two days this time. Samsara 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. No notable production. - Mar11 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Not notable. Less references and only local ones. Considering a global view this article is not necessary.~~ Considering the fact that he is well recognised in his native place and according to the sources(more references added later) this article meets WP:BASIC. So I think it should be there in wikipedia.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnanaranjan sahu: when the notability guidelines talk about "local coverage", they mean small town newspapers. This article now has ~~four~~ six references from national dailies of his country. Wikishovel (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article is absolutely unnecessary, wikipedia should be a place for knowledge, not for nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4084:CC59:C0A1:E355:213:AF8 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — 2405:204:4084:CC59:C0A1:E355:213:AF8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The references have recently been improved to the point of this now passing WP:GNG, with substantial coverage shown on six references from national daily news sources. @Anhgamat, Johnpacklambert, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Mar11, and Jnanaranjan sahu: may I ask you to reconsider? Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not chaning my view. Hope you have been through WP:ENT. There is a reference which links to his youtube channel. I believe It is too soon to add an article about him.~~ --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 18:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said he was notable on the basis of WP:ENT. As I've noted above and per the article, he's not just an actor, he's also a bit of a social media phenomenon in Bangladesh, with ~~3.6~~ 4.2 million views on YouTube, and he does meet WP:BASIC. Wikishovel (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion discussion is poorly framed. With the exception of biographybd.com (which has been removed), the original sources were reliable, albeit not all that deep. To those original sources, Wikishovel has added four more solid Bengali-language sources. I don't like the topic, don't relish guarding it against vandals, and won't shed any tears if it's deleted, but I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are solid, and the article is well sourced for stub. The Subject is a cringe pop star and source of Viral memes in Bangladesh. The fact that he received coverage from Independent National Newspapers support notability. The deletion discussion was framed poorly and some of the arguments for deletion are not policy based. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Semi-protected for 4 days. I will not post further notices regarding protection - please just check the prot log, thank you. Samsara 13:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Non-notable per WP:ENT. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moheen Reeyad: as noted by several other editors, WP:ENT is not the only basis on which to judge notability. Wouldn't you agree that he has enough significant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:BASIC, as someone notable on social media? Wikishovel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. The page is full of nonsense stuff.--Anup Sadi (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anup Sadi: Could you please explain what in the page is nonsense? And how he fails WP:BASIC? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:- This article probably should not be deleted. The person is a social media sensation of Bangladesh and India and the source are completely reliable. Some says discussion that he did not appeared in National TV but seriously in nows day national tv is not needed for becoming a notable person. I understand that the article in poorly written but the article can be protected from vandalism but should not be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alom is not an actor; at best, you can call him a wanna-be amateur model. Lately he received considerable negative publicity, specially on facebook because of his ineptitude as an actor, his unsuitable physical demeanour as a model, and (maybe) skin colour as well. People are mostly mocking him on facebook; few are amused and sympathetic. The publicity he receives in Bangladesh is mostly negative. Hence, I will suggest to delete this article albeit he is a very interesting phenomenon, perhaps would be a great subject of interests to social science experts, sociologists, anthropologists who are interested to work in the field of racism, classism, patriarchy, social media phenomena, pop culture, pop psychology, and etc. - Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he got enough RS to pass Notability and the article, as it is written now, is a nice representation of him describing why he is in Wikipedia. - Mar11 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Alom has just become the joke of the country and hence received negative publicity, especially on facebook, and other social networking sites. How come that can be considered a criterion for an entry on wikipedia? And most of news sites (/links) covering him except Prothom Alo/Daily Star have little credibility. So, my afterthought recommends the deletion.- Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability isn't contingent upon the coverage being positive. And as you've said yourself: he's now known nationally. Wikipedia also has many articles on the most terrible criminals imaginable, not because they're worth immortalising, but because they're notable. And since he's received in-depth coverage for a significant time in national newspapers, he's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by in-depth coverage? Would you please mention one? The most credible or reliable newspaper in Bangladesh, The Daily Prothom Alo, published with a reference to a spam news from India that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan; it's an utter falsehood. Please check https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/BD or https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/IN . I have already said most of the links are not credible; they are mostly spam news. I think it is better to keep wikipedia spam-free. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that though I said the joke of the country, I didn't necessarily mean he's known nationally. He is known by some facebook users, and other social networking sites users; he's become a social media phenomenon when facebook users began mocking and lampooning him online, and then, some online news portals (mostly spam news sites) covered him following the trick of clickbait journalism. And in their print versions, many newspapers avoid publishing many things which they publish online as clickbaits. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By in-depth coverage, I mean whole articles about him in multiple WP:RS, not just passing mentions. "Significant coverage" isn't precisely defined in WP:BIO, of course. The Prothom Alo reference that's actually used in the article is an opinion piece about him, but it's quite a long article, and describes him as an example of what can be achieved in Bangladesh today. Thanks, 14:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a populist piece, and it barely mentions Hero Alom. Hero Alom is just a passing reference in that piece. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously passes the WP:BASIC. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC says "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable". Hero Alom has not received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and most of sources are not reliable. Even The Daily Prothom Alo's claim that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan is an utter falsehood. Please check https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/BD or https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/IN . Therefore, the article completely fails to meet the WP:BASIC. I think it is better to keep wikipedia spam-free. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might indeed be a falsehood, but that reference isn't used in the article. Wikishovel (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per as I'm concerned Prothom Alo and The Daily Star is considered two of the most reliable newspapers! The article has references from those papers with one link from Kaler Kantho and Jugantor each! Coming from that, Zee News and NDTV are two of the most reliable medias in India. They too published news about Hero Alom. (Sources: Zee News & NDTV) Though they are not used in the article. But I think this is enough to prove that this guy has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , here,

