Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 March	14 March >

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 redirect to Endometriosis. Although she isn't synonymous with the subject, redirects are cheap and as Tapered says, if someone finds her name in Google, then they'd be directed to a relevant article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lou Ballweg

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

Delete: blatant promotional article; copy/pasted resume. Quis separabit? 00:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to endometriosis. The Milwakee Sentinel article is an interview about the disease—not about her—and her mention in the Guardian is short, ergo trivial. She did found an organization, and gets some web mention, so redirect readers who enter her in the searchbox to the subject. I concur with the reasoning of Rms125's delete. Tapered (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Tapered reasonings seems better than s imple delete L3X1 (distant write) 01:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, I don't think her name is a synonym for endometriosis, so a redirect doesn't apply here. South Nashua (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, South Nashua is right - she isn't synonymous with endo. If we had an article on her organization I'd say redirect her there, but we don't, so I think delete is more appropriate. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The idea behind the 'redirect' recommendation: provide useful information for people who happen upon Ballweg's name using google, to connect them to real info about endometriosis. Tapered (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Predator entity

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable (does not meet WP:GNG) as only sources that it is found in are unreliable. A WP:BEFORE search found no reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Delete None of the references in the article are reliable sources. None of the sources that any of the search tools turn up are reliable. Fails notability requirements entirely. Delete quickly. Tapered (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is Speedy Delete, and it doesn't always apply. G1 or G2 would work here I think. L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See MOS:REALWORLD. This is an article about some kind of fictional creation but is written from an in-universe perspective. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator blanked this page but I undid that edit. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Never Told Anyone

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

Non-notable book, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also, the author's article is tagged with POV issues. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article has no refernces. Search tool produces only one hit of any note, a review in Kirkus Books. Only one mention in a reliable source. Fails notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ To Child Sexual Abuse the phrase is quite common, and it has been established before that redirects don't have to be notable. The phrase is quite obviously attached to this awful genre. L3X1 (distant write) 01:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep This book doesn't seem to be notable and there is almost no coverage of it in secondary sources. I don't think that it should be redirected because I don't think this book has a significant relevance to any other articles. Imalawyer (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant relevance is the fact it's title is a phrase mostly associated with child abuse.L3X1 (distant write) 14:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ @Imalawyer: Because the book will turn up in google searches, because it's 'stock phrase,' redirect is a better idea. Tapered (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to keep, but I would still be opposed to a redirect. I don't think it's sufficiently recognized as a stock phrase that a redirect would be appropriate. Would anyone search "I Never Told Anyone" looking for an article about a stock phrase? Imalawyer (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used my college's database to look up sourcing and found quite a bit. So far it looks like it began as a bit of a darling in its academic sphere, but has since received some criticism over how it was written. What does everyone say - I'm pinging @L3X1, Imalawyer, Tapered, and Champion: to see what they think. I've expanded the article greatly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like it's used as a source in various academic works. Here's an older work, but I still see it used or mentioned here (2000), here (2008), here (2010), and here (2015), among many others. It looks like it's considered a fairly groundbreaking work from what I've found. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been substantially improved and the secondary sources prove notability. I've changed my vote to keep. Imalawyer (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Tokyogirl. The thing abotu redirecting is: If someone googles INTA, a lot of stuff about child abuse will pop up, so why not have the wikipedia article on the search return also? But never mind that, I changed my vote to keep. L3X1 (distant write) 14:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... maybe a hatnote? We could probably add that the title references the fact that a lot of abuse victims say this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this. My worry with the redirect is that there isn't necessarily an automatic thing people would be looking for necessarily - it makes sense to you and I, but there's not really anything in the main child sexual abuse article that uses this phrase or has a section that uses a similar phrase. For example, you'd expect to see something about this in Child_sexual_abuse#Disclosure but that discusses disclosure where the children are forthcoming about the abuse, even if just slightly. I don't see anything in the article about a child not coming forward to talk about the abuse that would make sense for the redirect necessarily. It's not that I'm against it, just that I'm just uncomfortable redirecting it without something to show why it would redirect, as it may not have the same context for every person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has been greatly improved by Tokyogirl and references added. Some of these are reviews of the book and demonstrate that it meets WP:BKCRIT. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources reliable. Ergo notable. Good job of creating context. Tapered (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great work on the improved content. --NoGhost (talk) 18:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep improvements in content pass GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A pox on sockpuppets. L3X1 (distant write) 18:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Point of Grace. closing a tad early as a consensus has been reached and will not change if left open for the remaining few hours (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Breen

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

Subject is not notable outside of the unambiguously notable Christian band she is a part of, Point of Grace. Article currently has only one citation, and it is a mere passing mention. Online coverage is significant but other than coverage about her family life, the sources discuss her as a part of the whole Point of Grace. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Point of Grace. Only dedicated article I found is about her house in a specialist journal There are mentions in articles about Points of Grace, but only isn't WP:TRIVIAL. Lacks WP:NOTABILITY, but since google search gets significant hits, redirect to band's article. Tapered (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Point of Grace. She is not notable outside of the band.Sdc3000 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Band is notable but no coverage shows individual notability.2601:248:4500:9523:43C:32C0:AC8B:3F10 (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22 Cortlandt Street

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

PROD removed by author without explanation. The source cited in article is not reliable. GNews coverage lists one passing mention that fails GNG overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Delete As per nominator, source is unreliable. Search tools turn up no promising dedicated sources. PROD should have gone through. Out with it quickly, please. Tapered (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quicky chuck; GNG and nom reasoning. L3X1 (distant write) 01:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG. I noticed the creator has a few other building articles that could also qualify for AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing here that establishes notability and a Google search turned up nothing meaningful to add. There are probably a thousand such buildings in New York City that are of equivalent size and equally limited notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is one of thousands of such buildings in Manhattan. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a couple of passing mentions in the NYT, but nothing more. It's a non-notable Emery Roth & Sons building, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Century 21 (department store), where there is some 9/11 info. Station1 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that this is WP:TOOSOON. Having a role in one film is not sufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Gabriel

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. No reliable sources to confirm notability. Perhaps just WP:TOOSOON. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See WP:TOOSOON. It looks like her career has recently begun and she may attain notability in the future, but as of right now is not notable.Sdc3000 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. Here is an entire article on Huffington Post featuring Betty Gabriel's role in Get Out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-most-overlooked-underrated-characters-in-get_us_58c3049de4b0a797c1d39c5b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.28.103 (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of her role in Get Out is not enough to overcome out multiple roles rule. The role in The Purge:Election Year was not significant enough. Gabriel may make it to being notable, but that will require at least one more significant role in a notable film. She has not yet reached the level of notability. Anyway the Huffington Post article is not about Gabriel, it is about a character in a film. It only mentions Gabriel in a caption to a photo. The fact that the character is played by Gabriel does not make the piece about Gabriel or a way to show indepth coverage in reliable sources for Gabriel.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The actress is not mentioned in The Huffington Post article. It is not even an 'entire article' about a character she played, it discusses various character who were 'overlooked and underrated' - so characters which didn't get much attention. Nothing to back notability there, for character or actress. Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts: Gabriel is a Julliard grad and a current American actor who has been in a successful film. That is enough for a Wiki page, honestly. Saying she is insignificant is honestly racist. She wasn't an extra in Get Out. Especially with the recent Wiki campaign to combat the deletion of women's contributions, I am really shocked that this is even a question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.207.93 (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one has suggested she was an 'extra', and to accuse me of racism for nominating the article for deletion is ridiculous. How does she meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG? That is the question we are looking at. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even seen Get Out? 1 through 3 apply to her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.254.207.93 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The two principal opposing points of view are :

These lists are of poor quality and little substance and we should take a stand against paid editors creating junk
When viewed on their own merits, and ignoring the paid editing element which may be worth blocks and bans in itself, the articles have sufficient potential to be improved if somebody bothers to do it (as principally advanced by Beyond My Ken).

Essentially, I don't see much middle ground between these two camps; indeed, the conversation has got heated on occasion through the debate.

Northamerica1000 has suggested a further activity is to selectively merge + redirect some or all of these articles, which can be done through normal editing. The suggestion to take the conversation to Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of Timeline articles is also worthwhile. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Amazon.com

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

Article serves no encyclopaedic purpose. Was created by a paid-editing team (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vipul.27s paid editing enterprise.) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AfD discussion is not intended to be a discussion on the validity of "Timeline" articles in general. For reasons of clarity, please limit comments to the articles nominated. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate the following articles for the same reasons:

~~Timeline of Nortel~~ Nomination withdrawn. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have deliberately not added the usual search links for the additional articles, as this is not a notability issue and there's not much point - these are all well-known companies. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Exemplo347 it looks like you have not bundled Timeline of Microsoft correctly. - Bri (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bear with me, I'm doing it now. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. It was slightly fiddly due to the amount of articles. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, apologize for not noticing you were in process. - Bri (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My fault totally - I should have stuck {{Under Construction}} or something at the top! Exemplo347 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete forthwith except Nortel (not created by this team). Enthusiastically endorse proposed deletion of the lot. While the debate circles around and around at ANI, the process of mass deletion appears to be our only remedy for these critically flawed articles. I have noted the problems at COIN (permlink), but repeat here again in brief: they are essentially a walled garden created by the paid editing team as described. They show evidence of a pattern of citations to really bad sources such as blogs, wikis, and advertorial-ish aggregators, and even in one case I found a source that openly declares it takes payment for product reviews. In another case I developed evidence that there was SEO involved in the link placement, with measurable effects for one of the links inserted (see evidence here). In another case we have a Timeline of Microsoft which duplicates an existing History of same. In another case which I have privately communicated to admins due to privacy concerns, there is evidence of extensive refspamming/SEO by the same editors for immigration services companies. Basic content issues; regardless of the outcome at ANI regarding this team in particular and future of paid editing in general, this deletion is urgently needed. - Bri (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Looks like the Nortel one was mistakenly included by me. I'm not sure how to properly rectify my oversight though. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: You could probably just strike it out and say "withdrawn by nom" on that line. It should be clear to other !voters and to the closing admin. - Bri (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Whoops! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bri's "evidence" that Simfish was involved in a scheme to use Wikipedia for SEO is extremely weak. All it shows is that Simfish temporarily added a link to "The History of Computing Project" (thocp.net) in one article, a very reasonable thing to do in an article about the history of Microsoft. I'm not taking any position about whether the articles should be saved or deleted yet, but the attitude of Bri, TeeVeeed, and Guy is unnecessarily hostile towards the editors who are the primary creators of these articles. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the admission that Simfish is being paid to edit isn't strong enough evidence, nothing will be. Let's focus on the issue at hand, before this discussion starts getting derailed. The talk page of this AfD is probably the place to discuss these side issues. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vipul is involved in the technology industry in Silicon Valley. He claims to be paying editors (including Simfish) to improve the quality of technology industry articles on Wikipedia solely for philanthropic reasons. This is very believable to me. Shouldn't other editors be assuming good faith? There's nothing wrong with some curious editors investigating a little deeper, but so far nobody has proved that there is anything nefarious about what Vipul is doing. Jrheller1 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've already said, the Talk page is the place to discuss this side issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can this be a "side issue" when Bri uses the "evidence" of an SEO optimization scheme using Wikipedia in his deletion rationale? Jrheller1 (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well he's not the nominatior, I am, and my rationale is based on the fact that the editor running the paid editing team said openly that he'd paid Simfish to create these articles. Read the ANI thread for the info. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your rationale is crap. "no encyclopaedic purpose" is not a valid rationale to delete (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). Nor is the fact that it was created by a paid-editing team. If there's no notability issue, what then is the rationale to delete? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So !vote, or don't. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with all of the above also WP:COATRACK issues and duplicate content. TeeVeeed (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment - I notice that Template:Technology company timelines largely overlaps these:

Some others were deleted already, apparently as a part of this process. Although Timeline of Nortel is presently withdrawn from the AFD above (and Timeline of Yahoo is not listed), I have to ask what people think about it. Is the difference in authorship the only reason to keep that and drop these others?? Among other things, we might consider whether the template is something to keep around because we could populate it with legitimate articles, or whether it should be withdrawn because such articles are inherently problematic.