Multiple = Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Jugantor, NDTV, Zee News etc.
reliable secondary source = I don't need to proof that I think!
Significant = A "reputed" and reliable media won't publish anything at their Page 3 without any research of their own.

So under the current circumstances I don't need to be an judge to say that this article does meet the WP:BASIC.

PS: I think you need to search the trend under different idea. The news says Hero > Salman, it doesn't say Hero is trending in top 10. Mind that. But I won't say anything, since I didn't do any personal research on this! Oh yes, the reference isn't used in the article. Mentioned the correct thing @Wikishovel:--PGhosh ^(Hello!) 17:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have already said that The Daily Prothom Alo's claim that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan is an utter falsehood. I compared them on google.com/trends/. Hero Alom is nowhere near Salman Khan. Who says Prothom Alo reliable? How can you still claim "a "reputed" and reliable media won't publish anything at their Page 3 without any research of their own"?
Indian news portals like Zee News, NDTV, etc published things just following the trick of clickbait journalism without minimum research. Just sheer clickbait yellow journalism. I'm from Bangladesh, and I'm sure about what I'm saying. Did some research.
If the issue of coverage and significance is taken into consideration, Hero Alom received really very little print media coverage. There are thousands more things getting covered in daily national newspapers, and they don't get into wikipedia. Just few weeks back an elephant from India crossed the border; he got live coverage in tv, dailys, even named Bangabahadur nationally. But he's not in wikipedia though more widely covered than Alom.
First, I thought Hero Alom would be an interesting study of racism, classism, patriarchy, social media phenomena. So I didn't recommend deletion. But then it occurred to me Hero Alom is yet to be covered in an academic research paper.
Also keep in consideration that in their print versions, many newspapers avoid publishing many things which they publish online as clickbaits.
Hero Alom simply does not meet the WP:BASIC. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these rationales reflect Wikipedia policy on notability. Which policy says subjects of bios have to be the subject of a research paper? Wikishovel (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about multiple reliable secondary sources? Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have already responded that the article does have multiple reliable secondary sources. You don't agree. That's fine. Wikishovel (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a ballot going on here, I admit defeat. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here's the Hero Alom article. Just tell me on which line the "utter falsehood" reference is used. If it is not used then there's no value in the concern of the article. Now what you are talking about clickbait seems unreal to me as the false news was published on December 17-18 while heas featured in Zee News at 15th of December. Moreover the trust level of these media are compared to Al Jajeera of Middle East. So, they obviously does there research before publishing any news and you may find out These news says about him and his "works" not some "utter falsehood" news. But this info is also unimportant as these sources are not used in the article. Now the last thing you told they surely can do that. But that doesn't mean the news becomes unreliable. Cause the online version of a print media is also reliable. See WP:RS for details.