I think we have to look hard at the whole "Timeline of..." idea in general. The paid network seemed to use it as a loophole, and it really is one, and that will not go unnoticed by future paid editors whether openly declared or clandestine. Is a timeline an encyclopedia article at all?? Is a timeline inherently and innately a so-called "coatrack" because anyone can, at any time, add another point to it without documenting any high-level relationship to the other data? Or is that just like other articles, and this is just a minor format difference? These problems may be most immediate with major companies and paid editors, but we need someone to really riddle out the philosophy here - I haven't really been able to think deeply enough to follow it. Wnt (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like something to discuss on a relevant noticeboard (although I can't think of one) - we should avoid turning this AfD into something more than it is - a discussion regarding the deletion of the specific articles I have included, for the specific reasons I've noted in the nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wnt The same thought occurred to me. It seems you have two choices that result in a sound timeline. Choice one, everything in it must be sourced to another RS that has its own timeline. Choice two, allow ad-hoc additions. If choice two, then you're relying on the wisdom of crowds to winnow out the crap and result in something that substantially matches our collective sense of what is important. In these cases, IMO, the origins of the articles, their relatively unseen nature (until recently), and the lack of many contributors has resulted in questionable content. A timeline could in theory be encyclopedic but these are too broken to fix with reasonable effort. - Bri (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I made an explanatory infographic for this paid editing stuff: https://tinypic.com/r/33dz6ud/9 Ibiseggs (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Xiaomi supposed to be linked in the header? Bri (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The primary author is Simfish, so why wouldn't it be linked? However, the previous AFD discussion for this article also needs to be mentioned somewhere. Jrheller1 (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this spam. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even assuming that these lists weren't made in poor faith by paid editors, there's an extraordinary amount of listcruft in here. Unlike notable events like the sinking of the Titanic or 9/11, I see very little evidence to think that sources consider a *timeline* of these things in and of itself to be an actual thing of note. Anything that's legitimately encyclopedic here can go on the main pages or integrated into the History forks, where applicable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bri (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My first impulse was to delete them as being promotional, my second was to delete them as being the fruits of paid editing (which I am strongly opposed to), my third impulse was to agree with Guy that they are spam, but after looking through them, I think they serve a valuable encyclopedic purpose in charting the history of the technology companies which are now pretty much driving our lives and have tremendous influence on our financial and investment institutions. In many ways they are sculpting an emerging world culture. CoffeeCrumbs may well be correct that there's listcruft in there, but that can be taken care of by the normal editing process. I think that in another era, a Timeline of U.S. Steel or a Timeline of General Motors would have been invaluable information, and I think these serve the same purpose for our time. I am absolutely pained that they were created by paid editing, and I (personally, were I an admin) would have no compunction about banning those editors from contributing to them as having COIs, but here they are, and we have to judge them as we have them. Adding up the pros and cons, I come up with a "keep". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beyond My Ken don't know if you are watching this thread, but what you please reconsider in light of comments below? i have thought about four different ways about these as well. thx Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Beyond My Ken raises very good points here. Articles on major companies would be improved by summarizing their histories in timelines and linking to their corresponding timeline articles.--I am One of Many (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, BMK raised one point (not "points"): that they "serve a valuable purpose in charting the history". However he did not give any reason why chopping up an article into little boxes would "serve a valuable purpose in charting the history", and I cannot think of one either. zzz (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about that. BMK is a fantastic editor, but I fail to see why content that already exists in the relevant articles has been turned into "Timeline" articles by paid editors, and I fail to see why this redundant information should be kept. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Many thanks for the compliment.) Gathering disparate information to one place where it is much more easily digestible is a service to our readers, in my opinion. Much information in the encyclopedia is repeated in different articles, according to the focus of the article. History articles, for instance, are (and should be) duplicative in part. I don't see that as being a flaw. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that my !vote is based on the presupposition that these list-articles are basically accurate (I noted that they were fairly extensively referenced), but given Drmies' closing remarks on this AN/I thread about Vipul, if that's not the case I would have to re-think matters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these appear to fork articles in a hopelessly overdetailed manner. We do not need to repeat and source every press release, merger, product launch and/or partnership; and anything worth covering can be better covered in prose within the main articles. VQuakr (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a !vote!!! No valid rationale has been advanced to delete. "Unencyclopedic" is not a valid rationale. (WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). Nor is the fact that it was created by a paid-editing team. No evidence that the articles are spam. No notability issue; the subject is notable. Therefore, "keep" is the only option. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: notability was specifically identified as not an issue in the nomination, but since you have claimed the inverse: how do you assess notability in a "timeline of x" article? VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, a section of an essay, does not claim that "unencyclopedic" is a bad reason for deletion - just not a specific enough one if presented as an argument for deletion without context (which is not the case here). The essay links to WP:NOT, which is policy. A section of that policy, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, applies here. To quote: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." VQuakr (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: good points that logically follow from policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question meet the list notability criterea (WP:LISTN). It does not meet any of the items specified in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Redundancy is not an argument for deletion of a timeline; the Timeline of the Manhattan Project contains nothing that is not in the Manhattan Project article. It presents the information in an alternate form that provides real value to the readers. We have policies and procedures for a reason. To pervert WP:NOT in order to !vote anything out of the encyclopaedia to make a WP:POINT is appalling. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reasons to delete an article. Notability is merely #8 out of 14. Building an indiscriminate and spammy list is a perfectly good criterion for deletion. - Bri (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In what way are they indiscriminate or spammy? K.Bog 09:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bog, as a random example of indiscriminate choices for inclusion : Timeline of Microsoft includes a $250M purchase last year, but fewer than half the nine billion-dollar acquisitions [1]. Most notably missing, Visio, their first mega purchase, and aQuantive which became a $6 billion write-off. This calls into question BMK's premise or supposition they are "basically accurate". I've already noted the spammy links reminiscent of SEO elsewhere, and privately to admins as mentioned above. If you look at article histories you can see many cases where I or others have removed eye-popping sources like [2][3][4] etc. etc. More specific source concerns listed at Talk:Timeline of digital preservation. Though not bundled in this AfD, it is symptomatic of the shoddy and questionable construction engaged in by the same paid team. - Bri (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: per WP:LISTN, what sources have you found that discuss the time data points of each of these companies as a group or set? The last sentence of your 12:28 post is bizarre: citing a portion of WP:NOT in a delete !vote is not novel, and your accusation of WP:POINT is spurious. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Amazon.com, see One Click by Richard Brandt. For Microsoft, see Hard Drive by Wallace and Erickson and Idea Man by Allen. Etc. K.Bog 09:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they don't make Wikipedia worse. What kind of 'encyclopedic purpose' does one need? I just don't see the harm in leaving the articles where they are. They can be tagged and improved by interested editors if there are problems specific to the articles themselves. K.Bog 19:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You "don't see the harm"? Is that a policy-based rationale? Exemplo347 (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying I don't see what the policy-based rationale is for deletion. You can't just apply the term "unencyclopedic" to whatever isn't good enough. It has to be covered by WP:NOT or something like that, to confirm that there is a need to get it off the site. K.Bog 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are lists of redundant factoids, created in bad faith by people who didn't disclose their paid-editing status for years - content that isn't suitable for any kind of encyclopaedia posted by people acting in bad faith, who only confessed what they were doing when confronted with undisputable evidence. There is no selection criteria, it's just whatever references they're paid to pop onto the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy guideline on whether Wikipedia editing should be a Markov process? My opinion is that it should be. The process by which an article was written has no bearing on whether it's worth including in the encyclopedia. K.Bog 20:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See for instance how you put the timeline of Nortel up for deletion but then removed it as soon as you realized it was actually created by a different group of editors. The quality of the article for the encyclopedia is apparently not your concern. K.Bog 19:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note "I don't see the harm" is on the list of arguments to avoid at AfD, so other editors should avoid using it. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beyond my Ken. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that these articles are "spam" or "promotional" is absurd. There is zero "promotion" of these technology companies being done in these timeline articles. These timeline articles are just a convenient summary of the history of these companies for readers interested in the business aspect of the Silicon Valley centered technology industry. Possibly Timeline of Microsoft could be merged with History of Microsoft, but Timeline of Microsoft is definitely easier to read and digest key facts quickly from than History of Microsoft.

If it were proven that Vipul and the editors he paid were engaging in an SEO scheme or some other nefarious activities on Wikipedia, then of course they should be banned. But this has no relevance to whether these timeline articles should be kept or deleted. Jrheller1 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

draftify The items in each of these pages, are what I would expect to find on the relevant company's website on their history page. If you review them, you will not find much of anything about failures or negative things (you do find ~some~). Pretty much just positive stuff like funding rounds, product launches, acquisitions, etc. They fail NPOV on that account. The more I look into Vipul's enterprise the more I find very clear advocacy at worst, and more commonly just mediocre editing done by high school kids or young adults who seemed to be modelling what they found on corporate or organization websites. That is not what we do here. There is also a lot of spammy sourcing in these things.

These pages should be draftified, and improved in terms of content and sourcing, and then put through AfC as they should have in the first place. This mass of promotional content should not be in mainspace. And there is ... interesting judgement, or it should perhaps be called WP:OR, in the choices that the paid editors made about what to put in the (odd) "Big picture" section they put at the top which function as a sort of WP:LEAD.... There is also a different level of OR in the selection of items to include -- assembling a history based on sources that report various events is problematic in itself - the items included in the timeline really should be sourced from, and summarize, what others have written about what events were significant in the companies' history.... not just events that editors found reported somewhere and decided were significant in the history of the company. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to underline this. What are the independent sources discuss the actual history of say WhatsApp? The Timeline of WhatsApp appears to me to be almost entirely OR, assembled by the editor to create a history here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would also support delete. boy i am of various minds on this. The mixture of cruft and useful stuff makes it hard. The amount of work to clean up the mess pushes me toward delete. More than anything I want these the heck out of mainspace as they stand. Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Userfy, improve, and submit to AfC, per Jytdog. If no one is willing to take on improvement outside of mainspace, then delete outright as promotional POV forks.--Wikimedes (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, so what if they were created by paid editors, this is the sort of thing Wikipedia is good for. A store for trivial information. I fail to see how this harms Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the "I don't see the harm" argument - the "harm" is described at WP:HARMLESS - it's an argument to avoid, as I've already pointed out. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a store for indiscriminate factoids. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that two of the keep !voters have a stated affinity for trivia in articles (also kbog's userpage). This is counter to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and not a policy based reason to retain any article. - Bri (talk) 15:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And my argument was more then just "its harmless" the point is I can see this as begin a benefit with no negative counter point. Also I did not say "indiscriminate" I said trivial. Trivial in the sense of "non essential" not pointless. I can see no evidence this violates any policy, it merely does not obey a very strict interpretation of some polices (after all this can be allied to all lists). I would find a listed history like this of a company I was (say) doing homework on very useful. Is that not what Wikipedias prime function is, to act as a source for useful information?Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more time. It actually is indiscriminate, in the exact way described by the user essay Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information which backs up WP:NOT, and is linked from it. WP:NOT is a valid policy on which to reject this article. Here's why. The essay says a collection without distinctions is junk. There are exactly zero criteria in the articles considered by this AfD to evaluate any random news story mentioning amazon.com, microsoft, etc. to either include the event in the timeline or reject it. This is reflected in the bizarre inclusion of small acquisitions and not larger ones as I pointed out. It becomes an indiscriminate matter of taste or attention of anyone who approaches the timeline article. The timeline articles are all clearly poor coatracks for any random thought someone has about the company they cover. This fits the essay description "assembled without care or making distinctions" perfectly. - Bri (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An essay is nit policy. All this is an argument for improvement, not deletion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Yes, I described it correctly as a "user essay". But it still provides useful guidance, and has been seen as useful by other editors as well. This is why Discriminate vs indiscriminate is linked from WP:NOT. Do you have anything to say about how these articles correspond to "w/o care or distinction"? - Bri (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is not "words and/or names were typed as they were thought" (they are in chronological order, they are not "random keystrokes on the keyboard ", and they are not a "ordinary list of household items" (or to put it another way this is not a random list of related objects, it is a clear chronology of events). This I do not see how it fails "w/o care or distinction", but again it does not matter of this fails ""w/o care or distinction"" as that is not a policy.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trim. There is some useful information here, but not enough to merit a stand alone list. All of these timelines should be merged into the articles on their respective companies, and then trimmed to eliminate the truly cruft bits. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this as well. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all on the presumption that they are profoundly POV given the immense COI issues. I would also be amenable to moving them into user space or draft space so that neutral editors can review the articles in more depth to determine what, if anything, can be salvaged from them; I am ambivalent as to whether such an effort would result in restoring one or more articles or merging content into other articles as Slatersteven suggests above. ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, and then consider selectively merging into the respective main articles. Some of these timelines contain relevant historical content. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I'd have no issue with the whole bunch of articles being moved to Draft space, trimmed of the refs that the creator was paid to add, and then put through the Articles for Creation process by any editor who was interested (naturally that shouldn't include any of the paid-editing ponzi scheme members). As a side note, the creator of these pages has been indefinitely blocked from editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Exemplo347, the blocked editor created none of these articles. I think you're getting R---- and S---- mixed up. - Bri (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter. Cunard (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who created the article is irrelevant. The question is does the content sufficiently fail any policies or guidelines. I cannot see how it does so. It does add encyclopedic value. The quality of the article is also not grounds for deletion, if it can be improved. AfD is not about clean up. Keep all of them. Rezur Ekt (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have inclusionist tendencies, but gimmeabreak. This is pure WP:OR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Narky Blert (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful, sourced content into the main articles Delete the rest, as it is a WP:POVFORK; and WP:NPOV is a policy that should never be broken.Burning Pillar (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While arguments on both sides hold water, Bri's breakdown to me holds the most weight. BMK's analysis is very thought-provoking, but in the end I don't find enough value to overcome the COI issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I need a list of timelines like I need a hole in the head. The above does not convince me that this subject is actually notable, only that it is possible for an editor or editorial team to cram things together and claim the subject is notable by virtue of its cramming full of notability. Am not going for it. And now my head hurts. KDS4444 (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question re N standards for timelines

This AfD and the emphasis on timelines by Vipul's group has led me to wonder - what is the N standard for timelines, generally? I have opened a thread at WT:N here. Please discuss there if you are interested. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone_lists#Selection_criteria_for_timelines Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:Smell the coffee, this community is unable to self-regulate when faced with an existence threat. This is directly traceable to the anonymity principle of this community preventing and obviating any individual accountablity for its actions. Inlinetext (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of spammy SEO linking by Vipul

Timeline of web search engines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will show that Vipul (a self admitted link metric expert) has been abusing Wikipedia's link juice to promote SEO organisations via spammy links 'Timeline of ' articles since long before his network declarations. Since Vipul (and his employer) are apparently in the profession of placing paid outgoing referral links on websites of some prominent internet portals, the continuing presence of these articles without adequate disclosure represents a huge potential pitfall/threat for this community. Inlinetext (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is that this does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. The lack of reliable, independent sources means that there is no verification of her notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kharen Hill

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

The General Notability Guideline has not been met by the subject of this article, a photographer whose name does not appear in any reliable sources that could be located during a WP:BEFORE search.

References check I have checked the references contained within the article itself:

[5] No mention of the subject of this article
[6] Single mention - award from an industry body
[7] Identical to first reference
[8] personal website

In summary, the WP:GNG has definitely not been met. I have no doubt that the person exists but Wikipedia needs a lot more than that. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed this photographers work and wanted to hep with the page as a writer new to wikipedia. Kharen is one of the top photographers doing entertainment advertising and recognised as the top photographer in canada for her field and recognised for her work over many years with Canadian singer Sarah Mclachlan. Most of this type of photography work she is hired for is not publically credited to the photographer as they are highly paid (unlike editorial work in magazines) but i am a writer new to wikipedia and am now working on adding her credits to the pages in wikipedia where she did the photography on the projects she has worked on and am adding more references. most of Kharens work in film and TVis listed in IMDB and comes up in a google search where she is credited by the companies she works for that give credit for the photography. As i have the time i will continue to add Kharens information that i find.RhyH (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately IMDB is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS Exemplo347 (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally tagged this article for notability, but it doesn't appear to have improved much. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete Sruart - Kharens work is at a world class level and She is one of five women who work in the USA in Entertainment advertising which is a highly competetive field. She is arguabley the top photographer in this field in Canada and the first women to do so there...and possibly the only New Zealander working in the USA doing this type of highly paid competitive photography. Working with the show publicists in Canada and the US to design the national advertising campaigns and photographing the imagery for national Broadcaster CBC's top shows for years in a row . Corner Gas and Republic pf Doyle. She has had almost 20 years of o-1 US immiagration status (alien of exceptional abilty ) in the USA. I have had to take a break from building this page but know there will be the evidence to show she is notable. What is missing? I will keep working on this this week as i have time to start on the article references and noting her editorial published works.RhyH (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)User:RhyH[reply]

@RhyH: The most important thing for you to bear in mind is the concept of Inherited Notability - a person is not notable because of the people they work with, the projects they work on or the companies they have worked for. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not simply a list of projects. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST as sources are mostly self published. David.moreno72 03:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

don't Delete'" I have noted some published links to her photography for two magazines who use her regularily for cover stories and added her associations and work as a noted photographer with Students across Canada. Also her work with the national organisation for photography in Canada where she devleoped the business practices for All canadian photographers. Please note that many years of her work and articles were published before there was internet so many publications and references are not online. Regarding "inherited notability. In Kharens case this does not apply as you do not photograph or get the opportunity at this level to unless you are notable enough and your work is of the highest calibre and reputation. No one hires for this type of photography because of who they photograph alone These clients (magazines and major film and television studios and nusicians) only hire from a small group of the top photographers in the world with that preceding reputation because there is no margin for error. Either budget or image wise. Kharens work stands for itself so I would hope that any one reviewing this page also has experience in reviewing photography as hers is stand alone and unique. Kharens images are all over the internet and the world and she is credited in many cases as witnessed by a google search..

I am contiueing to upgrade this article. RhyH (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Wallace (radio personality)

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

Small town radio presenter. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Prod removed with claim of being syndicated but no indication of this in the article or on google. Difficult to search for due to other radio presenters with the same name. noq (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete absolutely fails WP:BIO. Only one primary source supplied . LibStar (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only thing approaching an independent source that I was able to find is this, which is clearly not enough. Not a comment about his ability in the job, but we don't have enough to write a reliable biography of him that meets our standards for articles on living people. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A radio personality is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, particularly if the article's only source is his program's own page on the website of his own employer. If the claims of syndication were reliably sourced to media coverage about him, then they'd count for something — but in 2017, every radio host who exists at all could claim syndication just on the basis of their radio station operating a web stream, so the mere claim of syndication cannot confer an exemption from having to source the article better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omega-3 Fatty Acids Nomenclature - Ralph T. Holman

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

This page consists of a small explanation of the who came up with the nomenclature and a discussion saying it was not included in the main article. More appropriate on the Talk:Omega-3 fatty acid talk page and where appropriate in that article. Declined prod. noq (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article appears to rely heavily on the use of other Wikipedia articles as sources. If Ralph Holman is notable, then he ought to be the subject of an article about his own achievements, rather than an article about whether his accomplishments are recognized in other Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is messy a mix of a biography and work product, via synthesis, pardon the pun. Even if kept, it would have to be split and each part renamed. I'm not convinced that either part is notable, that is the named and namer. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above, does not meet WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I enjoy sandwiches (talk • contribs)
Delete. Not notable (among other things). This is the author's first article. I will try and help 39Arnejaa19 (talk · contribs) to achieve what they're trying to achieve (which I think ultimately is an edit to Omega-3 fatty acid) via their Talk page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If he meets WP:BIO, Ralph T. Holman could be the subject of his own article. The present article is messy and un-encyclopedic and should be deleted, but some of the information could be merged into Omega-3 fatty acid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. all relevant notability guidelines met, particularly WP:NFOOTY. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wright (footballer, born 1910)

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL and doesn't have significant coverage needed for WP:GNG Jolly Ω Janner 18:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly does meet WP:Footy, having played in the Football League for Torquay United, Grimsby Town, Sheffield Wednesday and Swansea Town. If you have access to newspaper sources from the 1930s I'm sure you'll find coverage there.--Echetus Xe 18:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Really don't get this nomination. He's played in the top division for two clubs (Grimsby & Sheffield Wednesday) and in the Football League for two others (Torquay & Swansea). It's painfully obvious that he meets WP:NFOOTY. Number 5 7 11:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Is it April 1 already? Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - made over 60 appearances in the Football League, so passes WP:NFOOTBALL comfortably. Kosack (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, meets NFOOTBALL. Lepricavark (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Annedroids characters