Coming to Bangabahadur. Bangabahadur is a pure and classic case of WP:1E. In fact we didn't know who Bangabahadur was (probably elephants don't use nicknames/names) and after his death we almost forgot who Bangabahadur is. That elephant was stuck in Bangladesh which ended in the tragic death of him. So Bangabahadur is only known for 1 event. So in this case you may start an article about that event! While Hero Alom is a guy who has always been in the news, sometimes being a Youtube celebrity, sometimes his videos, sometimes his interviews etc etc. So this guy is not a 1 event person. And now-a-days he has gained a huge amount of fanbase at Youtube, so this guy is notable. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 18:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know that any media can lie, make mistakes, even take side, be biased in their judgement, propagate specific propaganda, and spread hatred, violence whether that is Al Jazeera or Bal Jazeera, Time (magazine), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post or Zee News and so on. So you don't know what they can do or how they can use clickbaits to attract click-throughs. So now I admit the words of Zee News is the words right out of the Vedas; they are truisms, and from India, they did so much research on us that they know much more about us than we ourselves know about ourselves. Please study a little on media studies, then talk like that. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alom obviously passes WP:BASIC. Prattya has explained it quite clearly, so I think I don't need to repeat those words. — ANKAN GHOSH DASTIDER (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know that any media can lie, make mistakes, even take side, be biased in their judgement, propagate specific propaganda, and spread hatred, violence whether that is Al Jazeera or Bal Jazeera, Time (magazine), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post or Zee News and so on. So you don't know what they can do or how they can use clickbaits to attract click-throughs. So now I admit the words of Zee News is the words right out of the Vedas; they are truisms, and from India, they did so much research on us that they know much more about us than we ourselves know about ourselves. Please study a little on media studies, then talk like that. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With due respects to you, I don't need to know media's policy, I don't need to know that they lie and I also don't need to know how they make news; in this article's concern. I just want to know whether it fulfills the WP:RS or not. If it fulfills it then I don't need to know any more. I would count them as reliable and OK.

Moreover I would dearly request you to go through WP:RS once then please post comments. Cause, you just give one example from Prothom Alo (that news may be non-true; which is yet to be proved) saying "utter falsehood", which were reported with the reference of Yahoo India and you are starting to believe every media produces false news. Now let me also tell you, it's not a proven fact that was a false news, So innocent until proven guilty. That's why that too will be counted as a reliable news until proven wrong.