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

fails WP:LIST —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to give a valid deletion reason, did you read the page you linked to? ~ GB fan 17:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cast list in the main article is already more complete, and there's no need for this short list to be maintained separately. Pburka (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork. Ajf773 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:LIST.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Official All Star Café

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

A failed restaurant chain. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Because it bombed" is not a valid deletion reason. We have plenty of sources in the article about the entity's rise and fall. We have plenty of business failures here (off the top of my head Pets.com and Boo.com for instance) and WP:N is easily clinched because of the subjects who backed the concept. Nate • (chatter) 20:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A subject's notability isn't based on how successful it is; there are many failed businesses and endeavors that have articles here. The fact that the Official All Star Café was associated with many famous people and received quite a bit of press is enough to make it notable. Imalawyer (talk) 06:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Blythwood (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. Failed ventures can still be notable. Lepricavark (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I realize this is going to be unpopular with most of the participants here, but I'm actually going to side with Waters.Justin—in that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia to entertain these type of nominations, period. And this should have been closed sooner on these grounds (I would have, if I knew about it). Merge discussions can be taken to the talk page, where I suspect they are likely to succeed. But this nomination is nonetheless otherwise disqualified. El_C 05:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human sexuality spectrum

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

This is inaccurate. Almost everything here is absolutely false, and misleads confused people into believing that some of these are actual sexualites or genders. Stop misleading these children into your false state of mind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hispanic rice (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 January 2017‎ (UTC) — Hispanic rice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy keep, no valid reason given for deletion. A case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by a single-edit account, for an obviously notable subject. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note This nomination was missing a template, and not listed in the daily log. I have corrected that now, please bear in mind the delay in listing when deciding when to close this. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human sexuality. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep.~~ Vexatious nomination pushing a POV, fails to raise a valid reason for deletion. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck due to multiple !votes. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: did you mean to strike your own comment? ansh 666 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with human sexuality. This page is mostly a list of definition which are explored in more depth at human sexuality. DrStrauss talk 12:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sexual orientation, which is a better target. (Human sexuality does not cover the "spectrum".) I agree that the nomination lacks merit, but I don't think it's better to kick this discussion to its talk page. Also consider Heterosexual–homosexual continuum, which is similar in scope and another merge candidate. czar 21:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as Czar says, to Sexual orientation, which covers the same ground, in more detail, and with over a hundred citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sexual orientation per Czar; I undid an out-of-process redirect earlier. ansh 666 05:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an invalid nomination. If in-process merge seems appropriate, then it can be considered on the talk page where greater participation by interested editors is likely. It appears that there may be enough differentiation that there is value in a separate article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to an invalid and ideologically motivated deletion request. I don't believe Wikipedia should entertain ideologically motivated request for deletion. Also see new references. A Content Split from sexual orientation is justified. See WP:SPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Eggishorn and Waters.Justin: the fact that the nomination is invalid has no bearing on whether a discussion can be held, especially since other users have commented with valid concerns. There is no reason to close the discussion on procedural grounds. ansh 666 04:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft An article on this topic could be written,but this is a relatively poor step towards that. Human sexuality spectrum is a real thing, numerous real secondary sources exist and they just need tobe bought to bear in this article. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is poor and full of mis-informationD.H.110 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sexual orientation. Doesn't require a separate article. RoCo^(talk) 18:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically just the Kinsey scale, which already has an article. Imalawyer (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley McKellar

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

Unprodded without rationale or improvement. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claim to notability under WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NPOL, a person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate in an election she didn't win. If you cannot demonstrate and source that she was already notable enough for an article on some other notability criterion independent of her candidacy, then she has to win the election to get an article out of it, not merely be on the ballot. And the only other way around that is to show that she garnered a volume of coverage extremely disproportionate to what any candidate for office could routinely expect to receive — the Christine O'Donnell test — but the volume of sourcing shown here isn't even a fraction of one per cent of enough to clear that bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Resistant Ledger

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

No demonstration of notability as all sources are primary. Quasar G ^{t - c} 15:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both too soon to evaluate as a concept and too new as a phrase. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:GNG. I'd advise the nominator to read through WP:NEXIST before they nominate another article. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Dot

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

1. Significance 2. No credible references 3. Low quality digital content publication using misleading techniques to acquire new visitors Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC) — Jone Rohne Nester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment @DGG: and @Cunard:, I am look for expert opinions here, I believe the Daily Dot is considered WP:RS per this discussion, not sure though. I am not an expert in this field, but I do believe this as absolutely a notable news publication. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Valoem: "absolutely a notable news publication"? First of all , The Daily Dot is nowhere close to being a news publication (clickbait headlines, media driven content and lack of information). Secondly, this article lacks of significant references and external sources. Finally, no major investments in this company, no press coverage etc. In any case this is my personal opinion and I will leave it to decide to community whether this page should be deleted or not @DGG: thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are completely new here and have attempted a massive number of deletes before showing any signs of understanding policy "article lacks of significant references and external sources" is not a valid rationale for delete as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Valoem: Do you have some sort of personal interest in this page? I am fully capable to understand what is important and what is garbage and non-encyclopedic content. Please, don't make it personal and lets focus on the page in question. thanks Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Please provide reasonable arguments instead of questioning my knowledge or editing history.[reply]

No. Not a good way to start. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason for deletion presented; I generally don't support nominations which sling accusations like 'low quality' and 'misleading' without any backup to bend a debate towards deletion. We have good existing sourcing here from what I see. Nate • (chatter) 20:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bordering on a speedy keep per criteria 3 and possibly 2. There are many sources out there that could be used to improve the article, such as The Observer, Spectator, CNN], and more. Nominator has clearly not followed WP:BEFORE and should withdraw this nomination to forestall a needless discussion. TheValeyard (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as a source the subject itself this is unreliable as they come. Whether it's notable is a matter of opinion since what is significant coverage is subjective here. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of famous for being famous. Committing to a keep Bearian (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think they are notable, and i think there are sources to show it: beside the extensive NY Observer article mentioned above. Mew York Onserver]; there's the Verge's "WikiLeaks threatens Daily Dot journalists over report on missing Syria emails" [9]; Christian Science Monitor's "Making sense of an Anonymous feud with The Daily Dot"[10]; The Spectator, "Why is The Daily Dot, smooth and sassy website of ‘the internet community’, publishing racist nonsense?" (containing the line " No UK site integrates tech news into the broader culture so expertly.") [11]'; 'Austin American-Statesman' [12]; several references in the book Controversies in Digital Ethics edited by Amber Davisson, Paul Boot, Bloomsbury Publishing. And so on... The technique for finding these requires only patience--going thru Google page after page, spotting the 1 in 10 or 20 that are significant DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, prove through resources provide to be notable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a notable media outlet. Significant coverage in AdWeek, Politico, and Christian Science Monitor for a start. Marquardtika (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Belonia, India. Kurykh (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belonia railway station

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

This article is about something that might be created or occur in the future - maybe in several years. It states that it *will* serve Belonia - but maybe the town will be bypassed. It also states that it *may* become operational in 2020 - maybe it will happen in 2020, or 2030. Or not at all. Speculative future things or events do not belong in an encyclopedia, unless they are imminent or certain. This is not. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Belonia, India. The content can't really be verified from the the sources. This possible future station could be mentioned in the Belonia article. Gab4gab (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Belonia, India as per nom.RoCo^(talk) 19:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested and per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Voice

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

Can't find sources. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to indicate this was a notable publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge acquisition (philosophy)

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

The term "knowledge acquisition" usually refers to collecting knowledge for expert or knowledge based systems. There is a stub article for that topic now: Knowledge acquisition(computer science). When I google "knowledge acquisition philosophy" the first 10 articles are either on knowledge acquisition and expert systems or about Epistemology (the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge). Epistemology is of course a valid topic and there is already a very good article on it with a section on knowledge acquisition that has little if anything in common with this article. IMO anything of value in this existing article (although frankly I don't think there is anything) should be merged with the Epistemology article and this article should be deleted.

This current article is completely point of view with no references that are relevant to the article or qualify as valid references except the last reference by Tom Gruber which is a valid reference but has nothing to do with what is in this article but rather is about knowledge acquisition for knowledge-based systems. One other references is to a short article on a Neurology blog about how the brain processes attention. The topic is completely irrelevant to this article and the blog is not a legitimate reference. Another source is to a philosophy dictionary site in a section on topics beginning with "P". Again not a valid reference and I couldn't find any of the definitions that were relevant. The last reference is again from an unknown web site. The author and sponsoring group is unknown, it seems like it may be a student paper. It seems to be about knowledge acquisition for psychology but the author seems confused as they reference knowledge representation schemes used for AI software but which no psychologist believes are direct models for human memory. Again not relevant (nothing about Aristotle in any of these articles) and not a reliable source. The 16 items in the Methods section (at least half the article) for example are completely OR, there is no reference and the selection of items seems clearly to be one editor's opinion. MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article started out as an IT-related topic and was hijacked by User:Metaphysicalnaturalist. It's mostly (all?) unsourced original research.Glendoremus (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not even worth redirecting, as the article is misnamed. The initial draft was indeed about Knowledge-based systems (KBS), in other words IT systems using artificial intelligence, the exact domain of Knowledge acquisition (software). The article adds nothing to those other existing articles, and is as stated a confused muddle of WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earth technology in Stargate

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

In-universe speculation and original research about fictional technology. Only references given are back to wikipedia itself. Complete fan-cruft, nothing salvageable. Mikeblas (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I like the show, but this is pure 100% fancruft/in-universe trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient technology in Stargate, a related topic which was deleted about eight months ago. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is among the cruftiest things I have seen on Wikipedia. Poorly sourced, full of speculation. Reyk _YO! 19:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears to be primarily Wikipedia:Listcruft. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoye

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

Article was created in 2016 by Johnhoye1 (so a COI). It was tagged for speedy deletion on creation;d the tag was removed by Johnhoye1. Johnhoye1 has been the only contributor to the article's text, and has barely edited any other articles. The bulk of this article is completely non-notable (a music career that went nowhere for example, associated with musicians who were mostly not notable either) or hints at connections with notable bands that he, personally, does not have. As an actor, has played only bit parts. Emeraude (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is unreferenced, so it fails WP:GNG, and even if all available references were added it would fulfil neither WP:MUSICBIO nor WP:NACTOR. Quasar G. (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: non-notable actor and minor musician. Neiltonks (talk) 13:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elections in Egypt. An article, if so warranted, can be recreated at the appropriate time. Kurykh (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian presidential election, 2022

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

The next presidential election in Egypt is in 2018, so this is the one after next, and we do not allow these articles (hence why there is no United States presidential election, 2024). Prod removed by article's creator. Number 5 7 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elections in Egypt. WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because nothing can be said about it that is verifiable and not original research (WP:CRYSTAL). I wouldn't object to redirect, but it really does not meet GNG, and is unlikely to do so at least until after their next election. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(3/18/2017,10 p.m.) Comments/Questions: 1.After the election in 2018, can the article be edited to be changed to standards anyway? 2.The article, if deleted, will be made again anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMuddyPig (talk • contribs) 05:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Inter School Rope Skipping Organisation

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

Does not appear to be a notable sporting organization: a search for significant coverage in reliable sources failed to find much of use. I have no idea how notable professional rope skipping is: the "Asian Rope Skipping Federation" mentioned in the article does appear to have been covered in at least some sources, though I have no idea how reliable those sources are. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see how this could possibly pass WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvasva

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

Fails WP:NFF with no secondary sources confirming that principal photography has begun. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure WP:TOOSOON. It seems pre-production has barely begun.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO & WP:TOOSOON. An apparent marketing campaign for a future film. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheraton Bali Kuta Resort

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

No evidence of notability. Article written in a promotional tone. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:PROMO, no claim of notability Rogermx (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guetty Felin

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

I've had a look for wp:rs and GNews has slim pickings. This interview was the only one with any substance that I could find. Ok, there are a lot of foreign language sources around (the subject is from Haiti and they speak French there) and maybe something can be found there. But for now, it looks like wp:gng isn't met. None of her films have won any awards. Schwede 66 05:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has only 34 followers on vimeo, and I've never heard of any of the secondary sources that mention her. The one source in the article references a video by her that has 6 likes on vimeo and 101 views on YouTube.Jwray (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a few years it may be notable, for now it isn't. Endercase (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stock sound effect. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howie scream

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

No reliable sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are quite a few unreliable sources about this scream, but this and this seem to be reliable. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; reliable sources have been found ~~and incorporated into the article~~. Due to the pages' size, however, I would not be against merging the links in Template:Stock sound effects into one article, but all of their content must be kept. Modernponderer (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the sources currently used in the article are not in fact the same ones as those mentioned above, but per WP:ARTN, the rest of my opinion remains unchanged. Modernponderer (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge to stock sound effect would seem the most appropriate avenue. Great job with the expansion and addition of sources. Not sure if it is enough to support it having its own article, but the entire paragraph and maybe even the sound file can be merged. Aoba47 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge For the above reasons. Keep all content and redirect link. Endercase (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. It definitely exists, but there does not seem to be sufficient coverage about it to go beyond just a Stub-class article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to stock sound effect, per Aoba47; I cannot find any additional news sources and books. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 15:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shout (protocol)

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTHOWTO as it reads like an instruction manual and should be deleted. It fails WP:GNG as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources and a WP:BEFORE search did not show up any useful results. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 21:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in the article don't even mention the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 08:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to The Doris Day Show. The consensus is that having one role (albeit a major role) does not make an actor indepently notable according to the guidelines. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Starke

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

Delete: sweet child actor; tragic untimely death, but not notable as an actor. Sorry. Quis separabit? 03:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he does pass WP:NACTOR, The Doris Day Show was nominated for 2 golden globes and he played one of the most important roles in the show according to our own article on the subject and the imdb page: [13]. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal -- that is ridiculous. He did nothing before the Doris Day Show and made one appearance on Adam-12 afterwards, then nothing. Quis separabit? 18:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Doris Day Show. One middling series isn't enough to satisfy NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (then redirect to The Doris Day Show), as per Clarityfiend – definitely fails WP:NACTOR. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMDB is a reliable secondary source, and as a regular on 75 episodes of the Doris Day Show with ~13 million viewers according to Nielsen he passes WP:NACTOR. And though it's apples and oranges, that seems a lot more notable than the articles about micro towns of population <100 that are all over Wikipedia.Jwray (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jwray: Firstly, IMDb is not a "reliable secondary source" – see WP:RS/IMDb and WP:Citing IMDb. Second, WP:NACTOR is very clear that multiple significant roles are required – The Doris Day Show gets the article subject to just one. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - 75 episodes is "multiple significant roles". This rule seems intended to exclude e.g. a guy who played an alien one episode of star trek, rather than core characters on popular long running series. If Levar Burton had no other role besides Geordi on Star Trek TNG, he would still be notable. Jwray (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwray - this is nonsense; there is no comparison between Starke (whose tragic early death does not confer notability) and LeVar Burton. As far as "If Levar Burton had no other role besides Geordi on Star Trek TNG, he would still be notable" -- that's your personal opinion. Wikipedia is not a memorial site for long forgotten child actors whose careers could fit on an index card. Quis separabit? 03:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rms125a is quite right – this is an absurd reading of WP:NACTOR. Starke's part on The Doris Day Show is a single role. Yes, it's a "main role", which does count as "one significant role", but that would be true if it were 13 episodes, or 200 episodes – either way, it's one role. WP:NACTOR demands multiple "significant" roles. The Doris Day Show gets this subject to only one significant role. This article should be deleted, and then replaced with a redirect to The Doris Day Show. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Diamond (Journalist)

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

Fails WP:GNG and too soon, I've removed all the incorrectly sourced puffery and there's not much left, being the son of famous people doesn't make him notable. Theroadislong (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough secondary source coverage of Diamond to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: additional opinions needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: DGG's comment still applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google around and couldn't find any secondary sources. Also he has only 400 twitter followers. Jwray (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Sutcliffe

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

Contested PROD. No claim to notability. All of the publications are small press or self-published. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject satisfies WP:ACADEMIC for representing Canada on the international committee charged with producing the standard for Modula-2 since 1987. Article also makes a claim of notability by the sentence Among many others, he coined the terms New Renaissance, metalibrary, and Fourth Civilization. Article needs sources, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Couldn't locate any significant independent reviews or media coverage of his fiction writing, and as a professor also doesn't meet WP standards.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all these but he potentially fits a lot of topics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly since I love Modula. He wrote a textbook on Modula 2, was a member of the ISO Modula-2 working group in the 1980s, and up to 2015 was working with another veteran of that group on Modula-2 Reloaded. But there aren't independent references out there to support an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarryGrandma (talk • contribs) 22:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have evidence of notability for his work as an SF author, nor as a computer scientist, nor as a mathematician. (The last one one is closest: he has one paper in graph theory with 43 citations in Google Scholar. But it's not enough by itself, despite that being a low-citation field.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge School (California)

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

This does not seem to be a diploma granting school, but some sort of special education center. As such, it needs to meet ORG, which from all apperances it doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Gnews search for "Bridge School" + California certainly produces a lot of results for their high-profile annual benefit concerts, though not the school per se. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep This school is K-grade 8. Based on common outcomes it needs coverage meeting either GNG or ORG (inclusive OR). Current sources are almost all not independent. Searches find plenty of coverage of related fund raising concerts. Those I've read have only brief mentions of the school itself. ~~Happy to reconsider if~~ better sources are found, ~~for now it fails both GNG and ORG.~~ Gab4gab (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly merge. The annual concert series is probably notable in and of itself; there's hundreds of sources about the series in reliable sources, some of which do discuss the school's educational activities as well, e.g. [14]. There's so much coverage that it's difficult to wade through for other coverage about the school's activities, but I have found a few such items. Here is a 2001 Computerworld article about the school winning an award from that magazine; it doesn't even mention the concerts or the Youngs. [15] In 2006 San Francisco State University gave honorary degrees to Pegi and Neil Young for their work for the school, which SFSU described as "an internationally recognized model that not only teaches students in Hillsborough, but conducts cutting-edge research shared with professionals across the nation." [16][17] In any event, the article could use some reshaping and cutting to make it sound less like a brochure. Another possibility might be a redirect and merge to Pegi Young where the school is discussed already. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing from Delete to Keep given better sources identified by Arxiloxos. Gab4gab (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Arxiloxos, they should be used to improve the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rothesay, Bute. (non-admin closure) J 947 05:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rothesay Brandane A.F.C.

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

Non-notable amateur sports team, fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. PROD removed citing coverage in local newspaper, although only one source given; I presume such coverage will be of the WP:ROUTINE variety. Consensus at WP:FOOTY is that teams playing at amateur level in Scotland are generally not notable, except those that have qualified for the (senior) Scottish Cup, which this team haven't. Jellyman (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in a relatively small isolated community such as this, the football club seems to be of at least local significance, receiving discussion both on the Isle of Bute and the Rothesay, Bute pages. I'm not sure if this is a keep or not, I want to spend some time researching further. But rather than a delete, I think at the minimum the outcome should be merge some of the text and redirect to Rothesay, Bute - which I agree is not normally what do - but there is already a paragraph on the team there, in what is otherwise a fairly small article. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Would not want any content merged, given the relatively insignificant nature of the club, the brief mention in the town article is sufficient. Fenix down (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of much more merge than adding a sentence or so, with one or two references. I was going to clean up the existing text, but I see that someone just beat me to that. I'd think a redirect could stay in place. Nfitz (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge / redirect is probably a reasonable compromise, then. Jellyman (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - article has recived a fair amount of coverage, while most of the citations might be from local sources I think this article might be notable. If not its content should be merged to the article about the town as it is clear that the team has played a big part in its history. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rothesay, Bute. I'd leave a redirect given that the article has been there for a decade, and there is no harm. I've taken the liberty of merging anything that looks worth saving into the article. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 05:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested seems an appropriate way to go. Dunarc (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, I have moved the image of the stadium to the main Rothesay page. The passage on Brandane there looks sufficient for a club of that stature. Crowsus (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Majid Dar

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

Not finding any significant coverage of this subject in independent reliable sources. There is a notable subject with almost the same name (spelled Abdul Majeed Dar on WP, but spelled the same as our subject's name in many sources). Despite tenacious editing by two single-purpose accounts, no significant coverage has been brought forth. Glad to withdraw this if such coverage is found. EricEnfermero (Talk) 05:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in article do not establish notability. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 06:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 sources which are referred and both are landmark as well as notable. Kindly end this discussion and remove the tag on page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki222222 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: two sources mention the person in passing, but there is not the kind of coverage to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and change this name to a redirect to the much more important person Abdul Majeed Dar. That said, that article needs a lot of work. It listed him in 2005 deaths, even though he died in 2003 for example. While lawyers in important cases can become notable, we would need a lot more coverage than a name drop in the last paragraph of a multi-paragraph article that is the case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A bizarre concept that meets WP:GNG. Discussions about merging with other articles, or changing this article's title, can take place on the article's Talk page. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the Earth