Finally If the one's you mentioned above is not reliable then probably no media in the world is reliable, cause everybody thinks about business and sometimes make mistakes in producing news. Just one bad buzz (needs to be verified!) from Prothom Alo doesn't make it unreliable. By the was it's not a good practice to remove a comment fully and make a new comment at that place in discussions. Do use the <s>Strike Through </s> option instead! --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Prothom Alo has already been proven guilty. It made two terrible mistakes; it made the first mistake when they said Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google than Salman Khan; then it made the most terrible and unforgivable second mistake by attributing the false info to Yahoo India. Yahoo India never said that. Even if Yahoo India published it, why don't you compare Hero Alom and Salman Khan on google trends. Go and check yourself https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Salman%20Khan,Hero%20Alom .
Zee News's website should not be considered a good source becuase the website is not particularly a regular news portal. Zee News is a tv channel which is notorious for controversies; check its wikipedia entry. Hence its website is untrustworthier. I'm sure the links referenced in the article are going to be dead soon.
In Bengali Wikipedia, similar discussion is going on, the majority (6 out of 8 users) there recommend the deletion of the Bengali article because Bangladeshi and Bengali people are aware of the real scenario.
Finally it seems you're consciously exploiting the system loopholes and augmenting the systematic bias by being unabashedly and unduly recentist. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! But I haven't heard anything from either PA or any other source that it's false! Though I myself can search I too know that, but still I don't think that proves it wrong. Cause unless it's been granted, mine or yours opinion don't count. Anyways let's agree that news is wrong, but what is next? That specific link is NOT used in the article. So I don't know why this dead rubber is being discussed now and then!
The next point you said is why Zee News should not be considered a good source! Well would you be kind enough to propose this at WT:RS or WP:VPP. Cause until now the rule says the different thing. The official website is a part of the Zee News channel, so that's surely trustworthy! Moreover the news we are discussing about was published by the Zee Media Bureau, so henceforth the news too is OK. Now I request you, please understand one or two bad buzz doesn't make a media non-reliable. Every Media has history like this. You see there's a long list at BBC controversies, but that doesn't make either BBC Channel or bbc.com non-reliable. So that's the same for Zee News. And if still you tell Zee News not trustworthy, then probably, no media in the world is trustworthy.
Your third point was about Bengali Wikipedia's AFD. Dude, frankly what Bengali Wikipedia people thinks, can't be counted at English Wiki. Cause this discussion is going on at English Wiki, so what people at that place think has no value. Moreover I, myself is also a native Bangladeshi and Bengali speaking person, then I think different! Still I'm enlightening some parts of that Bengali Wiki Debate;
You added {{Not a ballot}} at the top of this page. Oh! one thing, you may counted wrong. Actually, 10 people commented there, with 6 saying delete and 4 saying not delete (one of them is me). So what I was telling, since this is not a ballot, so the logic of 4 others should be counted and those 4 are also Bengali speaking person. So the situation you are saying is not like that and I too am aware of the situation. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You people whatever have said , all are half truth. Hero Alom is man of inspiration of thousands around the globe , so it should be remained in Wikipedia. Despite being left by his parents, poor health , poor financial condition of Hero Alom , he has erected to entertainment industry as a Hero.Kalamya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- I know that Hero Alam has recieved a lots of negative publicity, he is not one whom can I admire at all. But the matter is here that he is notable so we should not delete it and please guys prothom alo is a reliable source it is one of the leading newspaper of Bangladesh just one false news can't made a reliable news paper to unreliable.Ominictionary (talk)

Keep. Similar to Worldbruce above... I think the topic is cringeworthy and vandal-bait, and the article is currently of bad quality. But the guy has received enough media attention to be notable, so the article should stay. 1292simon (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may very well remain a magnet for spamming and other trolling-type behaviors for a while, and it certainly needs some work as of right now, but that doesn't change the fact that as an individual Alom is broadly notable. He's not just covered by the likes of mere random blogs. We're talking about well-known, widely looked at publications such as The Daily Star. The article should be kept. It needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 03:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamma Kingdoms

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

No evidence that these were called "Kamma Kingdoms". There are hardly any results for the search term "Kamma Kingdom": Ignoring Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources, there are none. The article was created by a now-banned user, who was obsessed with glorifying Kamma caste. The only reference cited in the article was added by another user, who de-prodded it, and is now blocked as a sock of the creator. This reference is a non-RS caste glorification booklet, and I doubt that even it supports the assertion. utcursch | talk 02:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 02:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a helpful disambig page; no reliable sources provided to prove that this is a widely used term Spiderone 10:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Euryalus (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Harris

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

Harris was Miss Delaware. This alone is not enough to make her notable. she has no other ounce of notability and no other reason she has ever come up in searches. One of the sources is a New York Times article about the 75th Miss America pageant that not only fails to mention Michelle Harris, it mentions the contestants from 3 states to point of the hypocrysy of their campaigns, but does not even mention their names. It is a strong sign that being Miss some state is not in any way a sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we had a page for every "Miss South Dakota 1989" etc., to present... this is just a bit too much. Perhaps winners should be listed under "Miss South Dakota Pageant" etc., instead of having their own articles. I won't post comments on every single one of these pages, but it would seem reasonable to delete all such pages nominated for deletion. —Grammardoc— ^talk 04:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The winners are listed at Miss South Dakota along with their ages at the time of winning and the town they were from. At times more information is included, such as mention if they resigned the title before the next competition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sufficient claim to notability. The article is promotional for the subject's consulting business, so WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G5: Special:Permanentlink/756435432#Earflaps_-_accusations_of_being_an_undisclosed_paid_editor_and_a_sock_puppet). MER-C 06:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Glamour: The Art of Unexpected Style

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

Book fails GNG by miles. WP is not a directory Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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