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

Despite being an interesting (if somewhat fringey) concept, I couldn't much reliable coverage discussing the topic of this article. In fact, searching for "earth's orbit" and "climate change" results mostly in false positives, mostly from climate change-denying websites. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Check out WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The Gurdian,New Scientist,Astroengineering, or how to save the Earth in only one billion years, Astrophysics and Space Science--Ticgame (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content. I can summarize ~~both~~ all four of of those articles with the sentence "Increase the size of Earth's orbit by repeatedly whizzing large objects at high speed by the earth." The only other content I can think of that would be relevant would be all the bad things that could happen as a result. If a project materializes, we can create the article with the name of that project. In the meantime, no need to point Mike Oldfield albums at that page. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Sources in addition to those posted above in this discussion are available in internet searches. I added a couple of sources to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References are good enough for WP:GNG. Ies (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A somewhat crazy idea, but that is no means for deletion. Sourcing proved as per above - New Scientist and the Guardian are the most convincing. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep but watch that it doesn't attract craziness. I've removed the inaccuracies, not a NASA project, nothing to do with current global warming, really too little scientific work done on it for a scientific concept article but there are press uses of this. It would be a billion year project however. This is not fringe science but serious calculations done by experts in the field of planetary migration. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on the sources given above, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Planetary migration (I'm still not convinced the topic warrants its own article). Should the consensus in this discussion result in keeping the article, I would suggest that it be moved to a more sane title. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not something likely to happen in the near future, but a concept backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The article is small, but ample room for expansion. Alansohn (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could be expanded upon and more sources could be added. Many reliable sources could be found via internet search that backs the concept. See no reason to delete if article can be expanded upon and improved. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a few news sources were put forward, I don't see a general agreement these are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. If Cunard or anyone else wants the article restored to draft, ping me and I'll do it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kennadi Brink

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

Non-notable amateur wrestler. Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:SPORTBASIC. Jack Frost (talk) 02:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIO. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep The "news" link yielded two dedicated articles from reliable sources that could validate the info in the article. Note that she's a professional wrestler, not an amateur. Tapered (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 12:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This editor has been making a large amount of articles recently copy and pasted from the professional wrestling wiki without attribution. See Brink's article there. Nikki♥311 12:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User has also been removing copyvio and notability concern tags from his own articles (such as this one) 86.3.174.49 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep Had to think about this, but Tapered makes a fair point.Zakhx150 (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, professional wrestling is a discipline, not a classification of athlete. Simply being a "professional wrestler" in a minor regional promotion does not satisfy WP:GNG. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't mentioned to add credibility to the keep. Mostly to keep the criteria of amateur wrestling from being applied to the subject. Tapered (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, fails GNG, unsourced, copyvios etc 86.3.174.49 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as copyvio. No prejudice for recreation because in addition to being a member of the ROH roster, there are the following sources: [18], [19], and [20]. Nikki♥311 03:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the information copied from http://squaredcirclesirens.com/independent-female-wrestler-used-as-referee-at-nxt-live-event/. I searched for the remaining information and did not find it copied from anywhere. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources Nikki311 provided from the Miami Herald and New Times Broward-Palm Beach provide significant coverage of Kennadi Brink, allowing her to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should be included in the article then in some way as it does not indicate notability at present.86.3.174.49 (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has settled on there being sufficient sources to sustain an article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Aguirre

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

Aguirre has never played at a level that would grant him notability, and with the sources being weak, including one being a YouTube video of him playing, there is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets gng [21], [22] for example. Jacona (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not significant coverage, it's a mention. Further, it's not a reliable source, as it doesn't show up in Spanish Wikipedia. Confers no notability. Tapered (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reference to Spanish Wikipedia as a guideline for what constitutes a reliable source. Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'at's easy. I use the same criterion in English. If a newspaper has an article in Wikipedia, and it's been around for awhile, then reliable. There are papers in Wikipedia that aren't reliable. But, conversely, unless a paper warrants an article here, notability is an uphill battle. Without a discussion to determine the reliablity of a publication, that's what I use. You have a better way to sift through Argentine sources? Tapered (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources don't meet ~~WP:R~~ WP:RS. None of the information links at the top of the page show any promise. Has never played in any of the leagues that confer WP:N according to WP:NBASKETBALL. Has played in only one major regional tournament, the PanAm. Tapered (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really seen the argument above before. (The sources don't meet the redirect policy). What on earth does it mean? What requirement is there that sources meet WP:R?

Thanks for that clarification, WP:RS makes a lot more sense than your previous mention of the redirect policy.. But have you read it? Because if ñWikipedia is not to be considered a reliable source. While Liga Nacional de Básquet is not included in the list at WP:NBASKETBALL that is considered automatically notable, Argentina (largely the LNB) produced the 2004 Olympic champions. Argentina is the only country other than the US to have achieved this pinnacle of success in the last 30 years! So, instead of just reciting a poorly thought out list, replete with leagues from countries that have never won the Olympics, we should change NBASKETBALL; this is obviously an oversight. Jacona (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Tapered, when you make changes to your assertions, which have been commented on or questioned by others, would you consider using strikethrough instead of directly editing prior conversation, as is recommended on the talk page guidelines. It is somewhat WP:UNCIVIL to do otherwise. Thanks! Jacona (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacona It's true. I feel that was uncivil towards other readers, but I don't apologize to you. Given the context, that looked like a typographical error ("typo") all the way—WP:RS is implied. When I saw your remarks I was embarrassed—and amused at your conclusion.

I have no way, besides inclusion in Spanish Wikipedia or a google search, to evaluate an Argentine source. Also, the quality of the website and context—what else is on the site? That website was not convincing, and in tandem with its lack of notability, that sealed my conclusion.

As far as inclusion of the Argentine league in WP:NBASKETBALL, your argument sounds convincing, but I know little about international basketball. Why don't you propose the change on that Talk page, and publicize it? Tapered (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GNG has been met, and the subject of the article has played a match for his country at the international level. The source for this was in the article, so why on earth are we here? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "one international game" is from WP:NSOCCER, not WP:NBASKETBALL, where internationals aren't even mentioned. What counts here is WP:NOLYMPICS, for which Aguirre doesn't qualify. If the Pan-Am Games are included, what about the African, Asian, and ?Oceanian? competitions? International competitions aren't enough for Basketball. Tapered (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've made your point. Is there any need for you to jump on every single Keep vote? You're not the nominator - let people give their opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, "I have the right to misconstrue Wikipedia guidelines to fit my opinions, and don't call me on it when I do!," huh? I disagree. Tapered (talk) 08:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, it's your opinion. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Argentine league is a fully professional league, as it appears in the Wikiproject page and he was the MVP of it. We need to make a serious review about the leagues that appear as notable, as there are several professional leagues that do not appear (e.g., second divisions in several European countries or women's leagues). Article must be improved and I'm sure it is easy to find references for it. Asturkian (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: First off, he absolutely does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL as it is currently written, which over the years has appropriately gotten stricter. @Asturkian: the list you refer to is not currently referenced by NBASKETBALL nor is playing in a fully professional league a criterion in NBASKETBALL due to many "fully professional leagues" not generating enough independent coverage to for individual players to meet WP:GNG. Currently, the two sources I have seen for this player appear to be generally routine sources, which are specifically listed as not usable for passing the GNG standards on their own. So unless other sources come to light (my Spanish language search has not shown much), he fails GNG, the only notability guideline that matters. So everyone who has commented as Keep on this subject, please appropriately familiarize yourself with NBASKETBALL and prove that he meets GNG instead. Yosemiter (talk) 19:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The First League of Argentina is one of the strongest in South America, and I fail to see why an MVP there (and player for the national team as well) shouldn't be considered at least as notable as anyone who has played a single game in some of the league mentioned in WP:NBASKETBALL. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Axolotl Nr.733: Ignore NBASKETBALL in this instance (as he does not meet it as currently written) and bring up proposed changes to that guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball if you feel they are insufficient (they sometimes are). This is not for opinions on strength of league, but whether or not the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (straight from the WP:GNG). Do you have any sources to back up your claim other than "he should be" because he was MVP of a league (any league for that matter)? Yosemiter (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: *Sigh* So there's the old argumentative twist of pretending as if the specific notability guidelines and the GNG were completely separate (or even contradicted each other). WP:NSPORT is an extension or interpretation of the GNG. In the case of sportspeople, the level at which they compete is central to what makes them notable or not. If you really think we shouldn't discuss it here at all, congratulations, you've just disqualified yourself from any serious conversation on the topic. But if you want to find significant coverage, what about starting with which appears to be one of Argentina's leading newspapers, La Nación? Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Axolotl Nr.733: I never said they were separate and my intent of that statement was that NBASKETBALL is supposed to be a set of guidelines that nearly guarantees that the player will meet GNG. Since you suggested he should meet NBASKETBALL even though the league and tournaments are not currently listed as auto-qualifiers, I suggested you bring up the possible changes (with evidence) to the specific WikiProject that moderates the guidelines to have them added. That is standard procedure, so I am not sure how that disqualifies me from the subject at hand, which is whether or not Nicolás Aguirre is notable. In order to meet GNG, I asked for reliable and non-routine sources, which are what is needed to meet the GNG. You then provided a link to a reliable national level newspaper where he is tagged. He gets several routine mentions in the game coverage, which shows significant coverage on the team and league. But I am still looking (and perhaps you could help) for an article that covers Nicolás Aguirre in depth, not just a statement about his scoring the most points on a given night or the statement that he won MVP (i.e. a full article about him winning the award and why, not just a mention that he won it). The again, maybe I am personally just too strict about several mentions constituting as "significant coverage". Yosemiter (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting to take the second step before the first one, i.e. adjusting a guideline to an agreement we haven't reached yet (and, as far as I can see, aren't necessarily trying to reach here because it's still just one single article we're discussing). However, what I'm concerned about is that NBASKETBALL, apparently, has lost the "softer" kind of requirements (i.e., "similar" leagues to the ones mentioned there) it had contained the last time I had taken part in such a discussion. That's okay as long as guidelines are generally interpreted as just being "rules of thumb" (as WP:NSPORT declares), and I think that's what you're missing here. Concerning coverage, this article from another, smaller newspaper is the most extensive one I could find concerning winning the MVP. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "keep" commenters on this page are all attempting to circumvent reasonable Wikipedia guidelines and practices, which maintain content integrity, and a sort of order. Guidelines have developed—they're not sacrosanct, and they do evolve. As WP:NBASKETBALL reads today, Aguirre fails WP:N, largely because the Argentine league isn't recognized as top tier. Yosemiter and myself seem to agree that the Argentine league probably ought to be in that list. The process to change it takes place in the confines of the Basketball Project, not here. Instead, the 'keepers' use convoluted rationales, misconstrue guidelines, or advocate ignoring guidelines. Please delete this article, and force the 'keepers' to work to change the guidelines. Tapered (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the keep commenters cited gng. Jacona (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, added Liga Nacional de Básquet to WP:NBASKETBALL. Jacona (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JaconaFrere: I disagree with adding Liga Nacional de Básquet to criterion #1 of NBASKETBALL because we are having enough trouble deciding if the MVP of said league is even notable, much less all players and coaches. If anything, this AfD would place it into criterion #3.

What I was getting at with my comments and to Axolotl Nr.733 were that since it is not currently listed, then proving that Nicolás Aguirre meets GNG is the only requirement. If Aguirre meets GNG then this is the first step in setting the precedent for including as part of discussion to include in NBASKETBALL. Axolotl has provided some evidence to his proof of notability. All the others you mention that cite GNG did so incorrectly by citing only routine articles. The best article provided thus far was the El Liberal MVP profile of Aguirre found by Axolotl. If this is sufficient as a reliable source (of which I am not the best to vouch for Argentinian newspapers) and the multiple mentions in La Nación (routine, but reliable) then I could see him passing GNG and to NOT delete his article.

With that said, I am removing your addition to criterion #1 of NBASKETBALL until it has been discussed further through the proper channels and defined as to which tier of accomplishment the league belongs. If we agree that Aguirre is indeed notable the first step has been taken to adding this #3, but not yet proven that all MVP and other honors are notable players yet. Yosemiter (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: @Rlendog: Using my method—does it have an article in Wikipedia Español?—El Liberal is a reliable source. Tapered (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered: Then based on that assumption, and the several mentions other sources, I change my analysis to a weak keep for Aguirre based on likely passing the minimum requirements for GNG. The El Liberal article should be added to the Aguirre article as a reference for meeting GNG. As part of this AfD, I looked into the other MVPs of LNB and almost all of them passed NBASKETBALL through either NBA or Olympic participation. It seems likely that players that earn MVP in this league are notable (although maybe not for playing in this league directly). A discussion should be started at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and notify Wikiproject:Basketball of the proposition. Yosemiter (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JaconaFrere: I did not suggest that you unilaterally change a Wikipedia guideline. At least you didn't mention that with the edit. Tapered (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a few problems with this nomination. I don't necessarily agree with the recent change to Basketball notability. I suspect that the Argentina league, which has provided several players directly to the NBA, including stars, should probably be considered a top-tier league. But even if it is not, the MVP of the top league in a country that cares about the sport should not really be questioned as to notability. In WP:NHOCKEY, for example, winners of top honors in not just 2nd tier leagues but 3rd tier leagues are assumed to be notable. And I don't think there is any question that Argentina cares about basketball. I also don't necessarily agree with Tapered's criteria for notability of a non-English source, although I understand the rationale and it could make sense as a screen. But that said, reliability is not the same as notability, and a reliable source may be too small to be notable. Or it may be notable but no one has bothered to write an article about it yet (that is the case for English sources as well, but Spanish Wikipedia is about 1/4 the size of English). And of course there are notable sources that are not reliable (e.g., blogs and self-publishing houses.) So judgment is always needed here.

That said, I think that the elcomercial.com site in Jacona's original post is likely notable, because it is not a blog and while it does not have a Spanish Wikipedia article I see it's publisher Amacom Publishing listed as source in other Spanish Wikipedia articles. But with respect to Aguirre, there seems to be a lot more. For example, this, whose publisher does have a Spanish Wikipedia article, this, whose publisher does have a Spanish Wikipedia article, and a little coverage here, whose publisher seems to have a Spanish Wikipedia article (and none of these appear to be blogs or self-published). So I think he passes GNG easily but I think the basketball notability guidelines need to be updated to either be more inclusive of leagues like Argentina's or at least of the more prominent players in such leagues (sort of like Hockey's 2nd tier leagues). Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aguirre has now been shown to have numerous WP:RS articles in the Argentine media. Kudos to Axolotl and Rlendog for unearthing the reliable sources. That's the basis for this keep. Aguirre was not a member of the 8th finishing Argentine team at the 2016 Summer Olympics, or the 11th finishing 2014 FIBA championship team. The 2004 team looks like a very golden generation team for Argentina. At least 3 of that team were still on the 2016 team. So, at the moment, the Argentine league doesn't look all that strong. (By the way, for Americans, the Argentine 2004 gold looks like proof that b-ball is team sport.) I stand by my previous complaint about the commenting of the 'keepers' who distorted and ignored the guidelines. Methinks they might have noticed Aguirre's absence from the national team for major tournaments. Tapered (talk) 01:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Essentially, not enough sources were put forward to satisfy everyone that the article could be improved. If anybody wants it restored to draft, ping me. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Aizumi

AfDs for this article:

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

This previously was discussed for deletion with no consensus. The claim that there are enough reliable sources ignores what the sources are. A few are actual press releases, like the one from GLAAD, that are clearly not reliable. Other are local papers which I don't think in some cases met our requirements for reliable sources, and in any event they are covering extremely local events from a human interest perspective that is not the type of coverage that constitutes notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be an aggregate collection of articles on everyone who has ever gotten covered by weak local news stories, and that is all that exist on Aizumi. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I checked the sources and they're all reliable and about the subject. Meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The San Gabriel Valley Tribune is a reliable source. Although the GLAAD resource is an advocacy website, for the mundane information it provides for this article, I argue that is a reliable source. The HuffPo article is not reliable, as it was written by the subject's mother. Enough to meet WP:N. Tapered (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not weather the information is reliable. Wikipedia is meant to cover notable people, and that means that they are cared about enough by reliable sources to be written up. Advocacy publications can not be used to show notability in any way. Thus sources can be used that can not be counting towards reliability, and 1 source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tribune is good. GLAAD might be good. But here's another newspaper [23]. That's 2. That's GNG met. Might be others [24] Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: I notice that you added the identical comment to 11 AFDs in 3 minutes, however there's a lot of difference between the articles. I'm not sure how you would have chance to look at each article and evaluate the references, and sources provided above. Can you explain why you don't consider the provided references as meeting GNG? Nfitz (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Pack Lambert pointed out that the GLAAD advocacy page, while it may be a reliable source for certain info, can't count toward notability. With only one dedicated piece from a reliable source, subject lacks notability = Delete. Tapered (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered:What about the other one I pointed out above? Nfitz (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That other source above is a junk source. The article is in a issue specific weekly, which is not really a reliable source. Beyond that is is an issue advocacy article that does not provide indepth coverage of Aizumi.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway GNG requires "multiple" sources, that means at least 3 under almost every circumstance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Why do you consider Northwest Asian Weekly a junk source? There is nothing in WP:RELIABLE precluding weekly newspapers. Not in depth, it mentions him 16 times, with the last ⅔ of the article being in depth? Also, 3 not required - 2 is normally fine in an AFD discussion. Still, here is a third. Here's a fourth. Here's a fifth. Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's also an LA Times article from 2010, currently stuck behind a paywall but the preview seems to show significant coverage. Add to the others and that's GNG met. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm blind, searched for it in the existing sources, was looking at dates retrieved not article dates, mea culpa. With that being the only source, I think it's hard to say GNG is met. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC) As per the discussion below, I'm going to strike out both votes and stay neutral. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PageantUpdater: What about the other sources I provide above - 2, 3, 4, and 5? Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're definitely more promising, but I have seen plenty of articles be deleted with similar sources as not meeting GNG. I don't necessarily agree with that, it's more like I literally can't figure out where to stand on what does and doesn't constitute a WP:RS for the purposes of GNG. I mean it seems to me some editors have made up their own rules & interpretations of that and I literally can't make head nor tail of it. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 02:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nfitz has produced 4 ostensible supporting references. The Northwest Asian Weekly is seemingly reliable, BUT the mention in the article is limited, hence trivial. Nichi Bei and Infotrak are not reliable sources. The East Caroline paper is a university sheet, and can be considered reliable for university and local reportage, but not reliable to bolster notability for a Wikipedia biography. The sources fail to bolster notability = delete. Tapered (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; coverage shows that the subject is not notable just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently, not enough in-depth coverage to show they warrant an article and pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:50, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of wasei-eigo

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

See the tags on the page regarding a possible move to Wiktionary.

<<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki please, I think it fits in Wiktionary:Category:Etymological appendices. I don't mind what happens to it on Wikipedia. Siuenti (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Wikipedians would rise up in open revolt as this "Gadget Geek" then nominated every article in this list: Lists of English words by country or language of origin. And that's just for starters. Christ on a stick, it's lucky I just happened to want to look up the loanword status of a few Japanese words. Abductive (reasoning) 02:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 04:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: I don't follow your reasoning. You seem to suggest that User:Some Gadget Geek would be emboldened to nominate articles for deletion without any rationale. On its face, that seems rather like an ad hominem. Am I missing something? There is at least reference to rationale for this deletion, the "tags on the page". (That said, Some Gadget Geek, reference to Wikipedia policy would strengthen the nomination.)

For what it's worth, the couple of articles on Lists of English words by country or language of origin that I looked at appear to be stand-alone WP:GLOSSARIES within scope. I'm not convinced that List of wasei-eigo meets that bill, either in terms of styling or verifiability. I suppose one could argue to merge it to Wasei-eigo if reliable sources can be added. Since there are currently no sources, though, and there are obvious issues with WP:NOTDIC, I'm leaning toward dai-pinch, erm, delete. Cnilep (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has no rational as to why this article is different from the many other list of loanwords articles on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are to be judged on what they could be, not their present state. Lack of sources only applies if no sources are available. Abductive (reasoning) 03:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are saying essentially the same thing: use ('keep' per Abductive; 'merge' per Cnilep) the content if reliable sources can be added. I'm less optimistic, though, since Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Therefore sources would have to include encyclopedic information about the words as words, not simply definitions and etymologies. That information might exist, but so far I haven't seen it; thus I am 'leaning'. Cnilep (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advocate (student newspaper)

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

Defunct, probably non-notable community college newspaper. The link is dead. It was active in 2013, but I'm not sure it has been around since. https://web.archive.org/web/20130830004442/http://advocate.kckcc.edu/Pages/default.aspx Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing here and nothing available online that I could find. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Community College papers are rarely notable, and no indication exists to show this would be an exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kurykh (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Members_Church_of_God_in_Jesus_Christ_Worldwide

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Members Church of God in Jesus Christ Worldwide

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

Subject fails to meet WP:ORG Shannon Rose ^Talk 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shannon Rose ^Talk 04:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I cannot really work out what this is, but I get the impression this is merely a rather small local church. If so, it is probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities involved with TNA Wrestling

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

Meets the very definition of WP:LISTCRUFT. Celebrities having a one-off appearance with a wrestling promotion do not need an article. Article hasn't even had an entry since 2013? Fails WP:GNG. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very Crufty. MPJ-DK 10:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think TNA's relationship with celebrities is particularly notable.LM2000 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WP:LISTCRUFT Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 22:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could any of the "cruft" voters please explain the difference between this and the Featured List List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryColemanFan (talk • contribs)

Pretty simple: WrestleMania is the largest pay per view event for the largest professional wrestling organization in the world with about a hundred known celebrities being actively involved in that one singular PPV. This article mashes every appearance on pay-per-view and TV and still can't come up with a fifth of the numbers the WrestleMania article has. TNA is a very distant second, like every other wrestling promotion in the world. The difference? WrestleMania, more specifically WWE, has been culturally influential and recognizable. Defunct promotions like WCW have more notability and "celebrity" involvement than TNA and don't have articles like these. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of WrestleMania's prestige comes from celebrity involvement. This goes back to Mr. T in the main event of the first one with Muhammad Ali as special guest referee, Liberace as timekeeper and even an appearance by the Rockettes! It's telling that this originally redirected to Impact Wrestling#Celebrity involvement, a section that no longer exists while WrestleMania 32 and WrestleMania 31 have sections on celebrity involvementLM2000 (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough of the citations are from notable, reliable sources. This establishes notability for the celebrity involvement. None of the other argument presented reference anything but an essay (which is neither a policy nor a guideline) and an "I don't think it's notable" statement. As for the reasons presented in response to my question, clearly TNA is hoping that celebrity involvement can add to its prestige, and being second to the biggest promotion in the world is clearly no small thing. Some of the references could stand to be replaced, but the article is notable as it currently stands. In fact, WCW should definitely have a similar article as well. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being second best means nothing if not notable or succesful in itself. Either way, is there actually enough here to warrant a separate article? This isn't even for celebrities that have appeared for one of their shows but just in general. It seems a bit indiscriminate to me.★Trekker (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be successful. Notability can come from something not working repeatedly, to the point of being ridiculous (as shown by http://www.thesportster.com/wrestling/ranking-every-awful-celebrity-appearance-in-tna/ - from a site with an established crew of writers and editors; clearly they deem TNA's celebrity involvement to be reliable). I added a couple more -- after all, this is a promotion that brought in Billy Corgan as president and Tito Ortiz as a member of Aces & Eights. Today, I also added another Pro Wrestling Torch reference (from the WP:PW list of reliable sources), as well as one from WrestleView (also on that list), one from ESPN, and one from Spin Magazine. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sportster may have an established crew but they're far from a good source. I've seen them pretty much copy entire sections of of wikipedia with the most minute changes, might as well be a wikipedia copy site at times. Not that that's very relevant to this disscusion, since there are apparently other sources. And I said "notable or succesful" by the way. I know that notability has nothing to do with how "good" something is.★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter what references are used. The article has no substance and doesn't warrant its own article. We can establish the celebrities involvement with WrestleMania actually evolved it into the event it still is. Can TNA's article establish that the celebrity involvement was in any way significant for them? You can provide references that the events you are citing actually happened, yes, but not that the celebrity appearances were actually meaningful. Some stretch the very definition of this list. Tito Ortiz was a near full-time performer, not just a celebrity appearance. Billy Corgan is a celebrity, yes, but he was a shareholder and president. That's not a celebrity one-off appearance. That leaves sixteen celebrity appearances and I don't know how you can honestly justify a stand alone article for it. It's basically trivia. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maksuda Akhter

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

A participant in non-notable beauty pageants John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ -- first Asian Miss Ireland is sort of interesting. Here's some coverage: Crowning the confident; The Pride of Two Nations; Priyoti as autumn queen in body painting. Not sure if this is enough for GNG; leaving for others to comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- winner of an unknown pageant. Not enough for WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on second thoughts. Not enough sources for an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG and can't find reliable sources. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rose

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

dubious sourcing, dubious notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, none of the more promising reliable source citations on the article work and I can't find anything independent for "Mr. Hollywood" Shannon Rose online. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J 947 05:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But to bring a sword

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

i believe that there is no reason for this article if someone wants to look up bible texts they could go to bible gateway or the many online bible websites that exist there is almost no content on this article Jonnymoon96 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Completely inadequate article about notable Christian topic. Some may wonder why Jesus, who spoke of turning the other cheek, would also say that he came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword. This article fails to quote any commentators as to what they think Jesus might have meant by that, but just says that the quote is "controversial ... because its meaning has many interpretations." What those interpretations are, the article doesn't say. This was apparently a once-interesting article, albeit reliant on original research (see [25]). Maybe someone familiar with the topic could rewrite the article based upon the various interpretations that religious leaders and scholars have suggested for the verse. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a thing, but as per nom, there are many better places to research this topic than Wikipedia, and its notability is unclear. Right now, it's a huge mess and it appears to have been an even bigger mess in the past. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Metropolitan90. St Anselm (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge This is a single passage from the bible. The notability is questionable at best let alone is there going to be a article of every religious line/quote? Merge it back with the bible page at best. ContentEditman (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Metropolitan90, but also as supported by even a quick check on gBooks which shows significant discussion of this phrase. An article in deed of improvement, what else is new?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added interpretation from one notable commentary, and can add more. – Fayenatic London 02:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see no reason why we should not have articles giving differing views on the interpretation of biblical verses. At present this is a poor article and is correctly tagged as incomplete, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is famous and notable subject. I quickly fixed this page a little. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure what denominations consider this important. I however noticed the fair number of articles linking to this one. A random example is Edward Poppe: "On 1 May 1916 he was ordained to the priesthood. His motto was "Accendatur" in reference to Luke 12: 49". PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was mentioned here, for example. See also numerous discussions of this subject in Google books [26]. This is just poorly sourced on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ross (Arizona politician)

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

Notabilty. Sources are either local or are routine coverage of his unsuccessful political career TheLongTone (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claims to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search shows coverage far exceeding anything routine for a car dealer. Bangabandhu (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a reasonably well-reported subject who people might like to know more about. bd2412 T 14:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was kind of on the fence about this one, but I think a local celebrity with coverage in secondary sources just barely has sufficient notability. Imalawyer (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. references have been added showing notability ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Angela Test

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

Unreferenced track list Rathfelder (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable since it charted in Iceland, like I added to the article here. Unreferenced track list is not one of the reasons mentioned in Wikipedia:Deletion policy.--Snaevar (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is no longer unreferenced. I've also found reviews on Pitchfork and MusicOMH. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — has references now. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 22:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the time that I am writing this comment, there are only a few sources that support the commercial performance of this album. Is there more information about the actual album itself outside of the chart performance to represent that it has received more coverage? Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The album has charted and some links were provided to show that this has been covered by outside sources. I think more sources should be added to this in the future, but I also believe that this article should be kept. Aoba47 (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a bit more coverage here. At worst it should be merged to the band article. Given that the deletion rationale focused only on article quality I'm surprised this has stayed open so long. --Michig (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Pezzin

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

Prod removed by article creator. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:COI to boot, event in question qualifies under WP:BLP1E Prevan (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 14:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. Also fails our "Significant coverage" criteria for General Notability and Biography. References are all trivial mentions from local sources about a single event. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If deleted, this would also be the last of a rather extensive walled garden of articles explicitly created by Dpezzin on his or her family members and company. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Taylor

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

Promotional article for a non-notable person; does not pass GNG, and certainly does not pass PROF. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is far too promotional. Beyond that, founders of schools are not inherently notable, especially when the schools themselves are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to moving to draftspace on request. Kurykh (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Lottery Authority of Ghana

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

This article is both promotional and incomplete. Sections on Eligibility, Operators, and Record Jackpots, while provided as headings, are blank. No references and so not verifiable. An effort was made to preserve this article by moving it to draft space for further work, but the author has moved it back to article space, which it isn't ready for. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost a speedy. fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional article whose subject does not meet GNG criteria. GAB^gab 15:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space. There's a fair amount of material on the organization. Here's a listing from the on-line version of the Daily Graphic, one of Ghana's main newspapers -- Article listing. I haven't gone through all of them and I assume that quite a few are reporting routine matters. But not all of them -- there does appear to be some controversy over the scope of the 2006 law that created the Authority. Also, there are hits on Google Books. Here, too, I haven't checked all of them, but here's one where the author is discussing a dispute that went to Ghana's Supreme Court ([27]). I believe that a non-promotional, non-stub article can be written about this subject and I'm willing to be the one who does it. But there's no chance that I could do it within the time set for this Deletion discussion. Hence, my call for moving it to Draft space. If this is the result, I would re-write the article over the next few weeks (perhaps months) and submit the re-written article for review by someone at AfC (and, of course, I mean someone other than myself). By the way, the organization is also the subject of National Lottery Authority, which is not a duplicate of the article being discussed here and does not appear to have been written by the same editor. But it's in no better shape than the article being discussed here and the nominator might want to bundle this other article into the nomination. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:GNG has been met. This is (was?) a team that represented its country at the international level. Olympic participation is not a requirement, particularly when the General Notability Guideline is satisfied. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel national bobsleigh team

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

Non-notable sports team. The country has not qualified for the Olympics ever. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a national team with significant coverage in multiple Israeli major newspapers (albeit not always flattering…). Qualification for the Olympics was never the criteria for notability. -- IsaacSt (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IsaacSt, I don't see significant coverage in multiple major newspapers referenced in the article, although I did add one (wait, I added the other one too). A Google search shows 20 hits for this title, three for "Israeli National Bobsleigh Team", and 18 for "Israeli Bobsled and Skeleton Team". So far the article is supported by two news articles, one ~~personal~~ blog and a link to a sports statistics web page on which I didn't find information about the organization. If you know about some offline news reports, perhaps you could add references to them to the article.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References are indeed not included, which is definitely a point for improvement for anyone interested in developing this article, but per WP:NEXIST, notability is judged by the existence of sources - not their inclusion. Here are just sample articles about the bobsled team from all 3 largest Israeli national newspapers with online presence in 2004-2005: [28] [29] [30]. Since the skeleton team is more recent, just google Adam (AJ) Edelman or Brad Chalupski (even in English), and you’d see plenty. -- IsaacSt (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated those three into the article. I did find a number of English articles about Chalupski and Edelman, however, as far as I can see, none of the independently written ones say anything about the "Israel Bobsled and Skeleton team" or any similar words.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne_Delong, I’m impressed with your dedication in improving this article. Like me, you probably didn't imagine you'd be spending that much time on bobsleigh... The challenge with your google searches (besides WP:NONENG) is that the sources hardly ever use the formal name of the national team. They instead use terms like "Israeli bobsled team" [31] [32] [33], "bobsleigh and skeleton team" [34], "Israeli skeleton team" [35], or "Team Israel to race skeleton" [36]. The online sources in the Hebrew language - and there are many - also suffer from the same issue. Regardless, it looks like the notability is clearly there, and if we want to continue the discussion on the improvement of the article - perhaps this should take place on the article's Talk page, instead. -- IsaacSt (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for the results here, and if it passes leave it to someone with the appropriate language skills and sports knowledge. My concern is, is this really an actual team, with an official name? If so, what is it? Do the sports organizations in Israel acknowledge it? Or is it just some athletes who belong to an association or federation or whatever but compete separately? Skeleton is a solo event. The sources I've read all seem to disagree, and I am too ignorant about sports organizations to put them in context in order to vote Keep or Delete.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the bobsleigh national team decided to put skeleton under their roof, it doesn't make them any less of a team. BTW, each and every one of the sources mentioned above used the word "team", and there are many more. As for the official name, I could only find sources saying that this was the official name, which kind of hints that it may have changed??? We probably need someone with more subject matter knowledge, and the discussion can continue on the article's Talk page. Either way, it's an easy Keep for me, since even if the team were to be dismantled, it was notable before, and that doesn't go away. -- IsaacSt (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a national team competing in an international sport, with an article (as updated) that includes reliable and verifiable sources, with more available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. I thought Wikipedia:Jamaican Bobsled Team clause would help me decide, but it didn't ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Echoes of Refuge

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

Non-notable album from a band that has no article about themselves. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Their band is "on hold" and this is their only album. See http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Adytum/87353 Endercase (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and last album, if you an call it that, was a decade ago. ContentEditman (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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